On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20/09/2018 18:42, Evan Hunt wrote:
The use of a term that's likely be *perceived* as weighted by some readers -- even if the author didn't intend it that way, and even if person who coined the term in the first place didn't intend it that way -- can still hinder communication with those readers.[...]
If it's easy to find an equivalent term without the baggage, then it seems like common sense to use that term instead.
Reasonable common sense to my mind is to use clear, established, industry standard terminology and for people with baseless perceptions that such terminology is somehow aimed at them to learn that the context matters (i.e. that contextually relevant usage of certain terms is not "weighted" or negative in any way whatsoever).
While I do agree with John Levine that there are many additional human rights and issues to consider,
I don't see how one can disregard the origins of "blacklist". These don't sound neutral - and saying it is industry standard is
another way of saying "keep out" to those impacted or that they must deal with the stereotypes and unpleasant reminders.
WE invent what becomes industry standard terminology - and given that the next challenge is growing the Internet to the next
billion people, whom will come from different cultures, countries, and backgrounds - taking a few moments for a descriptive and thoughtful
term isn't a lot to ask.
Please consider if you have ever had a term or terminology that disturbs or bothers you.
Here's another trivial one - people using "guys" instead of "folks" - each use serves to remind women that they are the
exception or allowed because their gender doesn't matter.
Being inclusive is about being welcoming and not merely not deliberately hostile. To grow the technical community in diversity and
including many viewpoints to handle new technical challenges as more folks join the Internet, this matters.
Regards,
Alia
-- Mark Rousell
