2017-07-17 12:31 GMT+02:00 David Sankel :

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/

-----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 :

...

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

2017-07-20 10:36 GMT+02:00 Rob Stewart via Boost :

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/

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost 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.