Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 4/6/21 10:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:37 AM Nico Williams <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:32:16PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>     > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 7:08 PM Nico Williams
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > > In today's cancel culture, being called such a name is
>     intimidating as
>     > > well.  Let's avoid intimidation and bullying please.
>     >
>     > And that response was not an attempt to do just that?
>
>     You cannot seriously argue that I was intimidating anyone.  If you
>     mean
>     that your baseless attacks lose potency when called out as
>     intimidation,
>     that's your problem, but it's not intimidation or bullying on my part.
>
>
> I was pointing out that you were trying to intimidate me.
>
> I never called anyone in IETF any name. I referred to the fact that 
> there are external, real world political movements which are animated 
> by racism and other forms of bigotry and it is this fact that has made 
> the terminology issue a real one. I deliberately chose not to engage 
> with the arguments you and Dan had put up.

   I don't see a connection between the UK Labour Party [1] and the use
of terminology in the IETF.

> There is nothing 'baseless' in pointing out that a gang of neo-NAZIs 
> murdered Heather Heyer, it is a fact and there is a first degree 
> murder conviction as evidence.

   I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? First of all, "a first degree
murder conviction" does not mean "a gang" did anything. And second of all?
So what? What does her death have to do with anything being discussed here?

>
> My argument was very clearly directed at the objections raised of the 
> form 'the IETF does not need to follow the US polity in this' and 
> 'there are more pressing concerns'. Both of which might be raised in 
> good faith but neither of which have rather obviously been overtaken 
> by the events I referred to.

   I'm pretty sure that a great many people around the world don't
think the IETF should "follow the US polity". Otherwise people would
be making baseless accusations of "white supremacy" and "bigotry" and
"racism" on others.... oh wait.

   Yea, I'm pretty sure the IETF does not need to follow the US polity
in this. The current US polity is an example of lunacy on stilts.

> It is rather interesting that the people who claim to be so concerned 
> about 'freedom of speech' are the ones who are now objecting to people 
> raising relevant facts because those facts lead to conclusions that 
> make them uncomfortable.

   Again, there's nothing relevant to IETF about the death of Heather Heyer
and her death does not lead to any facts that, at least for me, are
uncomfortable. A tragic loss of life. OK, you did Charlottesville, now do
Chicago. And then Baltimore.

> If we are not supposed to mention the violent acts incited by certain 
> politicians because this might make their supporters uncomfortable, 
> perhaps said supporters will agree on dropping master/slave which 
> other people find uncomfortable because of circumstances over which 
> they have no choice or control.

   Violent acts by politicians really don't have anything to do with the
IETF. And your mention of them doesn't make me uncomfortable. And they
have nothing to do with the use of "master/slave" in IETF documents.

   I honestly have no idea what you're talking about now. I thought I
did but this has just become really really weird.

   Dan.

[1] 
https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-discrimination-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-europe-6afeed8298a6f2b4e831e53382e632f4

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius