Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

I absolutely don't see it that way.  I use it all the time and use it
really in the following context based on this definition:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/folks

(used with a plural verb) people as the carriers of culture, especially as
representing the composite of social mores, customs, forms of behavior,
etc., in a society

with IETF being the society.   So, I actually consider it a more inclusive
term than "people".  I actually use the latter often in a much more
negative context.

Some of this is probably also regional within the US.

Mary.

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 11:17 AM Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2020, at 10:09, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> 
>
>    - As I’ve stated previously on this list, I view “folks” as a trigger,
>    as it imposes passive-aggressive patronising distancing, and it’s certainly
>    not as inclusionary as you might think. A word best avoided, in my view.
>
>
>
> This is an honest question: are you serious?  Are there others who feel
> this way?
>
>
> I do.
>
> In Canada “folks” is a term used by conservatives only to appeal / addres a
>  the “common people”.
>
> In Dutch, it reminds of volk, which reeks of nationalism.
>
> Using the term to me feels like talking down to a group that you have
> power or control over.
>
> That said, I understand a lot of people do not see or use it that way, and
> I can ignore it.
>
> Paul
>