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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by nine_k »

angarg12 wrote: post #238
jurassic wrote: post #54

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…

But interpreting someone's words in the most uncharitable way possible is an ancient sport, intended to slight and annoy the opponent, when finding reasonable, material objections fails. It's just an ancient hold of wresting in the (verbal) mud. It sort of gives the party who successfully pulled it an upper hand.

Now that these wrestlers found out that they can persuade the public that the most uncharitable interpretation is actually harmful to some third party (nobody from the audience usually says that they personally are offended), this approach became immensely popular.

Since simple reason would usually dispel much of the effect, leaving only the small and easily correctable issue, it is common to excite a large amount of reason-eclipsing emotions over such issues, preferably the righteous rage.

But it may feel fun to express a strong and righteous emotion, especially in a crowd of other people doing the same. It does not take thinking, it does not take making a difficult decision (because everybody around can't be wrong), so it feels good. A big echo chamber like a popular Twitter thread make it feel epic in scale.

This makes that kind of righteous rage a very convenient tool of manipulation, for fun, profit, and any other purposes.

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

#352

Post by ShredKazoo »

jurassic wrote: post #54

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…

>For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth.

The troll argument here is: now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue".

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

#353

Post by DubiousPusher »

gnicholas wrote: post #344
DubiousPusher wrote: post #323

This has got to be one of the most over-anxiated, one side arguing with itself sociological phenomena since the white slaver panic that afflicted upper-class ladies in the late 19th century. There is some magazine wash lib, crucifying themselves on this hill on the HN front page every other day. Yet there is practically no one arguing back. Except of course on Twitter. Which apparently some large set of journalists b…

I can't tell if you're referring to the phenomenon of banning words, or the phenomenon of criticizing banning words. The first sentence makes it seem like you're referring to the word-banning, but the second sentence is about magazines, which makes it seem like you're referring to The Atlantic (which is criticizing the word-banning).

The free speech panic. I'm all for free speech but we are like defcon 100 from anything resembling an actual clampdown on speech and it's extremely tiresome to watch people with editorial boards and national readerships act as if they are being brave for saying what pretty much everyone already believes.

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

#354

Post by ShredKazoo »

rayiner wrote: post #233

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…

NAACP stands for "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People". Interesting how "Colored People" was an enlightened term in 1909, but "Colored People" is now out and "People of Color" is the new way to go.

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

#355

Post by jimbokun »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #7
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.

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.

That is the exact opposite of “doing something about it”.

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

#356

Post by Svip »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #353
gnicholas wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're referring to the phenomenon of banning words, or the phenomenon of criticizing banning words. The first sentence makes it seem like you're referring to the word-banning, but the second sentence is about magazines, which makes it seem like you're referring to The Atlantic (which is criticizing the word-banning).

The free speech panic. I'm all for free speech but we are like defcon 100 from anything resembling an actual clampdown on speech and it's extremely tiresome to watch people with editorial boards and national readerships act as if they are being brave for saying what pretty much everyone already believes.

> defcon 100

So everything is fine? DEFCON 5 is the _lowest_ threat level, it's DEFCON 1 people should worry about.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON

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

#357

Post by JKCalhoun »

webdood90 wrote: post #299
JKCalhoun wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. Well, that's entirely up to you and me isn't it? I think what bothers me is not so much the word police (ignore them) but everyone else that allow them to set the agenda. I talk the way I've talked my entire life and I don't care what people think about it.

[flagged]

I'm well aware of dumb shit that I've done in my life and I try to learn from it and improve.

The difference I suppose is that I don't think that words I use are dumb shit.

Someone wants to be the moral authoritarian over the language you use? Only if you let them. And why would you do that?

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

#358

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

undersuit wrote: post #315
rayiner wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can’t be that complex if virtually every human society came up with two distinct words to express the concepts. It’s only complicated if you start from the premise that language must accord the same importance to the experience of small minorities as to the experience of the overwhelming majority.

[flagged]

And therein lies our folly

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

#359

Post by simple-thoughts »

sirmarksalot wrote: post #304
jurassic wrote: post #54

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…

I take any equity language guides with a grain of salt, but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are. Obviously there are problems with it. It's largely performative, it can distract from bigger advocacy work, and it's often a lazy attempt by a large organization or corporation to avoid having to make meaningful changes. The thing is, when you add terms like "victimhood culture" to your response,…

It’s an exercise of power by a wealthy ($30k/yr is rich in most world), western, educated, native English speaking elite over the unprivileged. Someone who studied English in high school in rural India does not have access to the latest equity terminology nor the western cultural context to understand it.

Changing language is a great tool to privilege the non working academic class with access and time to study the latest fad over the global working class who build the consumer products these elites type their screeds on.

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

#360

Post by Sunspark »

In my life, I have been deaf, hearing impaired, hard of hearing, hearing challenged. I suppose at some point I will be acoustically disadvantaged.

You know what? At the end of the day, I'm still deaf. It's true. I have limitations that others take for granted. If I can't see someone speaking or if I'm out of batteries, we aren't going to be communicating well. That's pretty deaf. I won't be offended, it's just reality.

Changing language does not, and never did, give me preferential treatment. People are always always going to discriminate and pretty words won't stop them.

Character and intent is what matters.

Post reply on HN