Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 701 posts

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

#171

Post by karaterobot »

deely3 wrote: post #127
variant wrote: post #34

Can we just all start operating from the perspective that we're not trying to offend each other? Do away with all these rules that serve no purpose other than to slot each other into buckets of enlightened and evil. It's a sign that we have things way too good.

But how can we logically separate "trying to offend" and "not trying to offend" stances here, on a social platform, by reading two or three sentences comment written by some anonymous?

Assume good intent and interpret as generously as possible. I believe some version of these common sense notions are even in the site guidelines for Hacker News.

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

#172

Post by nonethewiser »

low_tech_love wrote: post #83
jurassic wrote: post #50

The 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. I…

> As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving for

In fact, proponents can’t even define this equilibrium, despite stating that it is the end goal. This proves that the goal is a lie.

It’s pure power seeking, and that shouldn’t be a surprise, because that is precisely what they assert determines truth and shapew society. Not some natural order, but people who held power over others. They complain about it but if you watch, it’s exactly what they’re doing themselves. Pure projection.

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

#173

Post by rayiner »

The Sierra Club guide is hilarious: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u....

> People of color” has in the past served as a collective term for people who are not white. A preferred term today is “BIPOC” referring to Black, Indigenous and people of color, which provides a unifying term for ease of use while still acknowledging the reality that Black and Indigenous people in the United States are impacted by structural and individual racism in a different way than other people of color.

I love the “first among equals” aspect of BIPOC. It’s literally just white people creating hierarchies of the other races. Again.

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

#174

Post by 1letterunixname »

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…

It's a shame. Many people who call themselves left instead have views similar to violent communism (as opposed to social democracy or Marxism) and fascism of the hard right in terms of inflexibility, harsh punishment, mercilessness, and aggressive intellectual and social domination. Gen X and older tend to have more of an idea of the spirit of left liberalism and what it means socially, life outlook, and pragmatically.

Furthermore, there are nonzero people in groups who object to victim monikers like Latinx and over-sensitive terminology as demeaning. If it were me, since I can only speak for myself, I would want to be treated as equal without ceremony, pity, or unfair advantages. Alterations of language where there is little or no offense (asking the targets rather than the busy bodies) seem like token thoughts and prayers and inconvenience to the many rather than direct, positive help to anyone. Solve real concerns rather than pearl clutch the next unfashionable word.

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

#176

Post by karaterobot »

PaulHoule wrote: post #138
Animats wrote: post #23

Is this going anywhere outside the US? The "pronouns" thing went nowhere in France. It was considered damaging to the French language. > The euphemism treadmill is a running joke, from negro, to black, to African American, to Black, to person of color. Also, the shift from moron to mentally defective to retarded to whatever. This is such a sideshow. First, conservatism lost its way. Then liberalism lost its way. If o…

How about mentality retarded -> special so that now "special" is the cruelest taunt on the schoolyard? As for "defund the police" I think I'm the only one who remembers the Reaganite "defund the left" slogan https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/11/opinion/defund-the-left.h... which "defund the police" seems to be modeled after. Thatcherism (the British strain of Reaganism that was just a bit meaner) became so ingrained th…

> which "defund the police" seems to be modeled after.

I think that's probably a coincidence. I didn't get the sense at the time that the genesis of that phrase was a sly historical reference.

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

#177

Post by nonethewiser »

t344344 wrote: post #3

Is not "equity language" just another form of neocolonialism? How can "rich educated people" rename entire ethnic group (latinx) without their consent? Also there is nothing offensive about being "poor"... Equity language is just another tool to oppress people.

It’s oppressive to both the group being used and those that don’t buy in.

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

#178

Post by angarg12 »

jurassic wrote: post #50

The 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…

It seems to me that one of the issues is that the (more extreme) woke culture has put the entire burden of communication on the speakers rather than the listeners. Is not enough that you intend to offend, or that you say something that offends someone, is whether something that you say could possibly offend someone, even if you didn't have the slightest intentions. On the other say the listeners are free to interpret the message in the most uncharitable way possible, and blame you for it.

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

#179

Post by Spivak »

8note wrote: post #167
HyperSane wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pregnant person is a woman.

At least, the person that birthed you is your mother. I'd question the association between mother and woman, rather than mother and birth

Thank you, I swear half the time I can’t figure out if people are genuinely confused by inclusive language or if they confuse it on purpose just to get riled up.

It’s the same with people who menstruate — not only for trans men but for post menopausal women, women who’ve had hysterectomies, or are otherwise have amenorrhea.

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

#180

Post by nonethewiser »

hprotagonist wrote: post #139

As a practical matter, I strongly doubt whether a guy who has four small kids and makes $12,000 a year feels more empowered or less ill-used by a society that carefully refers to him as "economically disadvantaged" rather than "poor." Were I he, in fact, I'd probably find the PCE [Politically Correct English] term insulting---not just because it's patronizing (which it is) but because it's hypocritical and self-servi…

This reeks of criticizing others for your own faults. Someone who makes 12k is poor. If this is offensive to someone then clearly they have a low opinion of poor people. Yet everyone else is reprimanded for it.
Post reply on HN