Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:32:39AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2018, at 8:19, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 06:50:14AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > On 9/20/18 6:31 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > > > Thinking beyond my frustration with virtue signalling:
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure that it's helpful to suggest that there's no
> > > actual substance to concerns about inadvertent offense
> > > being caused by unthoughtful use of language, partly
> > > because it's insulting and dismissive but primarily because
> > > it's simply not accurate.

Obviously every case is different, but in the case of python, i can't
see how this helps slaves and as Steward nicely described the desired
semantic is quite well represented by the prior choice of language
(master/slave). 

> > virtue signalling describes the condition where a proposed change
> > does not address or resolve real concerns but is just introduced
> > to suggest empathy and only accelerates the euphemism treadmill.
> 
> It's hard to tell if you are saying that the people on this thread who
> believe that using better language will resolve real concerns are wrong, or
> if you are accusing them of lying.

Its hard to tell if you suggest a choice of two bad reasons because you
want to be dismissive about my comments or because you can't think of any better
reasons.

To reiterate from my other email, IMHO:

a) Making computer terminology easier to understand for humans with different
cultural backgrounds and experiences is a good thing.
b) Changing language so no piece of computer/network hardware/software should
feel offended is not necessary.
c) Being culturally offended on behalf of a computer/network entity is 
virtue signalling. 

Cheers
    Toerless

> --Paul Hoffman