Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

As I said in another email, I use the term "folk" in an identical way in
which one might use the German word "volk".  I actually don't watch much
American television because it is pretty idiotic and I'm guessing some
folks miss the parody aspect where those terms might be being used.  That's
the only logical thing I can think of as to why one might get that
impression of those words.    Again, I'm not sure what "aspects of American
culture" would lead one to interpret the words in the way that Yoav does.
And, believe it or not, we are not a homogenous population with a single
mindset so y'all's interpretation of what we mean when we use these words
carries quite a bias without giving people the benefit of the doubt - of
course, that is the IETF way.

Mary.





On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 6:08 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> “  I have no idea where you got this impression or why you've formed such
> a strong negative opinion of those terms.  You might be watching too much
> American television if this is what you really believe.”
>
> Being exposed to aspects of American culture leads to holding views on
> aspects of American culture, which are expressed when one engages with
> Americans about American culture.
>
> Who knew?
>
>
> Lloyd Wood
> [e-mail],uk
>
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020, 02:27, Mary B <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:14 AM Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jul 2020, at 15:50, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>     And I'm telling you that if you that the bar to compel speech is
> >>    considerably
> >>    higher than rank assertions and fallacies.
> >>
>
> > Nobody is compelling anything,
>
> The subject of this thread is “IESG Statement On Oppressive or
> Exclusionary Language”. Someone is definitely tryiing to compel people to
> not use what they consider to be oppressive and exclusionary language.
>
> > 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”.
>
> [MB] And, your interpretation is totally, totally off base.  I use both of
> those words frequently and there are a lot of folks here in Texas with a
> real southern accent that use those words. And, I've been around long
> enough that I can also use a southern drawl and it's not even intentional
> that I will often do so after spending time in places like East Texas (most
> of Dallas are not native Texans).  I use "folks" all the time and I'm
> absolutely not using it as an intellectual elite nor using it in any way
> as condescending. And, yes, I use "y'all" frequently as well but not very
> frequently in writing.   I have no idea where you got this impression or
> why you've formed such a strong negative opinion of those terms.  You might
> be watching too much American television if this is what you really
> believe.   Of course, this might explain why I do find IETF to be a pretty
> hostile place to get work done if people are interpreting my language in
> that way.  [/MB]
>
>
> > I think you have made it clear that you are opposed to that consensus.
> Calling it compelled speech is clever and I salute your linguistic ability..
>
> IETF consensus is usually achieved by a small group of people who care
> about a particular subject. That works fine as long as the people who care
> about automated certificate issuance and renewal participate in ACME, and
> people who only participate in the IETF for routing protocols don’t ever
> read the drafts. We’re fine with saying that the documents have “IETF
> consensus”.
>
> This doesn’t work here. Like every other topic, only the people who care
> about word usage are going to participate in the discussion, and maybe Dan
> and two others will be the only voices there against it. The people who
> don’t care so much, or the people who think the whole thing is just silly
> are not going to participate.  Yet this will end up in an RFC that is
> binding on everyone.
>
> The potential for a small but motivated group to hijack the process and
> dictate policy is great, and the argument that the process was open to
> everyone is not convincing. We all have limited time, and arguing language
> policy at the IETF is not a good use of time for most of us.
>
> For me, the “master/slave” terminology is something that I believe should
> be phased out, because it was never a good metaphor: The interaction
> between human masters and human slaves is not one where the slave copies
> the master, so it was always a poor term. But “blacklist” and “whitelist”
> are terms that have been used widely for decades if not centuries, and
> nobody can really give a good reason as to why someone would consider it
> offensive.  Perhaps whitespace is also offensive? Red/Black trees?  You
> don’t have to walk in anyone’s shoes to consider that silly, and yet a
> working group would be very likely to add all of those to the list of
> prohibited speech, and that will affect us all.
>
>