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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by golemotron »

molsongolden wrote: post #472
golemotron wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's worse than that. It's a way of signaling. When I started to read the article I hoped that it would mention Steven Pinker's Euphemism Treadmill. I was disappointed. The short story is that changing language is a quick way of differentiating an in-group from a…

Looked up the Steven Pinker article and it was an interesting read. Written in 1994 but could have been written yesterday. [PDF] https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyo...

'Purity Spirals' are a related concept.

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

#492

Post by YeBanKo »

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…

From non-native speaker perspective, it sounds like it also obscured the truth: visually challenged can still consume visual info, blind - can’t. For the former larger fonts, adapted color palette, simplified graphics, etc can be useful, for the latter no amount of adaptations will work and you have to completely switch to audio or tactile mode of communication.

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

#493

Post by wonderwonder »

hutzlibu wrote: post #481
wonderwonder wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending. Minorities don't need white Knights to save them, neither do the disabled. If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. But a group of academics should not be able to sit around and decide…

[flagged]

There are always exceptions and genocide is very obviously one. I was referring more to the socially constructed self inflicted battles society has been engaging in lately.

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

#494

Post by vasco »

mnsc wrote: post #487
vasco wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does tell us many things, you're being obtuse on purpose. If someone is disabled you know they generally suffer from some health issue which is serious enough and probably chronic, to afford them that status by the state. Among this umbrella you have many common things like, they can probably park closer to doors, if they are disabled. I'm not sure why people just pretend things are not how they are when discussin…

If you are blind, are you disabled? And if you are blind can you park closer to doors?

Yes if you are blind you have a disability, as per almost every developed country's rules. My mom isn't even fully blind and pays less tax due to her disability status, she is officially disabled.

Regarding parking closer to doors, I said "probably" and that was literally to illustrate that there is an umbrella that covers most cases even if there's edge cases. Obviously there are people with disabilities that don't even allow them to leave their bed so they can't drive. I think the most accurate part of my previous comment was about you being intentionally obtuse.

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

#495

Post by _0ffh »

recuter wrote: post #382
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 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…

As you mention Blind Fury, do you know of the Zatoichi movie franchise [1], which is about a blind swordsman wandering Japan around the Edo to Meiji period? Really good films! (Blind Fury is a reimagining of the 17th movie in the series, Zatoichi Challenged.)

[1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Franchise/Zatoichi

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

#496

Post by parineum »

makeitdouble wrote: post #427
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 difficult part of this being, some of the 100% blind people effectively don’t like the word and don’t want to be called blind. Then some people are ‘only’ 80% blind, and don’t want to be called blind. Then some family members of blind people don’t want the word to be used. I think it’s pretty common phenomenon, like the people who call themselves “black”, those who are called “black” but hate it, and everyone in…

The answer is for people to make their preferences known and not hold it against people what is not done with malice.

It's pretty simple.

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

#497

Post by lukeramsden »

JenrHywy wrote: post #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 see…

> 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.

One might say that the reason is because this is seemingly becoming harder than ever in Western countries.

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

#499

Post by realjhol »

They are "putting the woke away" now. Alienating your population isn't a winning strategy for the regime, especially if you're going to need their kids to fight your wars.

Notice how Black History Month was dialed right back this year.

The woke will go away, but none of the equally and speech laws that lead to this mess are going anywhere.

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

#500

Post by hardlytrueisit »

hutzlibu wrote: post #481
wonderwonder wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending. Minorities don't need white Knights to save them, neither do the disabled. If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. But a group of academics should not be able to sit around and decide…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN