On 26/07/2020 05:10, Dan Harkins wrote:
Joel,
I'd rather not play dueling assertions-- "it's not", "yes it is",
"no it's not", "it most certainly is".
Words can be mean and they can make someone cry.
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.
So when I see others declaring that an action is hurtful, then I may, at
times, see that as a subjective response, one that might be different
were they to reflect more on where this response is coming from. We can
agree that slavery is abhorent, in the past or in the present, but that
does not mean we must eradicate the terminology from our discourse as if
we could somehow eradicate such a practice or the emotions associated
with it.
Tom Petch And if
someone is hurt
they may also cry. But the fact that both outcomes end up with someone
crying doesn't mean the two things that cause that result are the same,
it doesn't mean that words can hurt. Language is not violence. Anyone who
says differently has an agenda they're pushing.
The idea that a metaphor can prevent someone from joining a STEM career
is ridiculous. Why is it that white people are primarily behind this drive
to identify "racist" language? There's something very patronizing and
frankly "otherizing" in the effort to identify certain words and how they
affect certain other groups (non-white, naturally). This observation holds
true for other groups who are declared as victims as well. Someone who is
part of a perceived dominant group (i.e. not the victim group) will declare
that some grammar or some tense or some word is violence against this
group and insist that everyone cease using that word or that tense. It's
arrogant and patronizing. Just stop!
Let me end with an observation on how you close your email. You say that
my statement is "unacceptable", and you baselessly assert it is "likely to
cause harm." This is the real problem here. You want to prevent people from
saying certain things. You want to prevent thoughts from being expressed.
Well NUTS TO THAT!
Dan.
On 7/25/20 8:38 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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.
.
