Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 8/8/20 5:36 AM, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> https://cdt.org/insights/pushing-internet-standards-governing-body-ietf-to-tackle-discriminatory-and-exclusionary-terminology/ 
>
>
> “helps ensure that white supremacy has no quarter”
>
> a quarter of a century ago, PPP was the biggest issue facing the IESG. 
> Now, it seems that that has been replaced by the KKK.

   It's been replace by the specter of the KKK, which systemically lurks
committing micro-aggressions.

   As Thomas Sowell said last year:

       "Racism is not dead but it is on life support-- kept alive by
        politicians, race hustlers, and people who get a sense of
        superiority by denouncing others as 'racists.'"

> Progress?

   For those who want to keep racism alive on life support I think it is.
For everyone else, no, absolutely not.

   Dan.

> Lloyd Wood
> [e-mail]
>
> On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 21:06, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hi Alissa,
>     At 02:22 PM 07-08-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>     >Actually I'd like to suggest something different before anyone else
>     >responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related
>     >threads to the side for now. We had a productive if short discussion
>     >of draft-knodel-terminology-03 in the GENDISPATCH session last week.
>     >The authors have some action items, and there is likely to be
>     >further discussion of this topic at a future GENDISPATCH interim. As
>     >I said at the mic during the session, email discussion on this topic
>     >does not seem to be helping the discussion progress. Let's give it a
>     >rest and those interested in the topic can reconvene when the
>     >GENDISPATCH interim gets scheduled.
>
>     There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the
>     mailing list.  I could not find any message pertaining to that in the
>     relevant mailing list archives.  What are the actions items?
>
>     I read a blog post published by the Center of Democracy and
>     Technology about the draft.  Prior to that, I asked whether the draft
>     was about etymology and the response was that it was about
>     "power".  I could not find that listed as an objective or
>     non-objective in the slides.
>
>     Would the email discussion be better if it was structured and
>     managed?
>
>
>     Regards,
>
>     S. Moonesamy
>
>