Banning words won’t make the world more just • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

walleeee wrote: post #49

bradleyjg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, and someone with money and a desire to prevent actual class conflict can get a lot of mileage out of encouraging tensions in the narrow, purely expressive sense you describe

That’s the Marxist analysis and there might be something to it, but I think the main driver is just human nature.

People like to feel superior. In one era that was “I’m a devout Christian from a good family unlike those other whores and sodomites,” in another it was “I’m a hard working industrialist unlike those lazy, old money playboys,” and now it’s “I’m a social worker dealing with the problems of BIPOC folx, unlike those finance bros that only care about money.”

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

#92

Post by nverno » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

awesome_dude wrote: post #50

They're right to drop "American" but not for the reasons outlined. An "American" is by definition is someone from the American continents (North and South America). Further a "North American" is someone from Mexico, USA, and Canada. It gets worse when people have "Black Americans", "Italian Americans", "Asian Americans" because that means that "Americans" is only referring to one group of people from the USA.

It makes sense though, cause it's the United States of America. It's usually obvious from the context. Mexico and Canada are already single word countries, so you can easily say Asian Canadian or whatever.

South Africa would pose a similar conundrum, where people are called South Africans, but they aren't the only people living in Southern Africa.

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

#93

Post by Tade0 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #71

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far from it, the term disregards the history and linguistic heritage of my mother tongue for the sensibilities of white people, who for whatever reason have problems accepting feminine and masculine word pronunciations. Just because white people like rewriting their history and language doesn't mean they have a right to rewrite mine. If you find that inflammatory or offensive, now you know how I feel.

> Far from it, the term disregards the history and linguistic heritage of my mother tongue for the sensibilities of white people It was created by native apeakers of your mother tongue, as a conscious rejection of the way they saw it— their mother tongue—as erasing, or at least obstructing communication of, their gender identity.

Who said these people represented the general Spanish-speaking population?

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

#94

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:57 PM UTC

hirvi74 wrote: post #86

wonderwonder wrote: post #6

"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…

> Just don't be racist I am so sorry if this pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction to make. Both Hispanic and Latino are not races but rather an ethnic group. The race of people who belong to the Hispanic and Latino ethnic groups varies by country and even at the individual. One can have predominately African ancestry, predominately European ancestry, or predominately indigenous ancestry, while all belo…

I'm a white Jew from Africa:)

So race wise I'm either Jewish, White, African or maybe African American now that I live in America.

Joking aside, I agree with your point

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

#95

Post by freitzkriesler2 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:57 PM UTC

QuercusMax wrote: post #76

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far from it, the term disregards the history and linguistic heritage of my mother tongue for the sensibilities of white people, who for whatever reason have problems accepting feminine and masculine word pronunciations. Just because white people like rewriting their history and language doesn't mean they have a right to rewrite mine. If you find that inflammatory or offensive, now you know how I feel.

But as others have said in this thread, it was created by non-binary Spanish speakers, not "white people".

No it was not since the origins of the phrase are unknown.

And even if for a moment it is true, since when do those few represent the whole?

I swear you linguistic imperialists are insufferable. Leave your hands off of my language.

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

#96

Post by fundad » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #40

scarmig wrote: post #9

The semantic turn of the Left is one of the worst signs of intellectual decay. There's approximately zero evidence that linguistic changes influence thought: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is rejected by linguists except perhaps in some very narrow situations. The euphemism treadmill is a running joke, from negro, to black, to African American, to Black, to person of color. And none of them are better or worse than the o…

You say it's both "intellectual decay" and "feeling powerless" but I see no reason that the two are connected, causal, or both happening. Hand people victimized by the past few centuries of American history the ability to fix, say, the generational wealth gap that resulted from denied opportunities and seizure of property, and see if they still only focus on words.

That would be a great experiment.

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

#97

Post by stillkicking » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

roughly wrote: post #72

scarmig wrote: post #9

The semantic turn of the Left is one of the worst signs of intellectual decay. There's approximately zero evidence that linguistic changes influence thought: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is rejected by linguists except perhaps in some very narrow situations. The euphemism treadmill is a running joke, from negro, to black, to African American, to Black, to person of color. And none of them are better or worse than the o…

Alternatively, there’s a theory of change at play here that follows a relatively long path of inquiry through politics, sociology, and neuroscience to identify in-group/out-group dynamics and mental shortcuts as central blockers to attempts to increase cross-group empathy and drive social change.

Even if that were true, I'd still not put any faith in the empathy skills of people who use e.g. "incel" as a slur, who claim "it's okay to be white" is hate speech and who call arson, vandalism and looting "mostly peaceful protests" because the in-group did it.

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

#98

Post by hirvi74 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #29

wonderwonder wrote: post #6

"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…

A good friend of mine is a Spanish translator for a social services agency. She was telling me that the "latinx" thing is a real problem, because for people -- particularly older people -- who are not strong on their reading in the first place, they hit "LatinX" and genuinely have zero idea what that's supposed to mean. So then time, energy, and goodwill gets wasted by having to explain to people what they "should" b…

> "LatinX"

How is such a word pronounced? Is it "Latin" + "ex" or is it "La" + "tinx" (-inx like in Sphinx)?

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

#99

Post by freitzkriesler2 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:59 PM UTC

QuercusMax wrote: post #58

oaththrowaway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White people colonizing another language to virtue signal isn't inflammatory to you?

As others have said in this thread, it wasn't created by white people. That's why I'm saying this is inflammatory.

BS its origins are unknown. You have no idea who made it.

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

#100

Post by throwawayapples » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 7:59 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #29

wonderwonder wrote: post #6

"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…

A good friend of mine is a Spanish translator for a social services agency. She was telling me that the "latinx" thing is a real problem, because for people -- particularly older people -- who are not strong on their reading in the first place, they hit "LatinX" and genuinely have zero idea what that's supposed to mean. So then time, energy, and goodwill gets wasted by having to explain to people what they "should" b…

The most amusing part about this is that literally the entire Spanish language is gendered, so we should probably change all words to 'x' replacements as well.

No more "los gatos"!

Lxs gatxs has so much more of a latin ring to it. (/s)

Spanish is being obliterated by lXs que lo hablan peor.