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

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

Post by Pigalowda »

tptacek wrote: post #283
rayiner wrote: post #249

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

#722

Post by jraph »

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…

> Offense is a you problem, not a me problem

Most definitely not. Of course people need to work on themselves to avoid being offended.

But if you communicate with other people, it's because you want to achieve something. Probably not offending the target (or else fuck you I guess ;-)). So, usually, offense gets in the way, so you should care about not offending your target. And beyond this, as human beings, we usually care not to hurt other human beings.

It's a we problem.

> no matter the practicality or reality of the situation.

Do you have example of this? Of course you are expected to show some empathy/sympathy, but I've never seem people impose unrealistic expectations.

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

#723

Post by BrandoElFollito »

Nemrod67 wrote: post #700
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

écriture inclusive is basically non-existent in France, whee did you see it except on some university pages that wanted to be "ahead of their time"? It is BTW forbidden by the ministry of education. Which other words have we incorporated? Un handicapé is a disabled person. We do not have any "mobility challenged" words. Aveugle is blind, malvoyant is vision impaired (which is not the same, one being an extreme of the…

Guess you never heard the joke about the Education Nationale using the term "Référentiel Bondissant" to designate balloons/balls... Quick search indicates it was used by the Grenoble academy at one point in the 2000s XD

This is indeed unexpected (details at https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/05/26/referentiel-reb..., in French obviously).

This said there has always been some insanities here and there in the administration - but they remain funny. I know "outil scripteur" for instance (this is a pen)

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

#724

Post by naasking »

> 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

#725

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

eru wrote: post #608
Lazare wrote: post #415

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

#726

Post by duxup »

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…

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

#727

Post by [deleted] »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #467
roenxi wrote: post #413

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

#728

Post by ShredKazoo »

bigbluedots wrote: post #616
bandie91 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. the embryo/fetus inside the mother's body is not the mother's body. 2. it is not the mother's body, but it's completely dependent on it to live. 3. parents have and have to have natural responsibility over their offspring. 4. the society establishment (both secular and religious) are there to protect society's norm. 5. not killing innocent humans is a social norm. 6. the embryo/fetus is a human. 7. saying that som…

I'm unsure if you're joking, so I'll bite: if 6 is true (a fetus is a human), then is a zygote a human? Can a human be a single cell? Of course not.

This angle works in the other direction as well: Is a newborn a human? If yes, is a baby in the process of being born a human? If yes, is a baby who will be born in a week a human?

My understanding is that opinion polls show most people have a moderate opinion on abortion, which seems pretty reasonable given that "becoming human" is something that happens in a continuous manner over a 9-month period.

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

#729

Post by jraph »

red1reaper wrote: post #720
jraph wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Repeating the name over and over would be cumbersome.

I would agree with always using a genderless pronoun, the gender should almost never matter, but I would probably be in for endless debates if I started to do this now.

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

#730

Post by slingnow »

Arainach wrote: post #596
ShredKazoo wrote: post #354

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?
Post reply on HN