Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

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…

I think the “people-first language” is actually kind of dumb in a lot of cases. Because the idea behind it is not really sound. Shall I now say I have to call a “person who performs plumbing work” to fix my drain because calling them a plumber indicates that they have no worth outside their job? No, that’s not how language has ever worked. Basically for “people-first language” to exist, you have to create a problem t…

[deleted]

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

#512
post #486

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…

[flagged]

If these laws do absolutely nothing, why are you so opposed to them?

>the advantage could not be that extradordinary

Look up the world records or current ranking for male and female athletes for any sport

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

#513
post #311

Wait, brown bag is subtle racism? Somebody needs to explain this to me because I know for a fact I’ve taken lunch to school in paper bags that were literally brown and I have no idea what else this could possibly refer to. Edit: Looked it up: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/theres-more-seattle-bro... > "the phrase 'brown bag' does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understa…

Wow, that's actually the justification people give for this BS?

In that case, we should immediately ban bread, cars and stop using clothing. Because, Nazis ate bread, used cars and wore clothes.

What the hell...

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

#514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Character and intent is what matters. This. I recently ran up against a filter on Reddit where I used a phrase that I was completely unaware of. My account was flagged for hate speech. The comment had no ill-intent. The problem with language is that we want individual words to have inherent meaning but as people adopt phrases to identify a movement, those meanings get carried along for the ride. eg: until recently,…

> I suspect the unease you perceive with people using different terms for blindness are unease with their own attachments to those words. Nah. I think people are just terrified of coming across as a jerk for not knowing the latest non-offensive term for things. Black? African American? Oh black is ok again? Will I get in trouble with HR/Twitter for calling you blind? And if so, what word do I use instead? Do I ask? I…

"Terrified" is a bit much, I think most people just want to get along and are happy to use whatever term is acceptable to those it describes. Our understanding of what those terms are might shift over time, and it may get muddied by well-intentioned people trying a bit hard to avoid offence (or by people clumsily trying to police it) but it's generally progressing fine. And I think as long as you're compassionate, willing to listen and learn it's hard to really fuck up to the point that you're "cancelled" (to the extent that actually exists) unless you're deliberately looking to cause trouble.

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

#515

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…

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 th…

I will concede to you that I was too general in my comment. As an academic myself (with nearly a decade on the senior circles of higher education in a highly developed country), I absolutely agree with you that the main goal of academic work is the pursuit of knowledge. To be honest, I wanted to use the term "academic issue" more as a way to express that the issue is disconnected from the more practical issues of the real world, rather than to mean only the formal, academic world. I was inaccurate in that. You can pursue academic interests and discuss academic issues outside of the university; I think of it as an interchangeable term with "philosophical", for example.

I also agree with you that these issues happen outside of academia. It just so happens that I perceive this specific problem as being academic. The fact that I argue that this is an academic problem does not imply that this only happens in academia (one example does not necessarily generalize to the whole).

And yes, obviously, running towards extremes is not confined to academia; however, my point was that it is more-or-less ok to do it in academic work as long as you do not try to force your extreme views back down to the rest of society (which most academics don't, or if they do, fail). Actually, I'd argue that there is no better way to do it. Research often means pushing things to extreme, and most of its results die gracefully and are replaced with something else that is more reasonable for the current times (or simply gets forgotten). Don't take this wrong, as if I believe that research is useless. In the same way that a startup dies (and must die) if it cannot offer a feasible, interesting, useful product, research also dies (and must die) if its results make sense but are not applicable. No problem there.

The problem begins when the academic issues (whether they are discussed in the university or not) which are being pushed to the extreme in order to test the waters are then being pushed down society's throat aggressively like this, without regards to whoever they trample over on the way. These academic issues are being forcefully, steadily introduced into public and private institutions that have a very real, concrete power over how many people act, behave, work, and communicate. These are (in one way or another) governing agencies that, while they are not the police so to speak, still have under their belt lots of different means and tools to enforce certain things over large groups of people. This is extremely irresponsible of those who think of themselves as drivers in this movement.

