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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by kube-system »

WalterBright wrote: post #346
zarzavat wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic because the entire concept of online language policing was invented by arch rivals the radical feminists in the 2010s (anyone remember donglegate?), but the pendulum has swung so far back in the other direction that now the very concept of women is being erased. Geez! Of course offline language policing is as old as time, but until the late 20th century it was the domain of religions or regimes - those wi…

"Mail carrier" instead of postman started in the 70's. Same with "flight attendant" instead of stewardess. This has been going on a long time.

Gender suffixes have always had a gender connotation, because it is plainly what they mean.

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

#402

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

#403

Post by wonderwonder »

undersuit wrote: post #374
suddenclarity wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that mostly a result of how much you want to focus on the outliers? XX male syndrome is estimated to exists in 1:20000 - 1:30000 people. It's so rare that we have a name for it. Somewhat like rebutting to what a car is by arguing that a handful of cars through history actually had two wheels. And yes, I'm aware that XX syndrome isn't the only outlier but the point still stands.

>Isn't that mostly a result of how much you want to focus on the outliers? I don't want to focus on the outliers. I want to focus on the fact that we're enforcing a binary distinction when there are outliers.

If there are outliers you don't get to change the definition of the established binary and force the outliers into them. The outliers are just that, outliers, a 3rd, 4th, etc option.

If you argument is that there are more than 2 genders, that's fine, Man, Woman and whatever else.

They are outliers that have their own names.

Certain things are constant though Man: Adult Human with XY sex Chromosomes

Woman: Adult Human with XX sex Chromosomes

Everything else and I mean no disrespect with this term, are mutations that fall outside of the norm.

Surgery and hormones though do not change your sex chromosomes. You are still sex you were born as. You can be a trans woman, but sex wise you are still a man and vice versa for trans men.

I wish trans people all the happiness in the world but if you paint stripes on a horse its still a horse, not a zebra.

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

#404

Post by recuter »

lynx23 wrote: post #392
recuter wrote: post #382

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

#405

Post by kergonath »

ertian wrote: post #295
zmgsabst wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our entire group of animals is named after tits: Mammals. How can referring to the fact people have what our entire branch of the tree of life is named after be offensive?

...Probably better not to point that out, or next thing you know we're gonna have to rewrite damn near every textbook...

Isn’t this ongoing already?

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

#406

Post by yibg »

undersuit wrote: post #374
suddenclarity wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that mostly a result of how much you want to focus on the outliers? XX male syndrome is estimated to exists in 1:20000 - 1:30000 people. It's so rare that we have a name for it. Somewhat like rebutting to what a car is by arguing that a handful of cars through history actually had two wheels. And yes, I'm aware that XX syndrome isn't the only outlier but the point still stands.

>Isn't that mostly a result of how much you want to focus on the outliers? I don't want to focus on the outliers. I want to focus on the fact that we're enforcing a binary distinction when there are outliers.

How many arms do humans have? Is saying 2 some how bad because there are outliers and it's not inclusive?

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

#407

Post by tptacek »

testfoobar wrote: post #366
rayiner wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What, and where?

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

#408

Post by luckylion »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #376
Svip wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Yes everything is fine. Norms around language change. 50 years ago you could lose your job for impugning most major religious, governmental or other "respectable" institutions in writing. You probably weren't going to jail for it but you just didn't talk that way about the Catholic church. At the turn of the century, the same kind of uber-libs who are so jealous of their speech today were getting anyone who even tang…

> Norms around language change.

That was addressed in the article, I think: Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above.

You reference slow, natural evolution of norms. Those happen everywhere, not just in language, but they happen organically. People change and then they change what they tolerate, how they speak etc. It's not that someone decides "people now have to speak like this, so that they then change to become like me". That's the "creating a new man" approach that lead to endless suffering under the socialists/communists, though I guess now it would be "creating a new person".

> Two wrongs obviously don't make a right. But this is not new.

"Everything is fine, because we've seen bad things happen before, so this isn't new, and only new things can be a problem"?

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

#409

Post by Robotbeat »

jimbokun wrote: post #313
undersuit wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It’s perfectly simple, until you lose track of the distinction between sex and gender.

The distinction between sex and gender wasn’t really made until the 1940s and 1950s in parts of academia. The idea of them as separate ideas is sort of a modern invention.

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

#410

Post by jjav »

lynx23 wrote: post #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 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).

Post reply on HN