Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]>]

> Il 27/07/2020 18:08 Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
>  
> > On 27 Jul 2020, at 15:50, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > unless the IETF comes to consensus to not use language that some find problematic.
> 
> This is empowering “some” to compel everyone to avoid what they consider problematic. As an example, I know I’m an outsider in the US, but to me words like “folks” and “y’all” in US English (no connection to German or Dutch origins) express the contempt that intellectual elites feel towards less educated people. The latter term is specifically a fake southern accent, while the former is always associated with a lack of education. Consider terms like “folksy” and “folk wisdom”.

Unfortunately, all these nuances are generally lost to non-native English speakers, who do not know the context behind these terms and how they could ever be offensive. Actually, given some of the comments earlier in the thread, even native English speakers of a dialect other than American English may miss these implications.

So can I point out that being easily offended by such complex nuances, or requiring all participants to master English so well that they can avoid using any term inappropriately, is also quite exclusionary? There is a difference between terms that are specifically connected to discrimination (such as "slave") and pretty general terms that could be construed as offensive only in some secondary meanings and specific contexts (such as "grandfather", to mention another example given here).

Also, the more the community becomes picky and aggressive on the use of "appropriate" English words, and the more the non-native speakers (and the newcomers) will be scared of opening their mouths. It is already quite scary today, given how openly aggressive the reactions are sometimes.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[e-mail] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy