[OFF] Inclusive language (Was: [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10)
2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the list (in my opinion).
So what? What's the problem of non inclusive languages? This is just automatic reaction. Rust language community is full of this shit and is unbearable. “but-but-but the feelings... oppression”. Grow up. If you're on the Rust community, you cannot criticize design decisions that anyone will answer with “you have a very negative tone indeed”. That community is cancer (oh... I just used an oppressive word... how unpleasant I'm looking now...). And it's the same community which will **applaud** a guy who says shit about async I/O... like... “I think the proper way to use async I/O is creating threads”. The same fucker who says “I don't like Windows... that's why I don't support Windows”. As a matter of fact, I don't like Windows either, but I leave my non-important programming tastes out of my working environment (so oppressive). Next time you will want to ban blacklist/whitelist from your repos because that's racist. Stop this fucking nonsensical bullshit. You end up hiding yourself behind a prepared excuse. The only part I agree with you is the part on keeping the topic focused. That's why I'm creating another topic just for that. Niall's comment was absolutely on topic as a critique of the obvious. He could just say in other words, like “you're not programming seriously if you ignore error handling”. Or he could be so desperately concerned about politically correct. It'd be a great and unnecessary distraction. He would start to censor himself and not say everything which may be of value because he is scary of “improper language”. He didn't even need to censor himself this time (you've done this for him — a community of self-vigilant sheep... how wonderful will be our future... just like Rust and its “nazi-demographic surveys/corrections-to-be-done”). Do not mirror Rust's bad practices here. Do as Niall and try to mirror the good parts instead (e.g. error handling). Feel free to only answer after review of Beast finishes. Otherwise I'll steal focus that shouldn't be stolen now. Actually, I suggest to only answer after the review period finishes. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
On 7/8/17 10:26 AM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost wrote:
2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the list (in my opinion).
So what? What's the problem of non inclusive languages?
This is just automatic reaction. Rust language community is full of this shit and is unbearable.
“but-but-but the feelings... oppression”. Grow up.
Boost from the beginning has had a "discussion policy" http://www.boost.org/community/policy.html which, in combination with most people using more or less real names has worked pretty well in opinion. Boost has been spared most trolling as compared to many other sites. The basic thrust is to keep focus on the arguments rather than persons. In one (laughable) case I was told that I only held the position I did because I didn't know anything about test driven development. In other cases, arguments have been made that someone's position was wrong because he didn't know enough, had a Teutonic derived mentality, wasn't aware of "modern C++ or CMake" or whatever. Of course these are beside any point and diminish the discussion. On the good side, this has happens infrequently (with a few notable exceptions) and it's been very helpful to boost. Of course this is not to say that we haven't have some really idiotic discussions. This is inevitable because a) some people are idiots b) some smart people have idiotic ideas But we prevent that because we can't agree which ideas are idiotic. So in practice we just ride out, move on and try to forget about it. To my mind it's worked pretty well. It's amazing that with C++ undergoing seismic evolution, Boost is at least as relevant as it used to be, if not more so. Robert Ramey
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the list (in my opinion).
So what? What's the problem of non inclusive languages?
I've learned a lot about inclusive language issues in the past year. In a technical talk I was discussing "The Mythical Man Month" and, unintentionally, repeatedly used the word "man" in the sense of "a human individual" instead of something more-specific and less-loaded, like "developer". This stirred up a lot of controversy and I received both well-intentioned feedback noting the issue and mean-spirited attacks. While I dislike being attacked, the part I was most disappointed in was that, for many, the content of the talk was overshadowed by the political controversy. My interested is in communicating technical opinion, and, without judging positively or negatively those with sensitivities, I acknowledge that 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 using language that ignites distractions, although I still fail occasionally. 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 are many different backgrounds. This way, the communication channels stay open. Of course, if I'm close with someone and I know the feedback will be well-received, I would gladly help them with their communication by letting them know privately that something-or-other may ignite sensitivities. This is just my approach and make no claims that it's either the right or best technique for all situations. -- David Sankel
2017-07-17 12:31 GMT+02:00 David Sankel <camior@gmail.com>:
My interested is in communicating technical opinion, and, without judging positively or negatively those with sensitivities, I acknowledge that communication is more effective when it isn't sidetracked by discussions of how offensive the wording is.
You look well intentioned, but I cannot not ignore how “pray” you've fallen for these tricks. Your view ignores two crucial facts[1]. The first fact is: “communication is more effective when it isn't sidetracked by discussions of how offensive the wording is”. Well... this was **my** complaint to begin with. It wasn't me who suddenly promoted the “SJW's cabinet of acceptable opinion” ways with a “this language is non-inclusive” flag. Second fact is: You either agree with this bullshit or you're against it. 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: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 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 “sciences” only. [1] These are facts, not opinions. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
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 Boost community.
Cheers, Jackie 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: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
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 “sciences” only.
[1] These are facts, not opinions.
-- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Sankel via Boost Sent: 17 July 2017 11:31 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: David Sankel Subject: Re: [boost] [OFF] Inclusive language (Was: [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10)
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the list (in my opinion).
So what? What's the problem of non inclusive languages?
I've learned a lot about inclusive language issues in the past year. In a technical talk I was discussing "The Mythical Man Month" and, unintentionally, repeatedly used the word "man" in the sense of "a human individual" instead of something more-specific and less-loaded, like "developer". This stirred up a lot of controversy and I received both well-intentioned feedback noting the issue and mean-spirited attacks. While I dislike being attacked, the part I was most disappointed in was that, for many, the content of the talk was overshadowed by the political controversy.
My interested is in communicating technical opinion, and, without judging positively or negatively those with sensitivities, I acknowledge that 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 using language that ignites distractions, although I still fail occasionally.
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 are many different backgrounds. This way, the communication channels stay open. Of course, if I'm close with someone and I know the feedback will be well-received, I would gladly help them with their communication by letting them know privately that something-or-other may ignite sensitivities.
I agree with David's thoughtful summary. Silent tolerance is the least-worst policy, even in the face of wilful misinterpretation of the word "man". 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 . Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
On July 19, 2017 7:55:59 AM EDT, "Paul A. Bristow via Boost" <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the
David Sankel via Boost wrote: list
(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 judging positively or negatively those with sensitivities, I acknowledge that 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 using language that ignites distractions, although I still fail occasionally.
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 are many different backgrounds. This way, the communication channels stay open..
Wise
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.
Hear, hear!
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.)
2017-07-20 10:36 GMT+02:00 Rob Stewart via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
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.
Language control is a weapon, and I refuse to submit to this hypocritical mad ideology. Want respect? Be respectful! “your language is non-inclusive” is not being respectful and **you** are mad if you think this should trigger a respectful response. Want “intellectual texts”? Here is a quote for you: Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
From the same author:
But do not let us be deceived by a name.
This will go on indefinitely. And yet, you only care about **virtual** oppression (or aggression or whatever[1]). That's why you'll **never** judge/oppose SJWs madness imposition like language control or false rape accusations. I won't waste my time with you[2]. I already said what I wanted to[3]. Just for the record, there are people who were positive to my comments here and said so in private. If they are afraid of raise their voices publicly, I shall say the self-censorship is being very effective. Want me to collect stories of people fired because of this madness? Events cancelled because of this madness? It's not that hard to Google it. You close your eyes purposefully and I cannot open them for you (I described the state of the Rust community in the very first email and you seem to ignore that... like you want the same scenario happening here). [1] Do not let us be deceived by a name. [2] You'll only complain if somebody doesn't conform to the “language rules” as you obviously didn't complain when the “non-inclusive language” card was played. **This** is what I mean about the non existent neutrality here. [3] Thankfully this[4] still is an open space. [4] Rust community is not. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
2017-07-19 13:55 GMT+02:00 Paul A. Bristow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> :
But, for the record, aggressive insistence on so-called 'non-inclusive language' is also very offensive to me.
This is a solution good enough for me. Boost is, and should continue to be, entirely inclusive, gender-blind and,
most of all, tolerant .
If tolerance is an end (and not a means), why label “aggressive insistence on so-called...” as offensive? Offensive doesn't matter if you're going to tolerate everything. Tolerance is a means, not an end. Particularly, I don't care on “tolerance” fairy tales. Just let everyone raise their opinions. As long as censorship to “improper language” isn't enforced the place hasn't fallen into irreversible shit. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
...
Oh boy this conversation is still kicking? If anything, I have learned my lesson, my original post which sparked this thread was not in earnest. I see that intent can be lost in the translation on mailing lists, I will strive not to make such comments again.
2017-07-21 19:04 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
Oh boy this conversation is still kicking? If anything, I have learned my lesson, my original post which sparked this thread was not in earnest. I see that intent can be lost in the translation on mailing lists, I will strive not to make such comments again.
I truly appreciate that. Thank you very much. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
participants (7)
-
David Sankel -
Jackie Kay -
Paul A. Bristow -
Rob Stewart -
Robert Ramey -
Vinnie Falco -
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira