Banning words won’t make the world more just • Hacker News Board

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

#821

Post by dmonitor » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #79

"Avoid metaphors, which can introduce unneeded baggage." This is my favorite one from UC Irvine's language guide. Nothing better encapsulates the irony and lack of self-awareness most of these guides display. This is clearly not actually about morality - no one in their right mind would argue that someone is racist just because they didn't know the etymology of "cakewalk". And a complete racist could follow these rul…

The fact that they use a metaphor in their ban of metaphors is unintentionally hilarious

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

#822

Post by mrguyorama » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:03 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #641

wonderwonder wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following up on this I wonder if Tropic Thunder (2008), a relatively new movie could be made today.

Someone asked Mel Brooks the same about Blazing Saddles once. "Today? You couldn't even make it then!" We overestimate the effect the this sort of thing has. I imagine someone reading that line is about to talk about the cancelling of some so-and-so, but in almost all cases that is either just a lot of hot air from Twitter or the so-and-so in question is legitimately and obviously actually a bigot.

"Chapelle was canceled!!!" which is why he is selling out stadiums and making millions right?

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

#823

Post by mrguyorama » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #466

recuter wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to recommend a masterpiece of cinema to you called Blind Fury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Fury The realization that it would be pointless, alas, came to me too late. Let me just give you a taste: While serving in Vietnam, American soldier Nick Parker was blinded by a mortar explosion. Rescued by local villagers, he recovered his health and, though he remains blind, was trained to master his other…

Following up on this I wonder if Tropic Thunder (2008), a relatively new movie could be made today.

Ben Stiller himself has commented on the blackface in the movie being a satire of blackface in cinema. There would be no problem with a popular director making that kind of movie today.

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

#824

Post by yamtaddle » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #641

wonderwonder wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following up on this I wonder if Tropic Thunder (2008), a relatively new movie could be made today.

Someone asked Mel Brooks the same about Blazing Saddles once. "Today? You couldn't even make it then!" We overestimate the effect the this sort of thing has. I imagine someone reading that line is about to talk about the cancelling of some so-and-so, but in almost all cases that is either just a lot of hot air from Twitter or the so-and-so in question is legitimately and obviously actually a bigot.

People who say you can't make movies as offensive (or playing as much with offensiveness, anyway) as Tropic Thunder or Blazing Saddles anymore need to look into some of Lloyd Kaufman's output with Troma... the 2020 Shakespeare's Shitstorm is about as wildly-offensive (but maybe to good purpose? I'm still not sure, LOL) as it gets, and even directly targets the (in the pejorative sense) "woke" crowd (plus, like, a lot of other groups, including stuffy conservatives, big business, and shitty bigots) which is one of the riskiest moves a film could make these days, and that's just one of several risky moves it makes. Like, the movie's basically built of risky, boundary-pushing creative choices relating to very-relevant topics, which... might serve some greater, noble whole? Maybe? I think it's trying to, at least.

Now, a wide-release, mainstream movie, that might be true.

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

#825

Post by jmull » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

I hope people realize The Atlantic is baiting us to outrage. For the clicks, of course.

No question, these language guides are pretty absurd (at least to someone my age) and have very doubtful moral value... but these are internal guides, for their own communications. It's the Sierra Club's job to figure that out what language their donors/members (potential or current) want to hear. I have no idea if they are getting it right here, but few of us do, because that's highly domain-specific knowledge and tricky to nail down.

It's downright dishonest and sensationalistic to apply one of these guides to a book like Behind the Beautiful Forevers. What does a communications guide have to do with book authorship?

The article is really just an extended straw man argument. BTW, the first sentence of the Sierra Club guide explains it's intended purpose:

> One of the most visible ways the Sierra Club can demonstrate our commitment to equity, justice, and inclusion is by using respectful, thoughtful language in all of our communications.

But delving into that isn't going to drive a lot of click so they went another way.

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

#826

Post by mrguyorama » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

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…

Even the most progressive of tiktok circles refer to it as "The deaf community" so I have no idea why you think it was renamed.

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

#827

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #823

wonderwonder wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following up on this I wonder if Tropic Thunder (2008), a relatively new movie could be made today.

Ben Stiller himself has commented on the blackface in the movie being a satire of blackface in cinema. There would be no problem with a popular director making that kind of movie today.

I would note (and this was true at the time, too) that there are people that would either fail to make the distinction of “satire” or fail to find its invocation in the case of the particular work a convincing excuse.

I suspect there would be more resistance to the same film now, but its well within what could be made.

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

#828

Post by alexvoda » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

wholinator2 wrote: post #739

yosito wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we all just stopped for a second and realized that no matter what "side" we're on, we're all just human beings? Namaste.

I mean, this sets off my satire alarms but wouldn't that be a worthy goal? We can cynically deride all attempts to connect humanity as worthless hippy mumbo jumbo, and while I think perfect adherence would be impossible, I think a step or two in that direction is both possible and beneficial for us. This cynical attitude (assuming satire) is exactly the type of thing preventing us from making that kind of progress.

Call me a cynic but I am all for that. And afterwards you encounter the flat earthers and the holocaust deniers and the Putins and Alex Jones of the world and all kinds of other extremists in all kinds of extremes of all directions. And then it's not so simple.

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

#829

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

mdpye wrote: post #503

_cenw wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was kind of with you, birthing person does sound pretty obstruse. But then you threw in the (self-described!) theocratic fascist dogwhistle. There are some uses radfems get super upset about that I find useful, though. Like "people with cervixes" if you are asking for cervical cancer screenings. Because increasingly, that affects people who do not feel spoken to if you use the word woman and this adds clarity to wh…

It absolutely does not add clarity. Enough people do not even know what a cervix is, or whether they have one, that it's an obfuscation. One which harms women disproportionately, like most other things radfems get upset about. Go measure the prevalence of "people with prostates" and compare. The word "man" is, strangely, not subject to this erasure.

[deleted]

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

#830

Post by mrguyorama » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #743

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.

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.

Why are you attributing a ranking to an initialism?