Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

Yeah, it's like a competition between the worst of two groups of people as to who can change them more and skew the language, or lack of it, in their ideological direction.

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

#552

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…

> people who prefer unordered data. I think "list" is a much more non-inclusive term than that, since you are either on the list, or you're not. /s

Excuse me I have a tendency to drift to the left when I walk and I immediately assume you can only be using the word “list” to mock me.

Please refrain from using this offensive language.

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

#553

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…

Identity politics is not unintentional. Those indoctrinated into it may be unaware but the intention is to divide us.

[deleted]

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

#555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was looking around for societal battles that were not socially constructed. But I guess I'm visually impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?

I was looking around for something that is not socially constructed. But I guess I am socio-constructually visio-impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?

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

#556
post #415
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…

Even worse, some people will use "people of determination" despite being more vague and non-descriptive

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

#557

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…

Identity politics is not unintentional. Those indoctrinated into it may be unaware but the intention is to divide us.

What if we all just stopped for a second and realized that no matter what "side" we're on, we're all just human beings? Namaste.

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

#558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

>Kiev to Kyiv

Why is this an instance of the phenomenon? Isn't Kyiv closer to what a Ukrainian would say?

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

#559
post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, wi…

>"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.

I'm supposing some people might be more anxious about it than others, and in different contexts. If you see a lot of stuff in the news about people saying things you might have said and getting hounded for it that might make you super anxious - you don't know the etiquette anymore!!

I mean people get anxious about getting robbed when they read a robbery happened, why shouldn't they get anxious about having their life destroyed for something they said if they read someone got their life destroyed in that way.

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

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love reading this stuff to figure out what new words elite white people have for me. Apparently I’m not a “minority” or a “naturalized citizen” anymore, and my kids aren’t “second generation Americans.”

I'm involved in local politics in Oak Park, IL, also known as the People's Republic of Oak Park, 85.5% Clinton in '16, 72% college educated, median income about $15k higher than Evanston, and I have never heard any of these words in the elite white conversations I am continually dragged into. These guides get published to give The Groups something to do. Very few people in the real world --- yes, even the elite white…

> capitalizing Black, which is something our mutual fave John McWhorter has been advocating for some time

Is this sarcasm? I am not quite sure what this is supposed to convey.

Post reply on HN