Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

541–550 of 701 posts

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

#541

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

#542

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

#543

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

#544

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…

I’m at UW - mentioned in the article. It’s rampant and absurd here. I can’t wait to get out. This place has only driven me right politically.

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

#545
> Public criticism led Stanford to abolish outright its Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative—not for being ridiculous, but, the university announced, for being “broadly viewed as counter to inclusivity.”

Ha, that's a great point. The language meant to broaden inclusivity actually erects barriers to inclusivity by excluding those who have never heard the words or the arguments justifying them, and the people excluded are largely marginalized groups to begin with (poor, uneducated, etc.). So basically, inclusive language is classist at the very least.

I also think a lot of equity language is a barrier to communication, and that's its biggest problem. Possible offense should not be an impediment to clarity, as long as we're all being charitable. The loss of the default assumption of charity is the real problem here.

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

#546
post #463
post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, 'disabled' is just the euphemism you grew up with, so it feels neutral enough. The euphemism treadmill has a long history. At some point cripple used to be the neutral term for many kinds of disabled. It's long been deemed offensive. Similar with idiot or retard. Give it a few decades, and all of the 'people first language' will perhaps turn into neutral and then offensive, too. (I am writing the above dis…

'Idiot' is a particularly good example of how pointless it all is. "Person of idiocy" is probably still offensive, so 'people-first language' doesn't really do anything.

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

#547
post #289

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…

Distance worries me too.

A school I would visit had a native American name for their sports teams. I attended a game where they opened the season with local tribe members singing, and drumming, the dedicated it to the coach of the opposing team who died during off season. If you've never heard Native American music live in person you really should, it's like nothing else.

Several local tribes supported the school using the name, but one chose not to. The school the had to use another name, logo, etc.

It struck me how nothing seemed to be gained except distance ....

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

#548
post #318

Earlier 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 is unusual for the opinions of the minorities involved to be relevant.The language policing appears to be a power play within the majority. That is so true. Often the stated goal is to deconstruct society, not to help any minority.

[deleted]

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

#549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What made the first term imperfect? Who decided what was preferable later?

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

#550
I'm actually a bit torn on this. On the one hand it does seem to be very silly but also ironically enough excluding certain groups (religious and social outcasts).

On the other I think there is a valid point in looking over how language is used and what implications it has.

But to try and over correct it with new words is like trying to add another layer of paper to make the boat not leak. Since instead of saying you are a retard, now you just say: person with mental challenges.

It has the same result when used as an insult, it stigmatizes people with "retardation" and it still insults the other person.

Post reply on HN