Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591
post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suffer from a disability and so does my girlfriend. Note that our main language is French and so there is a bit of nuance to how the terms are used. Disabled is usually said "handicapé" (this word means more "incapacitated" that anything) and "person with a disability" is usually said "personne en situation de handicap" which more literally translates to "person in a disability situation" / "person currently incapa…

> If you break your legs and spend a few months in a wheelchair, you might not feel legitimate to use the term "disabled" in comparison to someone who has never been able to walk and suffers more from it. I would say "I am hungry" even if I have food in the fridge, I do not need to compare myself to poor starving people and decide to say "I am currently hungry" or "I am in a situation of hunger" > Not letting that di…

Well, the difference may come from the language. "I am hungry" translates in french to "J'ai faim" using the "have" auxiliary. You "are" hungry in english, but I "have" the hunger, in french.

So for me your example does not count as a label. Is there no nuance at all between "being hungry" and "being disabled" in english ? If so, you're right, my argument does not stand.

> Imagine calling a midget "A person with less height" or some nonsense like that.

I think midget is pejorative so this is not a very good example. But I don't know much about that so I'll take your argument as if it wasn't at all.

I should have added that this is of course useful in some contexts. If you are talking to a specific person, then changing the language isn't very useful (except if this specific person feels the term is offensive, but that does not mean we should all change how we speek).

Where it is more useful, for example, is when you talk about limitations due to a problem. You are writing an article about height problems ? No need to say it's about dwarfism, there are other small people that might relate. You're a store and design a special help to get objects on high shelves ? No need to call it "dwarf help" or "midget help", but just "help for small people" or even "high shelf help".

In this case this is not about thinking about how to describe a person with a certain medical situation. It is about taking a step back and removing the medical situation altogether.

This applies much more to "deaf"/"hearing impaired" (or whatever, my argument is about generalizing, not about a specific term). A lot more people have difficulty hearing than are completely deaf.

Knowing about it is good. Trying to think about what your language implies is good. Forbidding the usage of words is obviously extreme and bad.

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

#592

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…

> People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me Why is that? I’m genuinely curious. Who should be offended by the word slave ? Is it I, the Slav? The etymology of the word concerns my heritage, and yet I’m not offended. It’s not as though people toying with language today is going to bring back my relatives who died as slaves, nor will it undo the suffering they endured.

Wait, it means slavery implies whites.

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

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat?

Or would have rejected the allies when they came liberating the camps?

Seriously?

As far as I know, the jews and all other surpressed minorities of europe were making great risks, to get information (like from a hidden radio) about the advance of the allies. Because this was the main thing bringing hope.

edit: and sure, it was the gestapo who flagged you and not simply people annoyed by your insulting debate style.

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

#596

The Sierra Club guide is hilarious: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u... . > People of color” has in the past served as a collective term for people who are not white. A preferred term today is “BIPOC” referring to Black, Indigenous and people of color, which provides a unifying term for ease of use while still acknowledging the reality that Black and Indigenous people in the United States…

NAACP stands for "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People". Interesting how "Colored People" was an enlightened term in 1909, but "Colored People" is now out and "People of Color" is the new way to go.

This is the way language and respectful culture evolve. Something can both be an improvement over previous terms and imperfect and thus replaced by something more preferable later.

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

#597
post #3

Is not "equity language" just another form of neocolonialism? How can "rich educated people" rename entire ethnic group (latinx) without their consent? Also there is nothing offensive about being "poor"... Equity language is just another tool to oppress people.

>Equity language is just another tool to oppress people.

And absolutely everything in this World should be about someone oppressing someone else.

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

#598
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…

>It is so weird, because it adds yet another layer of distance between "us" and the "normal" people.

Yeah, and those "sensitive" people also don't seem to get what normal means. It just means "how the majority is supposed to be/the baseline fully functioning state regarding X". It's not a moral judgement if one is not in the normal group regarding some ability.

>Its a weird phenomenon. The longer I watch all of this, and I also mean the gender-language-hacks, I feel like this move has added to the distance between various groups, not made it smaller.

I think the smaller distance is when groups can be relaxed and casual about language - and even joke about their differences.

This is as opposed to hostile (as back in the day regarding e.g. whites against blacks) and overcautious tip-toeing around the other group.

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

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat? Or would have rejected the allies when they came liberating the camps? Seriously? As far as I know, the jews and all other surpressed minorities of europe were making great risks, to get information (like from a hidden radio) about the advance of the allies. Because this was the main thing bringi…

[flagged]

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

#600

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN