On 29. 07. 20 23:09, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > The sort of “language policing” you describe is where the people in > power prevented people not in power from expressing their views and > opinions. It is not about the people in power policing their own > language so as not to (intentionally?) oppress people not in power. The > powerful regimes you reference were very effective at selecting words to > maximize oppression – and they knew it. > It is perfectly OK if somebody applies such language policing (I would rather say good taste) to herself or himself. It is somewhat more problematic to enforce it, even gently, on others. In my own country, the communist regime was not started by some Big Brother seizing power, but by a relatively large part of the population that was even able to win elections in 1946 (still relatively democratic). These folks proclaimed themselves to be the progressive part of the society, and started slowly oppressing others that didn't share their views, including language policing. I believe that free speech (within limits stated by law) is one of the greatest virtues of the liberal society. Je suis Charlie. > > > IETF is powerful. The people who are able to get RFCs published are > powerful. The suggestion being made in this thread is that the IETF > proceed in a way to minimize oppression of marginalized communities that > IETF’s words might cause. I don’t think outright bans are useful. I do > think it’s a good idea to ask authors to make conscious decision to use > words that we know communities of marginalized people say harms them. > It should be sufficient to explain mental clichés that many of us are still using and their possible consequences, and suggest to be more creative and, where possible, use terms that better express the actual relationship at hand. Sensitive and caring people should get the message. > > > Language matters, as the debate over such things as Texas schoolbooks * > shows us. It can be as insidious as the order in which things are > presented, omission of select information, and use of passive vs. active > tense (so no-one and nothing gets “blamed”). All over the world, women > and societies are brainwashed by people in control of broadcast and > print media that having dark skin is unattractive. I’ve seen reports > about this from India, Ghana, South Africa, Japan, Korea, the United > States, and elsewhere. They are sold skin bleaching products that cause > cancer, kidney damage, fetal damage, etc. The message that “dark” is > evil/bad/ugly/stupid has real consequences. > Well, many people in other parts of the world try to make their skin as dark as possible by going to solar studios etc., even though it also causes cancer. All this is a consequence of the global consumerist culture and marketing rather than wrong speech. Lada > > > I think it’s past time that people who have the influence and prestige > of IETF standing behind their published words were asked to at least be > aware of any words they use that might be causing harm to marginalized > populations around the world. > > > > Barbara > > > > * > https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/07/13/421744763/how-textbooks-can-teach-different-versions-of-history > (and you can find many other articles if you search for “Texas State > Board of Education history” > > > > *From:*ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Carlos M. Martinez > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:42 PM > *To:* ietf@xxxxxxxx > *Subject:* Re: [Offlist] IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary > Language > > > > Hi all > > On 24 Jul 2020, at 20:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > And we also know that language policing can be an oppressive and > exclusionary tool, and a great deal of caution and discretion is > required to avoid that outcome. > > I fully agree. > > http://paulgraham.com/orth.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__paulgraham.com_orth.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=5y-_0C2d770v07iq5xllNPU2mkVazNxHlsEAAlHx2cs&s=IQPYiadfx2TZyc0TVa3Fhl2fIRp6nrXiIEbhBMSoeFs&e=> > > A sobering read. > > Language control has been for ages a preferred tool for societal/thought > control. Just go over a bit of history and make a list of different > organizations that tried to control language. > > Without even googling: > > * The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages > * Every fascist government in the first half of the 20th century > * Every military dictatorship during most of the 20th century > * Quite a few regimes currently in power. No need to name them, they > are known to all > > Language control creates a very powerful control tool that if it were to > fall on the wrong hands. Even things created with the best intentions > can do incredible harm if suddenly the wrong set of people are in charge. > > As someone who grew up in a military dictatorship I have first hand > experience on this. An uncle of mine spent a week in jail in 1974 just > for uttering the word “communist” on the street. A word that had been > banned. > > The IETF has a lot of work to do in order to ensure an inclusive, open > minded and welcoming environment, one that will lead to more and better > technology being developed within its framework. Language control is not > something that will help, and could be dangerous in the future. > > /Carlos > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
