On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 08:20:59PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Stepping back to a more abstract level, the most respectful way that I know
> of to have a discussion when there are strongly conflicting views is to
> take an approach that produces messages structured roughly [...]
That works only when there's actually room for debate. Once the
disagreement is over matters of in-group orthodoxy, direct logical
argument ceases to be effective.
Only satire or redicule (the emperor has no clothes) can sometimes
penetrate the aura of orthodox conviction, to at least make the orthodox
uncomfortable. Though one should also be prepared for anger and
pitchforks. Cognitive dissonance can be a risky thing to provoke.
For me, overt policing of what is allowed to be expressed, rather evokes
the Soviet Union's pervasive and brutal hypocrisy that enforced
conformity to dogmatic truths that were plainly at odds with reality.
Indeed the conflict between the truths and reality was an essential
feature of the system. True loyalty to the party demands that the truth
be whatever the party says it is today.
Lloyd's evocation of Orwell is entirely apt, for what is truly
Orwellian, is not mere autocratic rule, but rather enforcement of
unquestionable dogma that binds one to the collective.
The present dogmas are for now somewhat more benign, we are expected to
believe that making a non-trivial subset of existing contributors rather
uncomfortable with the new normal, perhaps to the point of exclusion, is
warranted by the ideal of being more inclusive of some hypothetical set
of future contributors, who (rather questionably in the eyes of
sceptics) were somehow deterred not by the obvious barriers of
educational opportunities, employment opportunities, wealth, ... but
rather because of the IETF's technical jargon.
This strains credulity, but one is expected to believe what the party
believes, and questioning it is taken to prove that one is in fact a
traitor to the cause (a bigot who secretly or otherwise aims to exclude
those groups).
The result is unquestionably exclusionary, but excluding "those sorts"
of people must surely be OK, after all they stand in the way of
inclusion.
I posit that more potential contributors will be lost on this long march
than will ever be gained by whatever comfort some new recruits to the
cause find in new jargon, purged of the sins of the past. I have no
proof of this, it is a personal conviction. Others surely share it, and
are likely feeling similary deterred from participating.
So yes, I do find the proposed language policing Orwellian, and satire
and ridicule more than deserved.
For the record, I have no prejudice against any groups of people who'd
like to participate in the IETF, and have no issue with an expectation
of professional discourse.
I do take issue with the notion that entirely out of context we need to
expend precious IETF energy to seek out prejudice in technical jargon,
atone for our sins, and be hyper-vigilant in our commucation lest it
be possible for someone somewhere to read something other into them
than their well-established technical meanings.
Yes language evolves, and is said in polite society now, is not the same
as it was decades or longer ago. This happens quite naturally, and
there is little need for a formal registry of taboos to demonstrate our
openness. If the text of an I-D is outside a WG's accepted lexicon,
corrections will be suggested during the process, and the language in
documents will naturally track language norms over time.
What's objectionable is explicit policing of language by a select group
of experts who can tell us what to think and how to think it.
The CoC is presumably clear that professional conduct is expected, and
harassment, bullying, ... are not tolerated, and all are welcome to
participate. That should be quite enough.
--
Viktor.
