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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by wholinator2 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #629
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…

I have been told in no uncertain terms that the word “minority” is offensive, as it has come to have pejorative use. No alternative term was suggested, rather that one should refer to specific groups of people with their specific terms, and never generalise. Additionally, “white knight” I have also been told off for, for the reasons you might expect. In both of these cases (actually, almost every case I can think of)…

I feel like, Materially Unencumbered Birth Gives of Reduced Melanin, is approaching an actual usable acronym for the typical pejorative, Karen. I bet chatgpt could bridge the gap

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

#742

Post by somenameforme »

imoverclocked wrote: post #445
Sunspark wrote: post #360

In my life, I have been deaf, hearing impaired, hard of hearing, hearing challenged. I suppose at some point I will be acoustically disadvantaged. You know what? At the end of the day, I'm still deaf. It's true. I have limitations that others take for granted. If I can't see someone speaking or if I'm out of batteries, we aren't going to be communicating well. That's pretty deaf. I won't be offended, it's just realit…

> Character and intent is what matters. This. I recently ran up against a filter on Reddit where I used a phrase that I was completely unaware of. My account was flagged for hate speech. The comment had no ill-intent. The problem with language is that we want individual words to have inherent meaning but as people adopt phrases to identify a movement, those meanings get carried along for the ride. eg: until recently,…

I would not take claims of something being a "dog whistle" at face value. The entire concept has largely been weaponized and bastardized, appropriately enough as a means of effecting language policing. A perfect example is over the past several years how the media spent quite a lot of energy dedicated to convincing people that "America first" was some sort of a secret dog whistle. [1] The "logic", so far as it can be called that, runs that e.g. the KKK also liked this concept and slogan. So if you like this concept and slogan you're therefore somehow secretly dog whistling for the KKK. It's just a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. If the head of the KKK really liked Honey Nut Cheerios then I suppose that also becomes a secret dog whistle?

It's simply a way to attack things without actually considering what's being said. I think if you polled Americans, white/black/brown/blue/green and orange, almost all would agree that the government should put the interests of the country and the people above the interests of other countries and the people of other countries. But in a world where political power emerges from divisions in society, that sort of unity is dangerous. So rather than attack the idea, which would be likely to backfire, they instead chose to attack our language. And it was successful. People who still believe anything the media says became cautious about advocating for things like 'America first', because they didn't want to be seen as e.g. endorsing the KKK.

By contrast those who are actively skeptical of the media, mostly disregarded what they did and continued to happily advocate for 'America first.' Now the members from the other group not only were no longer comfortable saying 'America first', but even began to see those as advocating for it as secret racists, or even KKK advocates. Divisions widened, policy destroyed (or at least made into a partisan affair), language policed, mission succeeded.

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/21/end-of-the-ame...

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

#743

Post by rayiner »

ShredKazoo wrote: post #354
rayiner wrote: post #233

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.

No, “people of color” is now in the “past” as Sierra Club says. The “preferred term today” is “BIPOC” which acknowledges that black and indigenous people are more important than other “people of color.” I don’t remember Asians signing off on this change request; I doubt Hispanics did either.

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

#744

Post by account42 »

kenjackson wrote: post #684
coldtea wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thi…

This line is probably smaller than it may appear. The reason much of this language policing started is because of the dominant group using language to reinforce the inferiority of a less powerful group. It’s always easier for the dominant group to say “it’s just words — no one cares” since the words are never at their expense.

Which dominant group isn't subject to slurs?

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

#745

Post by docmars »

fleddr wrote: post #658

We should spend less time on the crazy outcomes of these institutes and more time on why they can even exist in the first place. They are somehow funded yet not accountable to anyone. Nobody asked for this, it doesn't help anyone, and it cannot survive the most basic scrutiny of the public or market. And yet it exists and even grows. Rather than playing whack-a-mole with outcomes, the underlying mechanism should be e…

Not to mention, the amount of violence committed by members of these outrage groups against whoever stands in their way - primarily towards the "offending" group or class they're prejudiced against, particularly whites, males, and straight sexual orientation.

