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

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

#151

Post by pwinnski » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #123

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…

> The euphemism treadmill is a running joke, It feels more like a minefield than a joke. A minefield that gets new mines added every so often just to keep everyone on their toes. When I was younger, I used to feel like I could keep up with all the new taboo words, but it seems like it is happening faster and faster these days. You can unintentionally say something that turns out to be taboo, and you're done for. Some…

I know that kindness never goes out of style.

Negative words can change meaning or severity over time, in both directions, but if you aim for clear expression and avoid insults, it is unlikely anything you say or write will be judged badly in the future.

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

#152

Post by scarmig » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

roughly wrote: post #146

scarmig wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dispute that there's a theory of change here: "if we explore the linguistic landscape, we can discover a set of signifiers that will help us to destroy racism/sexism/etc." I just reject that. We don't live in a Harry Potter book where the correct series of incantations affect the material world.

That's not the theory of change at play here. You're rejecting a straw man. As to the rest of it: "Officer, arrest that man" is a series of incantations that affect the material world.

I can say that right now, and nothing happens. The words aren't the causal elements here changing the world; it's the referants and power hierarchies that do.

The proper analogy would be thinking that requiring saying "Officer, detain-in-an-official-capacity that man!" instead would somehow fix police violence.

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

#153

Post by ticviking » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

feoren wrote: post #110

ticviking wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Citation provided https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy#:~:text=by....

Functional literacy means more than simply knowing specific vocabulary words. It includes the shared knowledge to use and understand idioms and cultural references.

Needing to coin a new expression to replace a word we already have a perfectly good word for seems to be a symptom of poor literacy. I suppose the chronic dishonesty and doublespeak involved in corporate jargon could be the source of this phenomenon instead.

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

#154

Post by roughly » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #152

roughly wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the theory of change at play here. You're rejecting a straw man. As to the rest of it: "Officer, arrest that man" is a series of incantations that affect the material world.

I can say that right now, and nothing happens. The words aren't the causal elements here changing the world; it's the referants and power hierarchies that do. The proper analogy would be thinking that requiring saying "Officer, detain-in-an-official-capacity that man!" instead would somehow fix police violence.

> I can say that right now, and nothing happens. The words aren't the causal elements here changing the world; it's the referants and power hierarchies that do.

And you think this is something that’s not understood among those pushing for linguistics changes?

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

#155

Post by ticviking » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #63

SubiculumCode wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

It's still used that way. I'm always confused why people criticize this one in particular. The distinction makes perfect sense. There's an enormous amount of stuff that I've read a bunch about or watched a lot of media about or talked about with people, but is nonetheless outside my lived experience.

The idea of having direct first-hand contact with a thing is part of the understanding of the word "experience." Second hand contact or learning is generally some other noun or verb, depending on what we're talking about.

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

#156

Post by pwinnski » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

Tade0 wrote: post #137

ryandrake wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The euphemism treadmill is a running joke, It feels more like a minefield than a joke. A minefield that gets new mines added every so often just to keep everyone on their toes. When I was younger, I used to feel like I could keep up with all the new taboo words, but it seems like it is happening faster and faster these days. You can unintentionally say something that turns out to be taboo, and you're done for. Some…

> Some years ago, I causally used the "r-word" and didn't even think anything of it, and blam! big mistake. Doug Stanhope has a great skit in which he explains that the word "retarded" was originally the sensitive way to refer to this group, because at the time they were called directly derogatory terms. But, like with every such attempt it was quickly adopted as an insult. My not particularly original take is that p…

Yeah, there's no word to describe something negative that can't be turned into an insult. Whatever words we use to describe people on the fringes of society will be turn against those we don't like to treat them as if they are on the fringes of society.

If it somehow became popular to describe people of a certain type using the phrase "people on the fringes of society," then within a generation or two kids would taunt each other in schoolyards with "No, you're on the fringes of society," and "No, you are!"

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

#157

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

throwawayapples wrote: post #100

JohnFen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean technically white people invented Spanish

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

#158

Post by TurkishPoptart » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

feoren wrote: post #129

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #21

Let's just not create any new words / neologisms for "social justice" purposes. To be clear, no newspeak. Let's remain using the OED from circa 2006.

Yes, language should never change. All used languages have been continually changing for their entire hundreds- or thousands-of-years' lifespan, but they should STOP changing, right around the year I was in college. Music, too! What's with all this new awful music! In the entire history of all humanity, music was best right around when I was in college! I used to be with it, and I can still be with it, as long as the…

TFA is about "equity language". Let's stay on topic.

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

#159

Post by blahblah1234567 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

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…

the correct term is no longer "persons of color"

I received a letter in the mail from official sources, ordering me to use:

"skin appropriating mammals & pseudo-mammals of complexions including greyscale shades from #FFFFFE to #000000"

(pseudo-mammals is important so as not to exclude platypus & echidna identifying peoples)

It's ok though-- I will let it slide this time.

Next time though, it will be reported to the Commissar. And they will listen to me-- Because I am half skin appropriating mammals & pseudo-mammals of complexions including greyscale shades from #FFFFFE to #000000 (anything more than a quarter is considered full validated and verified via the official channels)

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

#160

Post by readthenotes1 » Thu, Mar 02, 2023, 9:17 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #138

throwawayapples wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Spanish, from Spain, a country in Europe, is a language made up by white people. Latinx is form a handful of non-binary latin activists in the US, and co-opted by left-wingers who think they're doing the right thing.

They weren't White to my grandparents.