RFC: Conscious language in the Binutils

[Michael Matz]

Hello,

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020, Jeff Law via Binutils wrote:

> On 11/19/20 2:13 PM, Cary Coutant via Binutils wrote:
> >> Excluding and making contributors uncomfortable is exactly why I spoke
> >> up, objecting to the change.  If that sounds strange to you, be aware
> >> that "inclusive language" or whatever they call it now is an extreme
> >> left ideological position.  I know we have contributors who do not
> >> like extreme left politics.  Also, the world is wider than the USA.
> >>
> >> I grew up knowing people who had lived under communism in eastern
> >> European countries.  Through them, I'm aware of what it is like to
> >> live under repressive governments where you need to be very careful
> >> what you say.  That's why I have an allergic reaction to the language
> >> police.  So much so that I'm ignoring my common sense warning me that
> >> it is dangerous to poke at extreme left political sacred cows!
> > It's discouraging that what once were considered centrist or moderate
> > positions are now labeled "extreme left." This is how far today's
> > extreme right has moved the goalposts.
> >
> > "Language police" is a loaded term designed to sound extremist. There
> > is no authoritarian regime forcing this on us;

No, but the power of well-meaning people is not to be taken lightly 
either.

> > you are not going to
> > get thrown in jail for the code you write. All that is being asked of
> > us is, as Ian elegantly put it, a little politeness.

That may be the intention, but the actions speak a different language:
* A proposes patch, B rejects patch on principle grounds; that should have 
  been the end of it, but wasn't because:
* multiple people come to the list expressing their support for A in 
  various grades of force, some of them not having much activity on 
  the list since a long time, which can only mean that they hope to change 
  B's opinion by amassing more support for A's position; that's not polite
* forcing a p.o.v. on others inherently isn't polite, for that to be 
  true it doesn't matter if the cause is just
* forcing such p.o.v. by cornering due to amassing support is less polite 
  even, it's a mob
* going to the mgmt chain of B is beyond impolite; that sheds a 
  fairly uncomfortable light on the well-meaningness of that person

That's an awful lot of impoliteness for a quest towards politeness.

> Sigh.  This was never meant to be a political discussion or advance any
> political viewpoint, but it appears to be degenerating into that quickly. 
> 
> Just FTR, I think the change is a good one and I support the goal of
> being more aware of the language we use and how it impacts people.  I
> know that my own language has changed through the years as I've become
> more aware of how it can impact people and to me at least, this is just
> continuing evolution and awareness.

As has mine, it's natural.  But I'm nevertheless not claiming 
all-conscience or try to forcefully convince others of the superiority of 
my p.o.v (well, at least I try not to).  That doesn't work anyway, people 
are convinced intrinsically.  If my p.o.v. really should happen to be 
superior in some way then it will eventually prevail naturally.  That is, 
I support the intention of the goal, but I totally reject the method of 
implementation as demonstrated here in this thread (both aspects, the 
patch, and the broader one, the way of communication).

In this case for instance, I would write my code and comments in a way 
compatible with my awareness (and of course expect others to not make fun 
of that), but wouldn't change pre-existing code, except perhaps as part of 
a larger change that has other reasons than only enlightening the world.  
More humility, less preaching.


Ciao,
Michael.