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

#516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with... > It's questioning the assumption that the word used is fine throughout history. Bullshit. It forbids questioning of the questioning. That is all it is really about. > "people" always co-opt the motives in the end and make it muddled for their own benefit At least you can concede that point. Which is an enormously important point and more than enough of…

I'm not arguing what is currently happening or the end result, just that from even my own personal perspective I usually want to ask "is this word okay to use around you?" instead of just assuming it as such or automatically making someone else responsible for their feelings around my words. You might ultimately be right, but go down that road enough and these people are usually called "assholes" lol. That phrase isn…

We have millions of years of evolution that allow us to pick up on these subtle signals though. And we are really good at it.

Do you think the worry of always having to ask up front (if xyz is ok) comes from ironically a lack of natural empathy in your case?

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

#517

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…

It’s important to remember, however annoying they are, their side is losing. Look at Dave Chappelle, who was the attempted target of cancellation and Netflix and people buying tickets to his shows completely ignored it. Or JK Rowling, who has been cancelled over and over again, but the latest video game based on her IP is incredibly popular. Twitter doesn’t reflect the real world.

I certainly agree with you, and I do believe this is a very active fight where both sides are going strong. I'm not sure yet that they are losing, but it does feel like it's a worth fight. Of course, whoever is fighting against must also be sharply aware of not letting the fight itself get completely derailed by the opportunist bigots on the other side.

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

#518
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If these laws do absolutely nothing, why are you so opposed to them? >the advantage could not be that extradordinary Look up the world records or current ranking for male and female athletes for any sport

I am still opposed to them because they're driving a moral panic that hurts trans people in other ways, because it's part of a wider drive / overton window shift to making life as a trans person impossible in these states (including declaring our existence as "sexual", banning us from most public places children could be), because there are still some trans people affected (or their ambitions are quelled) and, here's a reason you, who has given me no indication of asking in good faith, should care about: Because cis girls that anyone suspects of being trans are subjected to actual, and i can't believe i'm writing these words, genital inspections. What a stupid question to ask.

And please, stop pretending like trans women and cis men are a 1:1 comparison. We have trans athletes. Use them - in aggregate and not with an anecdote - to make your comparisons and you'll see it's pretty much a normal distribution of performance. In fact, you're making my point for me, because even the most salient of examples still get beaten by cis women. That wouldn't happen if we had this immense disparity.

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

#519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s important to remember, however annoying they are, their side is losing. Look at Dave Chappelle, who was the attempted target of cancellation and Netflix and people buying tickets to his shows completely ignored it. Or JK Rowling, who has been cancelled over and over again, but the latest video game based on her IP is incredibly popular. Twitter doesn’t reflect the real world.

The fact that you can only name a handful of people who survived full frontal attacks (for now) indicates that this is more than merely annoying. The ranks of the cancelled far outnumber them and we should recognize the disturbing historical parallels too. This type of language editing was a key plot point in 1984 because it is the habit of extremely dangerous far left regimes. I feel like the west is in danger of ex…

There’s a cute story I read the other day about an “Offensiveness consultant” who teaches companies how to be just offensive enough on Twitter to make sure woke people don’t want to work at your company. The story is written for comedy - but the more I think about it, the more I wonder might be something people actively do, for all the reasons you’re talking about.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/even-more-bay-area-hou...

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

#520

Whaaaat? I thought so many lives were improved by making devteams replace all usages of "black/whitelist" with "block/allowlist". Well, except for the lives of the users, on-call engineers, 1st and 2nd level tech support, the product owners, and everyone else who had to deal with sudden, unexpected, hard to track bugs resulting from such BS changes. Oh, ofc I apologise for my use of the word "list", which may be hist…

Hey not all change is bad, that one in particular is just less ambiguous.

Really wish we'd take the hint and do some language house keeping, maybe clean up the discrepancy between electrons and current.

Post reply on HN