Subject: Re: [boost] [OFF] Inclusive language (Was: [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10)
From: Jackie Kay (jacquelinekay1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-18 20:33:32
> Second fact is: You either agree with this bullshit or you're against it.
>From a set-theoretic perspective, if "agree" and "disagree" are binary
states, this is indeed a fact. However, consider that the ISO C++ Standards
committee's voting protocol covers a higher cardinality of states (the full
enumeration is "strongly agree", "agree", "neutral", "disagree", and
"strongly disagree"). My opinion is that the OP's "fact" is therefore not
valid in the paradigm of the C++ community, which is a superset of the
You obviously didn't raise voice when this bullshit began here, but you're
> now trying to make piece and pragmatic and all else. This only shows you're
> for it.
> If you stay quiet when the SJW paradise promoters push their agenda but
> voice about being understandable and teach how to comply with this
> censorship in the opposite scenario, the result will be very obvious. Do I
> really need to spell the result?
> A friendly reminder of what you do not oppose to:
> the part I was most disappointed in was that, for many, the content of the
> > talk was overshadowed by the political controversy.
> I'd use the label scary, not sad. Even technical lists of people who
> *solve* actual issues are now being infested by this plague. It used to be
> in social âsciencesâ only.
>  These are facts, not opinions.
> VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk