On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > It’s not controversial. That is, the problem isn’t that there is > controversy, although clearly there is, since you’re debating it. The > problem is also not that it’s offensive, although it is. I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial, seemingly by people with way too large a following on sites like Twitter. I'm asking why it is controversial.
> The problem is that it is a useful harassment tool for racists.. The > U.S. has a large enough population of racists that it’s hard for a > Black person to avoid them. And the term “master/slave” is a way to > get in a racist dig without being called on it: you just emphasize > the words a bit as you use them, looking the Black person in the eye > as you do so, and everyone knows what’s being said, but there’s no > way to complain about it without seeming crazy. As I thought then. Racism in the United States. I suggest that the US solves these issues internally. Police brutality and racism in the country are very real but are not something a change in nomenclature will change at all. > So by using these terms in standards, we are putting a tool for > harassment in the hands of people who will definitely use it. We > should not do that, and the desire to continue doing things as we > always have is not a good reason not to change. That's like saying that in order for someone who wants to be a surgeon but hates blood, we need to remove the blood. Absolutely nonsensical. > This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t going > to be fruitful. I still see draft updates to the RFC being posted regularly. From that it seems reasonable to assume that the RFC is still under development. Am I wrong? -- Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Michael De Roover _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
