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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by nullc »

prawn wrote: post #328
angarg12 wrote: post #238

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

#412

Post by lynx23 »

recuter wrote: post #404
lynx23 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

Regarding how to "watch" movies: Its actually as simple as turning the TV on and listening to what comes out the speakers... In the 80s, movies were actually much more story-driven then today. Even if you missed something happening because you didnt see the visuals, you would get it typically a few seconds or minutes afterwards, because somebody was refering to the event and therefore uncovering the riddle. Something like "Hey, did you see the car explode back there?" These days, there is the concept of audio description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_description

You might have noticed a second audio channel with some movies or sports broadcasts, depending on what country you are in. Even Apple TV has an ability to configure such a descriptive audio channel, and have it played back when the movie actually comes with one.

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

#413

Post by roenxi »

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…

> 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

#414

Post by retrac »

crazygringo wrote: post #271
farnsworth wrote: post #230

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

#415

Post by Lazare »

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…

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.

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

#416

Post by kergonath »

low_tech_love wrote: post #108
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…

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…

There is much wrong in this comment.

> 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.

Not at all. Academia is about the pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment. What you are describing is happening in academia, but that is not its purpose or its main role. Academia is as much about the mating habits of the spotted fizzbuzz up in the Andes or the design of advanced composite materials or developing vaccines for malaria than the understanding of how humans behave in society.

The ridiculous extremes are not confined to academia, this is just an anti-intellectual talking point. Nobody is running around panicking that the purpose of elections is to produce fascists.

> 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. If they’re faced with a set vocabulary today, then tomorrow they’ll have to come up with an ”aha! Found a new offensive word” to position themselves as a relevant, meaningful part of this strange, ethereal movement.

Again this weird focus on academia. Journalists, politicians, and random blokes on the internet do it. Most of academics don’t. The problem is humans in general, your scapegoat is meaningless. By ascribing your issues to an immaterial Other entity out to get you, you absolve the rest of society, which is really where the problem lies.

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

#417

Post by lynx23 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #398
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…

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.

Amen. Its sad, and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. To a degree, I am used to being treated in a condescending way. This is just a level up, the worst kind: "I know better how you should be treated then you because you are to simple to know what I already know."

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

#418

Post by pizza234 »

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…

This is the exact same dynamic that happens with comedy. When a comedian offends a group, it's typically not people from that group who complain - it's third parties who step in to represent that group.

IMO the purpose of language changing is not to improve the world; instead, it's to give the feeling of changing the world without putting any real effort.

Fun (in a sad way) fact: a friend of mine collaborates with an association that deals with diverse people. Some high-up complained that my friend's group (within the association) is "not diverse enough". Thing is: my friend is actually non-binary themselves. Go figure.

EDIT: replaced the definition of my friend from "diverse" to "non-binary", in order to be exact; the same principle stands, though!

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

#419

Post by yibg »

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…

"Mother" being a no no doesn't both you?

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

#420

Post by low_tech_love »

rippercushions wrote: post #325
low_tech_love wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This phenomenon is known as a purity spiral, and here's a great story about one tearing an online knitting community to shreds. In game theory terms, objecting to something was now always a dominant strategy, and rejecting an allegation of racism was always a losing strategy. Inevitably, a ratchet effect took hold in which those with the most strident vision of what ‘diversity’ meant were effectively handed the keys…

Nice, thanks for the link. ”Moral outbidding” is also a great term, very clear and expressive.
Post reply on HN