On 28/7/20 18:25, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:19:59AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 05:11 AM 28-07-2020, Salz, Rich wrote:
Not all. Sometimes we are trying to establish a rapport by using
informal language. Trying to add a little informality to a fairly rigid
communications system. Not unlike an IETF bar conversation. HOWEVER,
I've since learned that the term is offensive to some and I am going to
try to find other words.
In regards to "folks"?!
As an "English as a second" language speaker, I'm beginning to become
concerned.
As far as I support of getting rid of words that may be seen as
conveying an underlying message (e.g. blacklist vs whitelist), I'm
beginning to think that words that I believed to be 100% friendly, can
be seen as otherwise.
Re the word "folks", many of us non-native English speakers have had our
first encounter with that word via "Looney Toons" cartoons (something
ala "guys", "friends" or the like). And if "folks" is seen as offensive,
I don't even want to think about "looney" (?)
[...]
Well, context simply matters. Much language is dual-use! :)
Intent also matters. Lack of intent to offend does not mean offense
won't be received, and it does not mean that the first person shouldn't
consider adapting their speech to avoid giving further offense when they
learn of it, nor does it mean that the second person shouldn't learn to
identify contexts that make the apparently-offensive speech not-quite-
so. Lack of intent certainly means we should be open to forgiveness.
I guess much of this issue would be solved by applying Postel's Principle?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
