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:
(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 <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 25, 2020, at 10:09, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 athe “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
