Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 28/7/20 18:25, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:19:59AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> At 05:11 AM 28-07-2020, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>> Not all.  Sometimes we are trying to establish a rapport by using
>>> informal language.  Trying to add a little informality to a fairly rigid
>>> communications system.  Not unlike an IETF bar conversation.  HOWEVER,
>>> I've since learned that the term is offensive to some and I am going to
>>> try to find other words.
> 
> In regards to "folks"?!

As an "English as a second" language speaker, I'm beginning to become 
concerned.

As far as I support of getting rid of words that may be seen as 
conveying an underlying message (e.g. blacklist vs whitelist), I'm 
beginning to think that words that I believed to be 100% friendly, can 
be seen as otherwise.

Re the word "folks", many of us non-native English speakers have had our 
first encounter with that word via "Looney Toons" cartoons (something 
ala "guys", "friends" or the like). And if "folks" is seen as offensive, 
I don't even want to think about "looney" (?)



[...]
> 
> Well, context simply matters.  Much language is dual-use!  :)
> 
> Intent also matters.  Lack of intent to offend does not mean offense
> won't be received, and it does not mean that the first person shouldn't
> consider adapting their speech to avoid giving further offense when they
> learn of it, nor does it mean that the second person shouldn't learn to
> identify contexts that make the apparently-offensive speech not-quite-
> so.  Lack of intent certainly means we should be open to forgiveness.

I guess much of this issue would be solved by applying Postel's Principle?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492