Hi Barbara,
At 02:09 PM 29-07-2020, 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 theyy knew it.
In my opinion, the two persons who commented
about "language control" probably have a better
understanding of how it was applied at their locations.
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.
I don't see being listed as an author of an IETF
document which was published as a sign of
power. If that was the case, I would not be
sending comments as a reviewer of a draft.
I would give Ms Knodel and Mr ten Oever credit
for writing about a topic which some people might not like discuss openly.
People who are at the periphery of what is
described as "community" are sometimes told that
"we have a mailing list" if you are unable to get
to a meeting. Sometimes, the question is
ignored; I guess that it is for "language control".
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
I am not familiar with the Texas schoolbooks
debate; I vaguely recall reading about a
schoolbooks issue which occurred in the United
States several years or more ago.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
