Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Joel,

   I'd rather not play dueling assertions-- "it's not", "yes it is",
"no it's not", "it most certainly is".

   Words can be mean and they can make someone cry. And if someone is hurt
they may also cry. But the fact that both outcomes end up with someone
crying doesn't mean the two things that cause that result are the same,
it doesn't mean that words can hurt. Language is not violence. Anyone who
says differently has an agenda they're pushing.

   The idea that a metaphor can prevent someone from joining a STEM career
is ridiculous. Why is it that white people are primarily behind this drive
to identify "racist" language? There's something very patronizing and
frankly "otherizing" in the effort to identify certain words and how they
affect certain other groups (non-white, naturally). This observation holds
true for other groups who are declared as victims as well. Someone who is
part of a perceived dominant group (i.e. not the victim group) will declare
that some grammar or some tense or some word is violence against this
group and insist that everyone cease using that word or that tense. It's
arrogant and patronizing. Just stop!

   Let me end with an observation on how you close your email. You say that
my statement is "unacceptable", and you baselessly assert it is "likely to
cause harm." This is the real problem here. You want to prevent people from
saying certain things. You want to prevent thoughts from being expressed.

   Well NUTS TO THAT!

   Dan.

On 7/25/20 8:38 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Dan,
>     I have been trying to stay out of this debate, as it is being 
> handled quite ably by the proponents.
>    But I simply can not ignore your assertion that words can not cause 
> harm, and that harm to emotions ("feelings:) is not harm.
>
> You may be able to argue that the specific terms are not causing harm, 
> although that contradicts my understanding and extrapolation from my 
> own experiences.
>
> But the flat statement that "language can not be harmful" is simply 
> false.  And unacceptable.  It is itself a statement ignoring other 
> people's experience, and likely to cause harm. Stop.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 7/25/2020 11:25 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/20 9:35 AM, The IESG wrote:
>>> The IESG believes the use of oppressive or exclusionary language is
>>> harmful.  Such terminology is present in some IETF documents, including
>>> standards-track RFCs, and has been for many years. It is at odds with
>>> our objective of creating an inclusive and respectful environment in 
>>> the
>>> IETF, and among readers of our documents.
>>
>>    Well then the IESG is confused. Language cannot be harmful. It can
>> hurt ones feelings but it cannot cause harm because feelings are just
>> that...feeling.
>>
>>    This is a classic "First World Problem" where affluent people who 
>> lack
>> serious life problems create drama in order to provide meaning to their
>> lives. So now we are being told that words that cause harm? For whom? 
>> Well
>> these First World People are identifying other communities (by race, by
>> ethnicity) who they declare are harmed by their language.
>>
>>    How arrogant! How patronizing! The Vision of the Anointed, indeed.
>>
>>> The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are
>>> not uniform. Determining an actionable policy regarding problematic
>>> language is an ongoing process. We wanted to highlight that initial
>>> discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a
>>> draft [1] is slated for discussion in GENDISPATCH [2] at IETF 108).
>>> Updating terminology in previously published RFCs is a complex 
>>> endeavor,
>>> while making adjustments in the language used in our documents in the
>>> future should be more straightforward.
>>>
>>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in
>>> those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this
>>> issue going forward.
>>>
>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
>>> [2] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-gendispatch-03
>>
>>    How about no? Just stop. No need for an "ongoing process" to 
>> determine
>> "actionable policy regarding problematic language". [1] is a horrible
>> document that engages in unprofessional personal attack and brings the
>> cancer of "cancel culture" to the IETF.
>>
>>    Critical race theory is a pile of excrement and [1] builds an 
>> entire house
>> on top of the foundation of critical race theory. It should have no 
>> place in
>> the IETF.
>>
>>    Dan.
>>
>>
>>
>>