Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

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.

Because claiming experience with something when you’ve only studied it is a lie.

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

#362
My 11yo came home from school today:

"Dad! We can't get rid of any of our Roald Dahl books. They're changing the words in them. My class talked about it and we all think it's stupid".

A few months back, my 16yo was telling me about a class conversation about their futures, and what everyone wanted most was a stable relationship, a job they enjoyed and to be able to afford a modest house.

It's reassuring that in a seemingly insane world, the kids who are coming up seem have their heads screwed on straight.

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

#363
What was it, 10 to 20 years ago, people started to be noticeably nervous when they were coming near a description of my disability. It used to be so simple. I am 100% blind, and guess what, I prefer the term blind because it is pretty descriptive and relatively short. But all of a sudden, people external to the community started to fumble around with "visually challenged", and all the nonsense variations of that in my native language. It is so weird, because it adds yet another layer of distance between "us" and the "normal" people. You can almost feel how the stumbling-word is making communication even more awkward. I (and almost all of my friends with a similar disability) make a point of letting people know that we actually prefer the word blind over everything else, and not even that does put people at ease. It sounds a bit provocative, but it feels like that: The language terror they were subjected to has made them so unsecure that they actually dont want to hear that blind people have no issue with being called blind. They somehow continue to argue, sometimes not wanting to accept that and going on to use weird language.

Its a weird phenomenon. The longer I watch all of this, and I also mean the gender-language-hacks, I feel like this move has added to the distance between various groups, not made it smaller.

It is so condescending to believe your own language-police more then the person you are talking to. Yet, the peer pressure seems to be so high that this actually happens. Sad.

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

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There seems to be this weird erasure of women taking place at the moment. This is the crazy thing. After a century of legitimate struggle for equality, women are having the language of feminism turned on them to deny the existence of femininity. Honestly, I thought the lines would have been drawn with sport, but that fact that it's leaking into medicine is pure insanity. I've been somewhat worried about there not b…

You do realize that the terminology is meant for transmen right? It's weird you're complaining about terminology used for transmen, and then linking it to transwomen in sports.

[deleted]

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

#365

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.

I don't have an issue with using the term poor to describe people lacking money but it has other definitions and uses.

The second and third definitions I get from define:poor on Google are:

- worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.

- (of a person) considered to be deserving of pity or sympathy.

I suspect these might be why the term is discouraged.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm involved in local politics in Oak Park, IL, also known as the People's Republic of Oak Park, 85.5% Clinton in '16, 72% college educated, median income about $15k higher than Evanston, and I have never heard any of these words in the elite white conversations I am continually dragged into. These guides get published to give The Groups something to do. Very few people in the real world --- yes, even the elite white…

It’s definitely “in the real world” here in DC, especially in the legal profession. This is where Sierra Club is, after all.

It's also heavily pushed in high school level journalism now.

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

#367

Frankly, I don't care as long as government isn't involved. Companies (and other organizations owned by individuals) should have every right to hire/fire people based on the language they use, no matter what language that is. Same with companies that decide who they want to sell to and who they don't want to sell to. I'm very much against the idea of governments limiting speech or forcing behavior on private individu…

Would you say the same thing about lifestyles one lives? Or what if that language is something like "I like Trump" or "Black Lives Matter"?

I think so. Individuals shouldn't be forced to hire/fire people or work/not work with people whose lifestyles they profoundly agree/disagree with.

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

#368
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll give it a try, not necessarily successfully: Urban, in the sense of urban or inner city youth, might be a reference to black children. (Or it might not. And one might actually be referencing urban things in the sense of not suburban or rural.) Vibrant: makes, ahem, people living with color blindness feel marginalized. Hardworking: I’m struggling to come up with something even as credible as the last two. Maybe i…

> Hardworking: I’m struggling to come up with something even as credible as the last two. Maybe it’s ableist: some people can’t work hard. I'm guessing the logic is something similar the absolutely ridiculous (IMO) graphic I've linked below from the National Museum of African American History & Culture which lists a lot of aspects of white culture in the United States. One of the many items on their list was the "Pro…

The first time I saw that I was convinced it was a 4chan troll. I was so sure it was an elaborate 4chan ruse that when shared by someone else at work I instinctively told them it's a racist 4chan meme and they shouldn't be sharing that at work. It took some back and forth with links from the actual museum before it hit me that it was real. I was speechless.

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

#369
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>Male monkeys have brought kids to term. That is fake news from a convicted fraudster. It was claimed but never supported by evidence [0]. "Fertility clinician Cecil Jacobson claimed to have transplanted a fertilized egg from a female baboon to the omentum in the abdominal cavity of a male baboon in the mid-1960s, which then carried the fetus for four months; however, Jacobson did not publish his claims in a scientif…

[flagged]

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

#370
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.

I love reading this stuff to figure out what new words elite white people have for me. Apparently I’m not a “minority” or a “naturalized citizen” anymore, and my kids aren’t “second generation Americans.”

We'd have to know the CMYK value of your skin before sharing updated 2023 nomenclature. Please download the app.
Post reply on HN