Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 02 April 2021 23:22 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B853A0CE5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGkaAlbSYwn9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (mail.suchdamage.org [52.9.186.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7E873A0CE3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50EB303F8; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J1L9j98MfIdx; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (unknown [66.30.213.255]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) (Authenticated sender: hartmans-laptop) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 7D674CA88A; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:22:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
References: <859352252.4167919.1617264911078.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <859352252.4167919.1617264911078@mail.yahoo.com> <85575541-C896-4530-B028-C0DF9BA3EA8B@ietf.org> <411426886.24320.1617306016731@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20210401195735.GA3828@localhost> <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu> <1e4feea2-2c81-b31a-04e3-d4c9a4adbaf7@lounge.org> <20210402163230.GH79563@kduck.mit.edu> <4c82de79-1e40-2eed-909b-8a288284393d@lounge.org> <439a33c9-5791-4c90-76a3-54aab828a37d@network-heretics.com> <5C955F3B-2EE7-43DD-85BA-DA1C1CF353F1@tzi.org> <7b3ba302-ec36-eb8d-7461-861a0b6651ac@network-heretics.com> <0dca7a0d-d51e-4c67-cc96-a44de0141480@gmail.com> <9c369a34-d47c-3af0-9793-8342f5f6ec63@network-heretics.com> <c613095d-f0b4-8df7-e703-d1b3c52bffc5@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 19:22:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <c613095d-f0b4-8df7-e703-d1b3c52bffc5@gmail.com> (Brian E. Carpenter's message of "Sat, 3 Apr 2021 11:35:29 +1300")
Message-ID: <tslpmzctgoi.fsf@suchdamage.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EoxZemawYp0SnYp6qx-hvsWJjGs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 23:22:59 -0000
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> writes: Brian> Keith, Brian> On 03-Apr-21 11:02, Keith Moore wrote: >>> Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most >>> egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a >>> reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive, >>> whatever the intent. >> >> I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that >> concept of "offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's >> appropriate, because quite often I find that people have strong >> adverse reactions to things that need to be discussed, but they >> can't get past their reactions to see them. Brian> Yes, and when that happens in a technical debate it is very Brian> damaging. I could give examples, but that would undoubtedly Brian> start a whole side debate about each example. The current Brian> context is not a technical debate, though. So I don't have a Brian> better definition than to say that something of a Brian> sociological nature that offends the majority of the audience Brian> is offensive. Might I suggest an alternative way to look at this? I've found that talking about things in terms of offense gets free speech advocates (including to some extent myself) upset, and takes us one step further away from being able to think about the impact of our words. Again, I am not disagreeing with you, just providing an alternate framework that I have found useful over the years as I have moved from technical spheres to emotional ones. I've found it more helpful to talk about when people in our community are upset or hurt when they think about our words. For me, I feel respected when people care about their impact on me. I realize that is not universal, but I am also not alone in finding care to be part of showing respect for me. So, if I am hurt when you say something, I feel respected if you take the time to think about that. Could you make the same point without causing those feelings? Even if you cannot--even if the very nature of what you are trying to say is going to cause pain, do you take the time to stop and acknowledge that? do you take the time to care about and show compassion for the people you're talking to? For me, it's easier to see why failing to do that is exclusionary than it is when we take things one step removed and start talking about offense. Now let us come to "A Modest Proposal." This is not the first time that satirical essay has come up in the IETF context. Ted Hardie used it a couple of times I can remember, and I don't think he was the first in my history in the IETF. And yet several of those times, specific people in our community spoke up and said that because of their background, they felt excluded, hurt, or offended by that particular reference. So, we as a community have history. We know that essay strikes at people because of their racial or other aspects of their background. USING THAT REFERENCE WITHOUT TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT IS DISRESPECTFUL and EXCLUSIONARY TOWARD CURRENT CONTRIBUTORS. If you're going to make a "modest proposal," you'd better be explaining why you chose to do something that is hurtful. What other options did you consider? Why could you not make your point that way? And if you still choose that option, are you expressing regret when people are hurt or uncomfortable because of the reference you choose? In the specific case of "A Modest Proposal," I don't personally think there's ever a need to use that reference in the IETF. But even if you disagree with me, you could do a lot more to show respect for your fellow contributors than people have done in this instance. And no, I'm not saying you need to hold back from expressing controversial opinions even if you know or suspect people will feel hurt when they hear the opinion. Even then, you can show compassion, and regret the pain you cause while still concluding it is necessary. --Sam
- A contribution to ongoing terminology work lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Lars Eggert
- Re: [Terminology] A contribution to ongoing termi… Mallory Knodel
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Vittorio Bertola
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nick Hilliard
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- RE: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Larry Masinter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work S Moonesamy
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Sam Hartman
- RE: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Larry Masinter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Sam Hartman
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Vittorio Bertola
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- April 1st RFCs (was Re: A contribution to ongoing… Adam Roach
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Randy Presuhn
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nick Hilliard
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Joel M. Halpern
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work S Moonesamy
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Leif Johansson
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Wes Hardaker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Lloyd W
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Fernando Gont
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Lloyd W
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker