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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by exodust »

SyzygistSix wrote: post #633
messe wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sanity check" is flagged there as well. That's a first for me.

I recently had a comment on another site flagged by a bot for using ableist language when I used the world "insane". It was a first for me as well. Will go with "batshit" next time.

It's insane there's backroom string-pullers trying to take out words like insane.

Rick from Pawn Stars uses the word, so it's good enough for me! He often describes certain amazing facts or objects as insane. Because he likes those things. It can be positive.

Is the motivation to onboard "use this list or be on wrong side of ethics and get nasty reviews"? there's an element of that.

Microsoft 360, all that new stuff, surprised to find shiny new morality-checker sitting alongside the spellchecker. Watching over my every word. I unchecked 5000 checkboxes to disable it all. Auto-nicer-word enforcer is not for me.

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

#762

Post by layer8 »

Version467 wrote: post #635
imgabe wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no graphic designer or artist, they look brown to me. They still sell them at Walmart: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Self-Standing-Lunch-B...

I could be wrong, but I think the parent comment is just a reference to the fact that brown doesn't exist. There's no wavelength that our brains map to brown. Instead what we perceive as brown is just orange, but less bright. And wether we see it as brown or dark orange depends entirely on context.

Colors isn’t the same as wavelengths, though. Two different colors having the same wavelength isn’t a contradiction. Similarly, different wavelength mixes can constitute the same color, because the human eye only has three color receptors.

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

#763

Post by cassianoleal »

cassianoleal wrote: post #194
blahblah1234567 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Latine and LatinX both originate in (different geographical parts of) the spanish-first-language I doubt it. Having lived in Latin America, Latin American social norms are influenced by Catholicism and their societies are more conservative & traditionalist than the US and Europe. The vast majority of people in Latin American countries (outside of Costa Rica & Chile) struggle with academic achievement (including lite…

> The vast majority of people in Latin American countries (outside of Costa Rica & Chile) struggle with academic achievement (including literacy levels), adequate n utrition, enviornmental pollution. Do they? • Literacy rate: The average for 2020 based on 7 countries was 93.91 percent.The highest value was in Colombia: 95.64 percent and the lowest value was in El Salvador: 89.98 percent. https://www.theglobaleconomy.…

The last link (pollution) got pasted wrong. This is the reference I wanted to use: https://ourworldindata.org/outdoor-air-pollution#share-expos...

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

#764

Post by boomboomsubban »

lynx23 wrote: post #501
boomboomsubban wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From spending time with students of my local school for the blind and visually impaired, I am under the impression "blind" and "visually impaired" are seperate things. Some of the people I knew seemed to care about the distinction, so it seems better to stick with something neutral until I am sure.

Sure, but I was not refering to the somewhat blurry distinction between blind and visually impaired. I am well aware there is a spectrum. I was talking about my own experience, and that is limited to being pitch-black-darkness-blind myself.

Of course, but I was also talking about my own experience. If I randomly met you I would be hesitant to call you "blind" until I knew more about you. It stems from a young man being very angry at being called "blind" when he could see.

Rereading your post, it sound like people are unwilling to call you blind even after you tell them you are, so we may be talking about different things.

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

#765

Post by andsoitis »

perilunar wrote: post #690
Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly related: in German, a strange thing happened at the end of the last century. Disabled people used to be called "behindert" (might be translated as "impeded" or "hindered"). I think the word was a good choice, because it took the blame away from people, and just described that they had to overcome bigger obstacles because of their situation. In the eighties or nineties, people started to use the term as a slu…

English has "handicapped" which is similar and also became offensive. I thought it was a good word because it allowed for more nuance than the binary abled/disabled.

Ha, I wasn’t aware that “handicapped” is considered offensive. Is that an American thing? A British thing?

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

#767

Post by ThunderSizzle »

Version467 wrote: post #635
imgabe wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no graphic designer or artist, they look brown to me. They still sell them at Walmart: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Self-Standing-Lunch-B...

I could be wrong, but I think the parent comment is just a reference to the fact that brown doesn't exist. There's no wavelength that our brains map to brown. Instead what we perceive as brown is just orange, but less bright. And wether we see it as brown or dark orange depends entirely on context.

This seems like a needless distinction though.

If people refer to a certain segment/shade of orange as brown in both normal discussions, art, interior design, etc., then it's brown.

It's an interesting tidbit of knowledge, but it's a useless correction and needless distinction.

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

#768

Post by throway33 »

Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #663
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…

Slightly related: in German, a strange thing happened at the end of the last century. Disabled people used to be called "behindert" (might be translated as "impeded" or "hindered"). I think the word was a good choice, because it took the blame away from people, and just described that they had to overcome bigger obstacles because of their situation. In the eighties or nineties, people started to use the term as a slu…

"Invalid" used to be used in English in the 19th century. I see it in old books sometimes; had to look it up the first time. It's not a great word choice and sounds more like an illegal immigrant status or something.

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

#769

Post by ThunderSizzle »

bilalnpe wrote: post #365
nonethewiser wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reeks of criticizing others for your own faults. Someone who makes 12k is poor. If this is offensive to someone then clearly they have a low opinion of poor people. Yet everyone else is reprimanded for it.

I don't have an issue with using the term poor to describe people lacking money but it has other definitions and uses. The second and third definitions I get from define:poor on Google are: - worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality. - (of a person) considered to be deserving of pity or sympathy. I suspect these might be why the term is discouraged.

Are you seriously asserting when people say "poor people", they do so in a non-poverty manner and use it instead to describe people as inferior?

Also, people in poverty should be deserving of sympathy and charity. Is that now suddenly offensive that people should want to help others that are less fortunate than themselves? If you are in a position where you need help, part of your responsibility is to humble yourself and let people help you (while not eradicating you're personal responsibility either). Someday you may be the one to give charity, and it's also just as insulting and disheartening when your charity is rejected out of pride.

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

#770

Post by andsoitis »

kenjackson wrote: post #754
account42 wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which dominant group isn't subject to slurs?

Everyone is subject to slurs. That’s not what I’m referencing. I’m talking about the use of language where you use the less-dominant group as a negative reference point. For example “retarded”. Or “fag”. You apply those terms to people who are neither as a way of disparaging them.

I’m gay. Whether someone calls me fag or gay or LGBTQI+ (this one I hate more that “fag”, BTW) is orthogonal to:

a) how they treat me

b) whether they would actually stick their neck out for me when it really matters (e.g. marriage equality).

I will almost universally guarantee that the same person who insists on non-offensive language for me would NOT fight for marriage equality if it means they have to give up something or risk something. True ally.

Post reply on HN