Dan,
I have been trying to stay out of this debate, as it is being
handled quite ably by the proponents.
But I simply can not ignore your assertion that words can not cause
harm, and that harm to emotions ("feelings:) is not harm.
You may be able to argue that the specific terms are not causing harm,
although that contradicts my understanding and extrapolation from my own
experiences.
But the flat statement that "language can not be harmful" is simply
false. And unacceptable. It is itself a statement ignoring other
people's experience, and likely to cause harm. Stop.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/25/2020 11:25 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
On 7/23/20 9:35 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG believes the use of oppressive or exclusionary language is
harmful. Such terminology is present in some IETF documents, including
standards-track RFCs, and has been for many years. It is at odds with
our objective of creating an inclusive and respectful environment in the
IETF, and among readers of our documents.
Well then the IESG is confused. Language cannot be harmful. It can
hurt ones feelings but it cannot cause harm because feelings are just
that...feeling.
This is a classic "First World Problem" where affluent people who lack
serious life problems create drama in order to provide meaning to their
lives. So now we are being told that words that cause harm? For whom? Well
these First World People are identifying other communities (by race, by
ethnicity) who they declare are harmed by their language.
How arrogant! How patronizing! The Vision of the Anointed, indeed.
The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are
not uniform. Determining an actionable policy regarding problematic
language is an ongoing process. We wanted to highlight that initial
discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a
draft [1] is slated for discussion in GENDISPATCH [2] at IETF 108).
Updating terminology in previously published RFCs is a complex endeavor,
while making adjustments in the language used in our documents in the
future should be more straightforward.
The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in
those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this
issue going forward.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
[2] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-gendispatch-03
How about no? Just stop. No need for an "ongoing process" to determine
"actionable policy regarding problematic language". [1] is a horrible
document that engages in unprofessional personal attack and brings the
cancer of "cancel culture" to the IETF.
Critical race theory is a pile of excrement and [1] builds an entire
house
on top of the foundation of critical race theory. It should have no
place in
the IETF.
Dan.
