Subject: Re: [boost] [OFF] Inclusive language (Was: [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10)
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-20 08:36:25
On July 19, 2017 7:55:59 AM EDT, "Paul A. Bristow via Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Sankel via Boost wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, VinÃcius dos Santos Oliveira via
> Boost <
> > boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > 2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost
> > >
> > > > Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the
> > > > (in my opinion).
> > >
> > > So what? What's the problem of non inclusive languages?
Not kowtowing to an aggressive and misguided ideological agenda does not mean one should purposely offend. Your angry response, filled with swearing and other strong language, did not exemplify the tone desired on this list. Thus, your diatribe against what you considered the incursion of thought police censorship had rather the opposite effect from your intention.
> > My interested is in communicating technical opinion, and, without
> > positively or negatively those with sensitivities, I acknowledge
> > communication is more effective when it isn't sidetracked by
> discussions of
> > how offensive the wording is. I try my best these days to avoid
> > language that ignites distractions, although I still fail
Within reason, I agree with that position, but one can get caught up in trying not to offend ever larger groups until one hardly knows how to express oneself.
> > Similarly, when I'm offended by the way some things are said by
> others, I
> > find the best approach to be silent, tolerant, and acknowledge there
> > many different backgrounds. This way, the communication channels
> stay open..
> Silent tolerance is the least-worst policy, even in the face of wilful
> misinterpretation of the word "man".
In that case, yes. Silent tolerance is not the least worse course in all cases, however.
> But, for the record, aggressive insistence on so-called 'non-inclusive
> language' is also very offensive to me.
> Boost is, and should continue to be, entirely inclusive, gender-blind
> and, most of all, tolerant .
I'm not quite certain about the last part since you don't specify what should be tolerated. Assuming you mean that we should excuse others' foibles, for example, I quite agree.
-- Rob (Sent from my portable computation device.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk