[deleted]
Banning words won’t make the world more just
101–110 of 1001 posts
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So long as you're not reducing entire groups into caricatures of themselves, it's probably fine.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#103Earlier 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.
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 and butcher up your own mother tongue.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Our language doesn't need fixing, that's just the way it is. This whole latinx is literal cultural imperialism. It's not about not understanding the meaning of using these terms, it's the fact that it suggests that our entire language should be changed to be more "inclusive".
[flagged]
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#105Earlier 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?
[deleted]
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So long as you're not reducing entire groups into caricatures of themselves, it's probably fine.
It's not a caricature if it's taught at supposedly elite institutions of education, into which admission is contingent on a declaration of adherence to said ways of thinking.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our language doesn't need fixing, that's just the way it is. This whole latinx is literal cultural imperialism. It's not about not understanding the meaning of using these terms, it's the fact that it suggests that our entire language should be changed to be more "inclusive".
[flagged]
Is it being updated in Latin America or is it being force updated in the United States?
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#108The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep…
This is an academic issue, ”a solution in search of a problem” as almost all the rest of academia is. As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving forward towards more and more ridiculous extremes.
An academic, in order to stay relevant, needs to keep pushing the invisible and mostly inexistent boundaries that they perceive in whatever field they are involved in. If they’re faced with a set vocabulary today, then tomorrow they’ll have to come up with an ”aha! Found a new offensive word” to position themselves as a relevant, meaningful part of this strange, ethereal movement. It’ll never end, because the movement itself needs its members to keep also pacing forward and motivated in order for itself to remain existing.
The exact same could be said of any academic movement; the difference is that, in most cases, it mostly does not spill into reality. Other than a bit of research funding money, meaningless academic ideas don’t hurt society much. In this case, however, the academic movement is dead set on spilling all over everything, using the most aggressive possible strategies of shaming and reputation murder in order to push down its opposition.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
> So race wise I'm either Jewish
What did I just say? ;)
Which part of Africa?
As I understand it, Middle Eastern (including Egypt). people are considered "white" by the US Census (for those unaware).
If natively from Morocco/Egypt/Perhaps more, would you not be considered Mizrahi or are you talking like European ancestory? Not like any of this matters in the absolute slightest at the end of the day.
I, myself, have 0% Apparently, I'm a mutt because my ancestors liked to travel and liked to bang whatever population was there when they arrived (I am kidding, this goes for most people).
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
As our societies functional literacy has declined we have lost words that gave us nuanced shades of meaning. "Experience with" meaning, "Have dealt with this personally, first hand" gradually became, "has been near or studied and feels comfortable claiming authority on that basis." So the new compound word "Lived experience" was created to allow us to still use the first definition reliably. Many times people who hav…
> As our societies functional literacy has declined
[Citation badly needed]
Words change. That doesn't mean everyone is getting stupider. In fact the more literate people are, the faster words are likely to change, since the more situations they'll be put to use in.