Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sat, 01 August 2020 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 226113A0F6D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 DMVTGlTo4C8X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E8853A0F6B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740C9E0B; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:47:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:47:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=bKwgWSaJAoohY/brbqakFmOUS9hnCwQbE3KChbF0X kI=; b=b4Ql7IcEFzGs2iWbTWYIC0h5jncCz/0hz88whQFyp4QzmFmpoGE5WWTQp Bs1Dt8xsGkxK3fu6eui0zYmXnveLJgfUTMr66vt+NDYsCBbQahdHYDK+fpq6JZmg Blgfu3quyy9aMYaHgUL6YmrWs88Fp+fvvM/wEulxw0k6hRX55Fu648V4Hf+jm6hT ggSrwKHigCbLLV4VR58JEAYEmmtZxojd5iCYoK1d6YBBV270xxmCzl4H/gq4hr6I MbrDJBM1nZ2J5OFLqX7WdxC6zpaaKlWypJOxZtdyB+0NqhRflvTv20ZAx4sKPfvu K8ijgIukUS/VjRiNqTiSlAjMDixZQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:_-IlX2Debrk1H5v5UmgvM8ZHKyCvvkrM5qTxMpI8hWxbGclJQjFWbA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrjedugddtfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedtheefgf efgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppedutdekrddv vddurddukedtrdduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:_-IlXwgLdRhDv8eh_ZjE3DkcOd3WRARaL1rAuc8quYYAJfouEb5HSg> <xmx:_-IlX5k6f6SZAfAlqkh3regwqds8nEbaPnGUvP_xUjErFPOvNRYqxA> <xmx:_-IlX0zVwFB0MKvGJQlneZ1V9XrTu-KMfswHE-UNuEQMkzSrWqCs_A> <xmx:AOMlX9AIMvSOcaJi7dz5PRQbkUWfKQ9RFY142uL565yaxTktrNOmsw>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 947F53280063; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
References: <5692e18e-afbb-9294-1074-3b81dafe8803@network-heretics.com> <59C4CA26-A1EB-4CF4-B973-BC2BBF53A094@gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <2a0e2b8e-ac71-a513-5576-7337045755dc@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:47:42 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <59C4CA26-A1EB-4CF4-B973-BC2BBF53A094@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p7KrPQukFJv8yUq5BzivhEtXfE8>
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: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:47:47 -0000

On 8/1/20 5:39 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/20 5:54 AM, tom petch wrote:
>>
>>> And that is where I part company with you (and perhaps the starting point of this thread).  To me it is fundamental that I cannot 'make' you or anyone else feel an emotion by what I say or do.  What I say may engender sorrow in one, anger in another, fear in another and so no (although it would not have been my intention for any of this to happen).  Rather, what emotion results is, in a deep sense, a choice made by the individual, perhaps affected by their personality, state of mind, history and so on; they have a choice to feel differently even if the conscious mind struggles to escape its immediate reaction.
>> I believe this is technically correct.   I also think that readers/listeners have a responsibility to try to avoid interpreting others' speech in an offensive, oppressive, etc., way unless there's a compelling reason to do so.
>>
>> However I also observe that people can have a very hard time doing this...
> I agree. I think the reason to talk about things like this is to help people make reasonable choices that trend in the right direction.
>
> I find myself thinking that the robustness principle applies here, as it does in many places. There are people who seek opportunities to offend or to be offended, or behave as if they were doing so. What I’m observing right now is something I call an “professional wounded person”, which is to say someone who seeks the opportunity to be offended. To the belligerent actor, I would say that there is no long term benefit in it; they harm themselves more than the person they intend to harm. To the professional wounded person, I would suggest that they grow up. The average person isn’t out to hurt anybody.

I find it very unhelpful to assume that someone is a "professional 
wounded person" even when that idea might occur to me.   I've seen 
enough of life to realize that people may through no fault of their own, 
be very sensitive to a great many things, for legitimate reasons which 
may not be obvious at all to most other people.    I try to assume good 
intention from all parties unless there's ample reason to believe 
otherwise.   Sometimes I give up trying to find common ground with 
someone - there seems to be a point of diminishing returns - but still 
try to assume good intention.   Sometimes, someone else figures out how 
to build a bridge with that person even when I cannot.

> Where someone is actually being a PITA, deal with it. But in most cases, find out what they’re about first - it may differ, and differ dramatically, from one’s assumptions.
absolutely agree with the latter.

Keith