The case of swearing discredits this whole article. It’s banned from places, and it’s still used widely. There are people who don’t like it, there are people who use them constantly. Just like the topic of this article. Another thing is that this topic is a discussion in law in the past 100 years in different forms. Just because the public didn’t care until now it doesn’t mean that there wasn’t discussion. There were…
Banning words won’t make the world more just
531–540 of 1001 posts
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#532What 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…
So the reasoning behind such language might be to include people who are not technically blind, but still require similar consideration, assistence, infrastructure and so on.
Language is odd here. The public used to call neurodivergent people "retarded" till the word had developed such a negative connotation that you wouldn't be able to use the word when adressing actual neurodivergent people without feeling like you are swearing. Of course that negative connotation didn't come out of nowhere, it is an expression of the way society looks (or looked) at the people it described. Of course people who live with mentally disabled people (or mentally disabled people themselves) often self-label themselves as "retarded" very bluntly and not without some sense of humour. But a bit like with race there are certain things you can say when you are part of the minority, that might not be okay to say when you are part of the majority.
When I was a kid people would constantly call something or someone "retarded", my niece's generation talks about how that is not okay. And they don't do it out of political correctness, but because they truly don't think neurodivergent behavior is something anybody should have to be ashamed of.
But of course there are also people who don't go that deep and just want to not offend anyone (good luck with that). They are the people who will feel uncomfortable when they describe something that isn't part of their perfect little world.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It not even a majority that dictates. It’s ostensibly a vocal minority of professional offence-takers who wield power, generally on social media. My partner has MS, and I made an off-the-cuff joke about it, and got pilloried by people that neither of us know. Not one of them took the time to consider that this is how we deal with it; they were too busy being offended on her behalf.
A role that used to be filled (in Ireland) by priests and nuns, and the Legion of Mary. One of the big problems I used to have with religion was the moral policing - imagine my surprise when the power of the church waned, but the moral policing only intensified
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#534This perfectly describes what's going on. Rather than working on the actual problem, the people gunning for purifying language are yak shaving. I think we all recognise the good intentions, but how do we convince the people with good intentions that they're solving the wrong problem? Sounds like the classic case of a startup not talking to their customers :)
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>Some states that introduced trans sports bans couldn't even cite a single person the bill would affect. Tenesee introduced their bill to ban a single person. Who wasn't even close to the top of her discipline. It's all political posturing. This argument works in reverse as well though. People don't want to throw out the idea of gender to appease a select few. There is a multitude of things that are simply unfair acc…
Also, I get your argument, but the entire premise of trans women stealing college sports trophies is false. It's a bit dependent on specific discipline and how well you manage to retain muscle (it's much harder, and once you lost it, it's gone for good), but generally HRT levels the playing field enough that the olympic comittee, who I trust much more on this than the local republican, does not object to participation.
Also, I'd like to point out that the major parts in high end athlete performance are already down to "unfair accidents of birth", even if you don't introduce gender to the issue. A tall person will always have an edge playing basketball.
I find it entirely unconvincing that a trans person would solely transition to cheat at sports. The GDR tried something comparable to this hypothetical and the female athletes unknowingly exposed to androgens seemed pretty unhappy about the outcome. So I don't see why you don't see any theoretical advantage on the same spectrum of "unfair accidents of birth". These supposed advantages certainly aren't severe enough that trans women beat cis women consistently.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Yes, we humans have millions of years ready subtle signals, but we are also really fucking bad at reading minds and knowing what others are thinking. Thus, by clarifying with things like actual words in a direct and non-confrontational way we can actually communicate and understand.
I don't know why people are so keen to get me in some kind of "gotcha!" when it's pretty simple what I'm suggesting. Like since when has the intention of wanting to be sure that you're not offending someone become a replacement for inept social person who can't read subtle signs?
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could You Make Tropic Thunder Today? w/Robert Downey Jr. | Joe Rogan (12m views, from 2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ugC3TXSKoE tl;dw - Nope. Ain't that some shit?
Monty Python said the same thing about Life of Brian, another great classic for the ages!
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#538What unfortunately is present is the way disabled people are perceived, intellect-wise. I can talk of two examples: a wheel-chaired guy in my team, and my wife who got progressively disabled due to MS.
The way they are addressed is different from the way others are addressed; It seems that people will be less inclined to argue with them (because god knows what can happen to these feeble people, who should also be shielded from this because of their physical disability that also affects their intellect), but also treat them more child-like.
This is infuriating because they are progressively pushed away from the normal interactions in life (for their own good, poor beings) and there is not much they can do to avoid this.
My wife still has the character she had but somehow cannot express it anymore because her interactions get so washed down that it is disturbing to watch. Her disability is not that visible yet so she still has some time, but the guy in my team is really fed up with that.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#539Whaaaat? 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.
1) Please show me an engineer who mistakes the meaning of the term "blacklist" in, say, an ACL system
2) The newspeak terms are no less ambiguous. Are the items on the list allowed exclusively or are they just granted special privilege like source IPs from which no authentication is required? Without context, which is provided by the surrounding system in any case, "block/allow" is just as nebulous as "black/white" Plus, it's one example among many. What ambiguity did "master" branches in repos confer?
3) Problems with ambiguity were not the reason given to introduce such changes. The reason given was that using the newspeak would someohow improve the lives of people experiencing racism, a claim for which I am still waiting for any concrete examples showcasing its validity
> Hey not all change is bad
As shown above, the change didn't solve any problems or provide tangible improvements, so it becomes change for changes sake, which is bad, always, under all circumstances, period.
Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
Following up on this I wonder if Tropic Thunder (2008), a relatively new movie could be made today.
Could You Make Tropic Thunder Today? w/Robert Downey Jr. | Joe Rogan (12m views, from 2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ugC3TXSKoE tl;dw - Nope. Ain't that some shit?