[boost] [OFF] Inclusive language (Was: [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10)

[Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 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?

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.

[Robert Ramey via Boost]

Post by Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 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?
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

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailm

[David Sankel via Boost]

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost <

Post by Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 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.

This is just my approach and make no claims that it's either the right or
best technique for all situations.

-- David Sankel

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://list

[Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost]

Post by David Sankel via Boost
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

Post by David Sankel via Boost
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.

[Jackie Kay via Boost]

Post by Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost
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

Post by Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost
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?
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
the part I was most disappointed in was that, for many, the content of the

Post by David Sankel via Boost
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

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: h

[Paul A. Bristow via Boost]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 17 July 2017 11:31
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 <

Post by Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 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
[phone]


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: h

[Rob Stewart via Boost]

Post by David Sankel via Boost

Post by David Sankel via Boost
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via

Boost <

Post by David Sankel via Boost

2017-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost

Such language is non-inclusive and diminishes the stature of the

list

Post by David Sankel via Boost

(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.

Post by David Sankel via Boost

Post by David Sankel via Boost
My interested is in communicating technical opinion, and, without

judging

Post by David Sankel via Boost
positively or negatively those with sensitivities, I acknowledge

that

Post by David Sankel via Boost
communication is more effective when it isn't sidetracked by

discussions of

Post by David Sankel via Boost
how offensive the wording is. I try my best these days to avoid

using

Post by David Sankel via Boost
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.

Post by David Sankel via Boost

Post by David Sankel via Boost
Similarly, when I'm offended by the way some things are said by

others, I

Post by David Sankel via Boost
find the best approach to be silent, tolerant, and acknowledge there

are

Post by David Sankel via Boost
many different backgrounds. This way, the communication channels

stay open..

Wise

Post by David Sankel via Boost
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.

Post by David Sankel via Boost
But, for the record, aggressive insistence on so-called 'non-inclusive
language' is also very offensive to me.

Hear, hear!

Post by David Sankel via Boost
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.)

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/list

[Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost]

Post by 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

Post by Rob Stewart via Boost
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 via Boost]

Post by Paul A. Bristow via Boost
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,

Post by Paul A. Bristow via Boost
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.

[Vinnie Falco via Boost]

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

...

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.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://

[Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost]

Post by Vinnie Falco via Boost
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.