Worse, this violence often goes unaccounted for with impunity, without penalty, because people are terrified of the consequences of criticizing these groups, whether that's losing friends, family, or jobs that are too closely attached to these justice movements, while quite blatantly refusing to acknowledge that these movements have grifted the crap out of our world, as we find that their leaders and spokespeople are everything from: disingenuous scammers using donation money entirely for self-serving purposes that do not advance their cause, all the way to being convicted child sex traffickers (Fox: BLM, reports from 2020).

But to condemn these movements for these reasons is nearly suicide in a society obsessed with staying in line with the "current thing", without scrutiny.

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

#746

Post by meany »

jraph wrote: post #717
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In general, creating division between classes, races, religious groups presents opportunities for individuals to gather power by taking up the cause for one group. By establishing an “other” you have an enemy to rally support for your leadership. This is the basis of power for every demagogue from the Cleon in Athens to Joe McCarthy and the American Red Scare. This is also a core theme in Orwell’s 1984.

In the context of the OPs topic, there are those who honestly are trying to improve the world, but many people have new found careers and political power created by the division on both the Right and Left.

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

#747

Post by lapcat »

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. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones"

I think you miss the point of "sticks and stones". The point is not that it's ok to say whatever you want to anyone else. The point of "sticks and stones" is not to let other people bring down your self-esteem.

Other people will intentionally try to denigrate you. They'll call you "stupid". They'll call you "ugly". Or they may call you a racial slur. That's all unacceptable. That's a "me" problem for the speaker. The point of "sticks and stones", on the other hand, is to resist internalizing these external insults and degradations. It's to put on a virtual suit of armor to protect you from verbal attacks — and let's be clear, they're real attacks.

You don't just "accidentally" beat someone with physical sticks and stones, right? The intention is to hurt, to break their bones, as it were. That's the analogy, with intentionally hurtful words.

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

#748

Post by nine_k »

kenjackson wrote: post #698
nine_k wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But interpreting someone's words in the most uncharitable way possible is an ancient sport, intended to slight and annoy the opponent, when finding reasonable, material objections fails. It's just an ancient hold of wresting in the (verbal) mud. It sort of gives the party who successfully pulled it an upper hand. Now that these wrestlers found out that they can persuade the public that the most uncharitable interpret…

And to be clear, these uncharitable interpretations go far beyond word policing. The one that actually annoys me the most is “analogy policing”. If I say “would you be ok if i stole your bike”. And then your response is “now you’re equating me to a bike thief!” Or “ you’re trivializing This to bike theft?!” We can’t have discussions because every phrase is taken as a way to win an argument. IMO this is far worse than…

It's almost as if the goal of winning an argument might contradict the goal of coming closer to truth, or to an agreement.

Much like bringing a knife to a gunfight, attempting to seek truth during a status-assertion contest is not very efficient.

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

#749

Post by jimbokun »

Robotbeat wrote: post #409
jimbokun wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s perfectly simple, until you lose track of the distinction between sex and gender.

The distinction between sex and gender wasn’t really made until the 1940s and 1950s in parts of academia. The idea of them as separate ideas is sort of a modern invention.

When did terms like "tomboy" come into vogue?

The idea of a person of one sex displaying common gender characteristics of the other sex is very old.

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

#750

Post by tpoacher »

imoverclocked wrote: post #445
Sunspark wrote: post #360

In my life, I have been deaf, hearing impaired, hard of hearing, hearing challenged. I suppose at some point I will be acoustically disadvantaged. You know what? At the end of the day, I'm still deaf. It's true. I have limitations that others take for granted. If I can't see someone speaking or if I'm out of batteries, we aren't going to be communicating well. That's pretty deaf. I won't be offended, it's just realit…

> Character and intent is what matters. This. I recently ran up against a filter on Reddit where I used a phrase that I was completely unaware of. My account was flagged for hate speech. The comment had no ill-intent. The problem with language is that we want individual words to have inherent meaning but as people adopt phrases to identify a movement, those meanings get carried along for the ride. eg: until recently,…

I find it highly unlikely that Scott Adams is a "dark dog whistle" kinda guy.

At best the most I'd believe would be that "some people who Scott Adams pissed off now like to say that when he says X he actually means Y".

Post reply on HN