Banning words won’t make the world more just • Hacker News Board

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

#581

Post by lynx23 » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:32 AM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #451

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 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…

Web accessibility is indeed a very important thing for people like me. I am aware we are a very small minority with rather special needs in this regard, but believe me, investing in accessibility and therefore allowing people with visual and motor disabilities to interact with the digital world can have unexpectedly wonderful consequences for those benefiting from it. It is not often that I manage to pull tech people into this topic such that it actually lasts, but the few I know have made quite a difference. I am pretty thrilled to hear I might have sparked an interest in web accessibility in you. Thanks for caring! Its a wonderful rabbit hole.

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

#582

Post by kgwgk » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:33 AM UTC

slackdog wrote: post #389

zmgsabst wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our entire group of animals is named after tits: Mammals. How can referring to the fact people have what our entire branch of the tree of life is named after be offensive?

Incidentally not all mammals have nipples. Male kangaroos don't.

Time for some class-affirming surgery then.

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

#583

Post by naniwaduni » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #558

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…

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

Do anglos read Kiev and Kyiv particularly differently in the first place? In any case, it sounds further from a normative Ukrainian pronunciation than Caillou.

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

#584

Post by DeathArrow » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:35 AM UTC

>When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors replaces felon with justice-involved person, it is making an ideological claim—that there is something illegitimate about laws, courts, and prisons.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate, thoughtful and sensible to use the term "justice oppressed person instead"?

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

#585

Post by recuter » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:38 AM UTC

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]

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

#586

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

JenrHywy wrote: post #286

tastysandwich wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" Calling my wife a "birthing person" just made her feel like some gross vessel for having a baby. We purposefully chose providers that didn't use that language. "Chestfeeding" is another one that's cropping up and makes zero sense. Men have breasts, so breastfeeding is already gender-neutral. But it's seen as female-centric so out th…

> 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…

I sometimes feel this is some nefarious plan to reconstruct a new masculinity. It won't be as "toxic" as the old version, but we'll be back on top.

I've heard "menstruators", "birthing persons", "chest feeding", "vulva havers". I've heard lots of debate about letting trans women compete. Debate about allowing trans women into women's toilets. Or arguing the sincerity of men who claim to identify as women as they are about to be sentenced to jail time.

But men are largely still men. I've never heard "penis havers", or "vertical urinators". Perhaps I would if I hung about in certain circles. No one is worried in the slightest about letting trans men compete in men's sport. Or letting trans men into men's toilets or spaces ...

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

#587

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#588

Post by DeathArrow » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:42 AM UTC

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…

No matter what you say and how you say it there can be people who might want to feel offended.

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

#589

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:43 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #572

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 think it’s a consequence of the well-intentioned, but foolish idea of “bias toward action” that doing something is good and not doing something is bad or complicit. When people see something bad-discrimination against disabled- they want to improve the situation but don’t know what to do. So they do something, anything without considering if the action is effective or if the best course is to do nothing. So making…

It's a superficial thing to complain about, because it's rare that isn't linked to action - from dropping kerbs, to adding lifts and ramps, to building special toilets for wheelchair users.

It's questionable how many of these things would have happened if the language wasn't made memorable.

Of course it irritates people who would prefer not to think about these things - because it's supposed to.

There's actually far more us/them divisive language on the right. Even if you hate progressive tropes and don't always agree with the politics they're at least making an effort to be inclusive.

Right wing language is always irredeemably divisive - usually aggressively so. Frequently with outright contempt, and sometimes with normalisation of violence.

And it makes no attempt to be anything else.

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

#590

Post by hutzlibu » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:44 AM UTC

hardlytrueisit wrote: post #500

hutzlibu wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Well, the nazis and jews and the evaluation of the events is a quite clear example.

The jews went into the death camps, because no one came to save them and they had no chance on their own at that time.

There are not many people debating this, I supposed. (but might have been wrong)

That's why choose this example and not to discuss about Hitler.

Where on the other hand your example, is pretty much debatable, like you see on the reactions.

So why on earth, are you lecturing me about HN from a green account?