Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by jraph »

azangru wrote: post #661
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…

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given perso…

> I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person?

No? Same grammar regardless of who is near, just need to remember which pronouns to designate which people, which:

- is the intuitive one for most people

- the asked pronoun for the few people who have pronouns that don't match your intuition.

(I also have troubles with remembering names, but pronouns are fine)

And for not implying a gender when speaking of someone for who we don't the gender, it's a constant exercise that also does not depend on the vicinity of a given person.

It requires some effort, of course.

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

#712

Post by tsgagnon »

phpisthebest wrote: post #676
azangru wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given perso…

We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicali…

It feels a bit hypocritical to make this sort of proclamation on a social media site with extremely strict moderation.

Almost as though this isn't as simple a topic as "stick and stones" and that everyone has different tolerances for what they'll put up with depending on the setting and context.

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

#713

Post by fidgewidge »

circlefavshape wrote: post #544
fidgewidge wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Policing language and beliefs is a lot older than communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Beliefs, yes. But which part of the Inquisition was specifically about banning long lists of specific words, replacing them with semantically identical equivalents? Perhaps they did it, my history isn't that good, but the wiki page doesn't seem to discuss it much if so.

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

#714

Post by fidgewidge »

josephg wrote: post #519
fidgewidge wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

You don't even have to be offensive. Just give an all hands where the leadership publicly commits to merit-based promotion/hiring, tell people the org is now "mission focussed", stick a few rugs around the place that say "Meritocracy" on them and then get rid of anyone who complains. No offense will be taken by anyone who you don't want to be offended.

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

#715

Post by _cenw »

causi wrote: post #685
_cenw wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's a lot of moral panic about a very small group of people that don't generally win more often Do you have numbers on that? Specifically, that the average transwoman athlete moves neither up nor down in her rankings compared to when she was a man? My personal exposure is purely anecdotal, but I have never heard of someone performing worse against women than they did against men unless they also changed their pref…

Even if you had this data point, transitioning usually comes with higher functioning. I'm not sure how you'd quantify this data.

What I will say is that I know some trans athletes who are extremely average in their fields, and the focus on a few high performers is mostly driven by those that can gain political capital from it.

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

#716

Post by flippinburgers »

tastysandwich wrote: post #242
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…

> 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…

The utterly hilarious defense by the left for a movement that - above all others - is deeply patriarchal in its attempt to overwhelm and wipe out the very concept of "woman".

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

#717

Post by jraph »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #543
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…

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

> the intention is to divide us

Who actually has this intention and why?

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

#718

Post by cesarb »

lynx23 wrote: post #664
Tzela wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested as well. I run a small science club for kids, mainly coding and electronics. Accessibility and being more inclusive is a very old bullet point on my long list of things to do, but I never found a place to start. Do you have any recommendation on where to learn this?

Hard question, because the field so diverse. In a sense, accessibility is much more then just trying to make computers useable for the blind. At a fundamental level, it is about making software flexible enough to be used in different modalities. People with very little motor capabilities are quite capable of looking at a screen, but they need help moving the mouse and perhaps a good predictive onscreen keyboard to be…

> [...] and turning the monitor off is a good way to get your feet wet.

Is it weird that I, as someone with normal sight, had never thought of that as a simple way of testing whether your software (and the whole operating system together with it) works correctly with screen readers? It's like there's some sort of unconscious bias which links typing on a computer with its monitor being turned on.

And I lived through the times when most computers didn't come with any pointing device, which led to most software back then being accessible to keyboard-only users (notable exceptions being things like Paintbrush, which required a mouse), so I understand the link between the lack of a device and software being designed to work well without that device.

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

#719

Post by wonderwonder »

jraph wrote: post #711
azangru wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given perso…

> I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? No? Same grammar regardless of who is near, just need to remember which pronouns to designate which people, which: - is the intuitive one for most people - the asked pronoun for the few people who have pronouns that don't match your intuition. (I also have troubles with remembering names, but pronouns are fine) And f…

I work with maybe 100 people on a consistent basis. I probably know 25 of their names. Many of these interactions are random one offs, large meetings, etc. Many of them are foreign (to me) compounding my difficulty with their names. In addition I'm remote so can't associate names and faces, everyone is just white text on a black background. If any portion of this group started requesting I use varied pronouns I would probably lose my job in short order. Not because I don't care but because I am so incredibly busy I simply don't have the mental reserves to do it. Currently I am regularly working weekends and until 4 in the morning. I'm burnt. To expect me to somehow remember people's pronouns is a mission impossible.

I don't remember individual interactions with many of my coworkers at all, they all blur together.

If work wants me to do it then they'll need to reduce my workload by half just so my mind can absorb it.

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

#720

Post by red1reaper »

jraph wrote: post #711
azangru wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given perso…

> I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? No? Same grammar regardless of who is near, just need to remember which pronouns to designate which people, which: - is the intuitive one for most people - the asked pronoun for the few people who have pronouns that don't match your intuition. (I also have troubles with remembering names, but pronouns are fine) And f…

They requires effort... or just using they left and right for everyone, who needs pronouns when they exists anyway? Or better yet, avoid using pronouns by using the name over and over. That is what I do, not he, not she, not it, not especial ones. Only they, they supremacy.
Post reply on HN