RFC: Conscious language in the Binutils

[Mike Frysinger]

On 19 Nov 2020 08:03, Ian Lance Taylor via Binutils wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 9:53 PM Alan Modra 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!
> 
> I think it's worth pointing out that we already have language police.  We
> are working here in a professional context.  There are many words we will
> not use in the binutils source code, because some people find them
> offensive.  This includes various obscenities, various terms of
> denigration, etc.  I won't write any specific terms, because they are
> offensive and therefore inappropriate for this mailing list.
> 
> We aren't talking about adding language police that we didn't have before.
> We are taking about changing the terms that the language police cover.
> 
> Separately, "not offending anyone" is not a choice on the table.  The
> choice is between offending people with visible indicators that they are
> not part of the binutils community, or offending people who claim the right
> to use any words they please in a professional context.
> 
> Finally, we are talking about a small change to a small project.  It's
> tempting on all sides to reach for analogies to things like living under a
> repressive government, but that is not what is happening here.  This is
> more like a minor redefinition of politeness in a specific context.  For
> example, as increasing numbers of women joined the workplace, over time the
> pinup calendars came down.  That was not like living under a repressive
> government, and it did not solve all problems in the workplace.  It was
> just polite.

i'm in favor of making improvements to the code base and slowly steering
this large vessel.  it's not going to happen overnight, but that doesn't
mean we should give up outright.  running `sed` over the codebase to try
and expunge things will most likely leave things worse off, but we can
still be mindful and particular in adopting better standards, and making
incremental changes as we go.

language & societal norms are not frozen.  there are many things that our
parents would say and do that, while considered "acceptable" at the time,
would certainly not be now.  and their parents, and their parents, and so
forth.  if we simply consider the topics that sparked this discussion, it
seems fairly trivial to enumerate such "norms" that have changed over the
last century and more.

like, i dunno, my grandmother being born in a time where she could not
vote [in the US].  or my parents getting married while interracial
marriage was illegal [in the US, and elsewhere].  or me getting married
while our friends could not legally [same sex, in the US, and abroad].
i won't even attempt to list the language that were considered acceptable
in my grandparents or parents times as i think we can all think of plenty
of them.  even as society in their time pushed back, they were met with
resistance and the same tired arguments that we see today as to why things
shouldn't, can't, or won't change.

i don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone here, so please do not
take it as such.  my point is, as i said above, language is not frozen.
we, myself included, should aim to always do better when possible.  if
minor changes like these, that others are willing to contribute, make
things better and have no real downsides, then why would i say no ?
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20210112/fd7eedd2/attachment.sig>