Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#11
> The guide also rejects the disabled in favor of people living with disabilities, for the same reason that enslaved person has generally replaced slave : to affirm, by the tenets of what’s called “people-first language,” that “everyone is first and foremost a person, not their disability or other identity.”

The reason people first language fails is because there's some subjects of this language that find the original wording insulting and there's some subjects of this language that find the new words insulting.

I have back issues. Major ones that pinch my sciatic nerve due to a fractured column that healed improperly. They've gotten to the point a few times in my life where I could not walk much less feel (at all) my leg for prolonged periods of time. If someone called me a "person experiencing a disability" it sounds like you're trying to remove the hurdle that the disability puts in my life. I already had to grapple with the idea that I am not bound to that disability. I have found ways to climb small mountains, to hike, pack, move/lift heavy things, sit, and work out all with abundances of caution and very proper form.

That's to say, codifying this language just does what the first correction set out to correct: it institutionalized language some people don't like. In a world with a big variety of perspectives and experiences, the best resolution to these problems isn't some authoritarian document telling people how to talk. It's gracefully correcting people on the way that you'd like to be spoken about and people respecting that. Nobody needs to walk on eggshells around how I'd like to be referred, they just need to meet me where I am when I make a choice.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#12

"The American Cancer Society advises that Latinx, along with the equally gender-neutral Latine, Latin@, and Latinu, “may or may not be fully embraced by older generations and may need additional explanation.” Cool cool, I look forward as a white guy to explaining to a group of Spanish people why they are wrong and are really LatinX and I'm doing it for their protection. Imagine being an immigrant and having to learn…

[flagged]

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#14
Given time, “woke” will evolve into its own dialect completely incomprehensible to common language.

Every persons unique experience becomes new terms to be added to the lexicon. A burden of irrelevant knowledge for the rest of society to navigate in order to communicate.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want to recognize inequities and lived experiences and choose to do something about it that is within their power, change their language. As the article embraces, this is a morally driven impulse that is unimpeachable in its intent, but in aggregate, fails and sometimes, even oppresses. Interesting article.

I wonder... what is the difference between an "experience" vs a "lived experience"? If I have an experience-- such as walking through the park, this afternoon and picking a blackberry... What is a "lived experience" version of that same experience?

“lived experience” was generally first used to differentiate between a person saying “I have experience with x issue” who could be saying “I’ve studied it; I’ve worked with the population” but “lived experience” makes it specific to being an individual’s own life.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want to recognize inequities and lived experiences and choose to do something about it that is within their power, change their language. As the article embraces, this is a morally driven impulse that is unimpeachable in its intent, but in aggregate, fails and sometimes, even oppresses. Interesting article.

I wonder... what is the difference between an "experience" vs a "lived experience"? If I have an experience-- such as walking through the park, this afternoon and picking a blackberry... What is a "lived experience" version of that same experience?

> I wonder... what is the difference between an "experience" vs a "lived experience"?

It's a shibboleth that indicates adherence to a certain world view. The speaker is communicating that they are a Good Person and thus you should give their experiences greater weight.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#17
>When Latinx began to be used in advanced milieus, a poll found that a large majority of Latinos and Hispanics continued to go by the familiar terms and hadn’t heard of the newly coined, nearly unpronounceable one.

There's also a practical case: these terms make you sound like a damn space alien. Unless your audience already agrees completely with you, you lose credibility by using this language. Posturing for your own team has become more important than relating your views to others and pursuading them to join your side.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#18

"The American Cancer Society advises that Latinx, along with the equally gender-neutral Latine, Latin@, and Latinu, “may or may not be fully embraced by older generations and may need additional explanation.” Cool cool, I look forward as a white guy to explaining to a group of Spanish people why they are wrong and are really LatinX and I'm doing it for their protection. Imagine being an immigrant and having to learn…

[flagged]

I personally think we need to introduce Latin-American-American to the lexicon.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#19

"The American Cancer Society advises that Latinx, along with the equally gender-neutral Latine, Latin@, and Latinu, “may or may not be fully embraced by older generations and may need additional explanation.” Cool cool, I look forward as a white guy to explaining to a group of Spanish people why they are wrong and are really LatinX and I'm doing it for their protection. Imagine being an immigrant and having to learn…

In that first paragraph, you can also read it as a society for the study of the American Cancer, and it also makes sense. Unfortunately, it metastasized and any connected tissue gets infected as well.

I guess most immigrants don't need to learn the shibboleths, unless they suddenly get into money and want to join the upper class. It's about discriminating between the commoners and the rulers, that's why it constantly evolves, too. Need to regularly release new ciphers if you're communicating in the open with a trivial cryptography.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#20

"The American Cancer Society advises that Latinx, along with the equally gender-neutral Latine, Latin@, and Latinu, “may or may not be fully embraced by older generations and may need additional explanation.” Cool cool, I look forward as a white guy to explaining to a group of Spanish people why they are wrong and are really LatinX and I'm doing it for their protection. Imagine being an immigrant and having to learn…

It’s about class. Not in the usual American sense of how much money you make, but in the older sense of people thinking they are better sorts of people because they have the correct diction, education, religious views, professions, and so on.
Post reply on HN