Re: [Terminology] Terminology draft revised

[[e-mail]]

Just to add an explicit formal point of view, about measuring, to have a 
measure metric assigning a score there should be specified a set of 
possible values.   I do not see any other than maybe an ordinal (rank 
"higher" vs "lower") hierarchy which maybe in some posts has been 
intended to be taken humorously (even if only as a wry humor coming from 
an appreciation of the complexity of normal human life?).  Having a 
proper formal specification to strip out the emotion, the social 
question is out in the  open:  Who gets to single out individuals and to 
apply values to individuals.  Dealing with that can be hard, and it 
seems to me that irony and sarcasm are hard to parse and distract as 
much as shouting, and imho not useful in serious work.  (IETF's 
practices seem to do a pretty good job of allowing humanity while 
maintaining seriousness.)

As for "...the power to shut others down, the power to be above 
criticism.", which were historical real world practices of real world 
Nazi brownshirts in the 1920s and 30s in Germany:  Observing examples of 
that in present society seems more like an alert to pay serious 
attention to what is going on, and not funny no matter what language 
content is being attacked presently.

Tom Reynolds

On 2021-10-29 06:49, Dan Harkins wrote:

  . . .
> 
>   But assigning a victimization score is not racist. In fact, that is
> exactly what the woke (who I was satirizing) do. Case in point,
. . .
> 
>   So given who is allowed to make fun of whom gives us a hierarchy,
  . . .
> 
>   Now your Nazi references fall flat because of the other thing I was
> ridiculing:
  . . .
> But in this case, there is ... the power to shut others down, the power
> to be above criticism. ... They highlight their group identity 
> intersection
> because it _increases_their place on the hierarchy! Exactly as I 
> ridiculed
> in my draft.
> 
. . .