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

311–320 of 701 posts

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

#311

Post by zmgsabst »

lynx23 wrote: post #289

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 m…

That’s because they care more they were bullied in the past than about your feelings.

People appropriating your disability to excuse their bullying has led to what is effectively PTSD dealing with the groups whose voice was appropriated.

That’s sad — and has impacted not only disabled people, but race and gender relations.

I miss 10-20 years ago, when people were people rather than defined by protected class.

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

#312

Post by kergonath »

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…

> 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.

I completely understand the “gender is social and not biological” concept, and I believe it is true to a large degree. But this is not the case: if you are able to bear a child, then by definition you are female and a woman in the biological sense.

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

#313

Post by yibg »

angarg12 wrote: post #178
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…

It's also a losing battle and constantly moving target. Pretty much anything said can be interpreted badly.

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

#314

Post by yibg »

This seems like pretty on point: "The whole tendency of equity language is to blur the contours of hard, often unpleasant facts. This aversion to reality is its main appeal."

Language can and should be provocative at times, because reality can be messy. Sterilizing language like this besides being completely untenable also removes the power of language, both as a positive and negative force.

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

#315

Post by recuter »

lynx23 wrote: post #307
recuter wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to recommend a masterpiece of cinema to you called Blind Fury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Fury The realization that it would be pointless, alas, came to me too late. Let me just give you a taste: While serving in Vietnam, American soldier Nick Parker was blinded by a mortar explosion. Rescued by local villagers, he recovered his health and, though he remains blind, was trained to master his other…

Hehe, thanks, I know about Blind Fury, Daredevil, and See No Evil, Hear No Evil... As I am embedded in a visual culture, I do consume movies from time to time, so there is actually no reason to be self-conscious about mentioning media products like that...

Not self conscious at all my dude (I'm not one of those insensitive woke people who get off on making everybody feel like shit to try and elevate themselves at all costs), glad I made you chuckle. How do you consume movies? I didn't know that the ̶a̶c̶c̶u̶r̶s̶e̶d̶ "visually impaired" do that. Dope.

Don't know why I'm surprised. I bet blind fury would watch movies somehow too. Also, you should obviously change your username. :)

P.S. - Daredevil sucks so bad it makes me wish I was blind. You aren't missing out on anything there.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil is a classic. Yet another example of something great that currently wouldn't get made.

I've decided I want a blind friend. Prank potential off the charts.

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

#316

Post by jjav »

lynx23 wrote: post #289

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 m…

> I prefer the term blind because it is pretty descriptive and relatively short

Always reminds me of the George Carlin bit on language euphemisms used to distance us from reality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc).

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

#317

Post by nullc »

prawn wrote: post #260
angarg12 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I describe these scenarios to my young children as concentric circles. One person can be acting reasonably (small circle around them) or very badly (larger circle). A person nearby can be very resilient (small circle) or fragile (larger circle). Where the circles overlap, is when there is tension and there are fights, tears or anything else that requires me to intervene. Obviously very bad behaviour (large circle) is…

Pediatric Postel Principle.

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

#318

Post by roenxi »

lynx23 wrote: post #289

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 m…

> 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.

It is unusual for the opinions of the minorities involved to be relevant.The language policing appears to be a power play within the majority. What you are observing is consistent with that - they aren't worried about offending the blind, they're worried about how their language will allow their peers to jostle for position.

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

#319

Post by retrac »

crazygringo wrote: post #209
farnsworth wrote: post #170

Only tangentially related but I think it's interesting that just as we popularized the word "Ms.", and I think it makes perfect sense not to refer to women primarily by their marital status, we sort of worked around the issue by... largely just not using title/last name anymore. Right? I don't think I've referred to anyone by a title since my grade school teachers, and at least in my industry and corner of society, i…

Was there a time when adults referred to each other by Mr. and Mrs. in regular spoken conversation? Like if you were asking a work colleague where another colleague was, it was normal to say "Where is Mr. Smith?" rather than "Where is Mark?" Since in my lifetime I've only known calling everyone by their first name (except, like you say, teachers in childhood), I'm curious when the change occurred and how.

Yes. The rules were complicated, too. Children referring to adults and teachers with Mr./Ms. is a relic from what was once a more complicated set of rules about social hierarchy. Relative age, familiarity, and social status, both of the audience/listener and of the speaker relative to the referred person, were the main factors that determined the choice in how to refer to someone. The older, more socially distant, and socially superior they were to you, and the more formal the situation, the more likely you used the title. If the listener was socially distant or inferior to the party, you were more likely to refer to the party with a title. Using simply a last name without a title was also an option for a superior to an inferior. Given names were considered intimate to use alone, and reserved in private between family and close friends and sometimes close colleagues.

The change started in the '70s and it's not quite complete. More progressed in some regions than others. A couple decades ago, the manager at my first job was addressed as Mr. and it seemed quite natural to me at the time.

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

#320

Post by Lazare »

lynx23 wrote: post #289

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 m…

My partner is disabled, and by chance and via support groups she is a member of, she has many friends annd acquaintences who are as well. And while it's by no means universal, she and all her disabled friends absolutely loathe the "people first language" currently in vogue (ie, "person with a disability" over "disabled").

And it's odd! Because while there are certainly disabled people who prefer one form over another when they speak or when people refer to them (although again, in my experience, the overwhelming majority prefer the clarity of "disabled"), the only time I've ever run across someone making a universal dictate about how everyone should speak about all disabled people everywhere, the speaking has been non-disabled. And invariably backing a viewpoint which is tenditious at best among actually disabled people!

And to what end? It sometimes feels - certainly to my partner, hence her anger - an attempt to just sort of pretend the issue dosn't exist so that nobody has to be uncomfortable. Her disability is, at the moment, entirely incurable. She has experienced significant grief over her disability; she would love not to have it. But she does, and relabelling her as "differently abled" or a "person with a disability" doesn't suddenly remove the physical limitations she is struggling with.

Post reply on HN