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

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

#941

Post by Jcowell » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #469

imoverclocked wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 suspect the unease you perceive with people using different terms for blindness are unease with their own attachments to those words. Nah. I think people are just terrified of coming across as a jerk for not knowing the latest non-offensive term for things. Black? African American? Oh black is ok again? Will I get in trouble with HR/Twitter for calling you blind? And if so, what word do I use instead? Do I ask? I…

When was “Black” not okay. “Blacks” sure.

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

#942

Post by mathgladiator » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

Has anyone compiled a complete list such that people can build the inverse mapping to maximize 'offense'

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

#943

Post by Pulcinella » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 4:13 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #532

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…

Isn't there is an actual difference between blind and visually impaired tho? The way I understood it blind people are a subset of visually impaired people, but not all visually impaired people are blind in a medical sense. So the reasoning behind such language might be to include people who are not technically blind, but still require similar consideration, assistence, infrastructure and so on. Language is odd here.…

I myself, as someone with ADHD, absolutely despise the term “neurodivergent” (and also “neurotypical”). I hate how it’s used to lump everyone with different neurological, mental, and learning conditions under one umbrella. I hate how it is used to separate us from the “neurotypical” who don’t have these conditions. And I hate how offensive it sounds (“neurodivergent” sounds like some C-tier, crazed, antisocial comic book villain obsessed with building bombs or something.) I feel clear[0] adjectives and nouns are the best, most direct descriptors. I’m not neurodivergent, I just have ADHD. I’m not oculi-visuallydivergent, I just wear glasses because I am nearsighted.

[0] Yes I am aware that what counts as clear is itself very, very up for discussion and is a very loaded term. I hope I got my point across.

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

#944

Post by tptacek » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

nhchris wrote: post #847

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…

> why they can even exist in the first place They're legally required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its consequences. Let me explain: The act prohibits discrimination on several protected characteristics, and the Supreme Court has expanded that to cover even things that merely correlate with those characteristics, unless an employer can convincingly show those characteristics are required [1]. But how can emplo…

Very few companies have DEI programs. DEI isn't a trend because it's a defense against specious discrimination suits. It's a trend because it's fashionable. The argument in your last paragraph is thus easily falsified.

A message board strategic tip: if you're going to try to make an argument about how antiracism is overreaching in our society --- which should be a layup! --- try to do it without citing an overt racist to support your argument.

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

#945

Post by stcroixx » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

00F_ wrote: post #779

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…

i used to live on the coast and moved to a midwest state. i did it because property is cheaper in the midwest and also i thought it would be refreshing to get a break from coastal culture. i moved to the midwest but a metro area in the midwest, not a rural community. the state is red, we have constitutional carry and we have stand your ground rather than duty to retreat. i have gotten into developing real estate in t…

Don’t draw unless your life is being threatened and you’ve decided you’re going shoot that person. Brandishing to stop theft I think is illegal anywhere. There is no Wild West anymore. Lucky you didn’t end up in jail.

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

#946

Post by faeriechangling » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #921

faeriechangling wrote: post #896

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autism is an insult, it’s a shortened version of “autism spectrum disorder”, disorder is intrinsically an insulting word, and the diagnostic criteria describes variations in human behaviour as dysfunctions and so on. The increased use of “autism” as an insult and people avoiding it is because it is an insult and always was from its conception. That is why doctors regularly try and plot to screen people’s DNA for this…

> Autism is an insult, it’s a shortened version of “autism spectrum disorder”, disorder is intrinsically an insulting word, and the diagnostic criteria describes variations in human behaviour as dysfunctions and so on. No, people use "Autism" as an insult because they think it's a way to say "retarded" which won't get them slapped down.

I don't really agree, because I see people who use both the word "Retard" and "Autist" as a slur. It's only the left wing who will exclusively use the word "Autist" as a slur because it flies under the radar and can be wrapped up in woke dressing, but the words aren't totally interchangable.

The word "Autist" has become popular simply because more people are called "Autists". This justifies parents getting more government assistance's, schools being able to rationalise away their standardised test scores slipping as being the students fault, doctors getting fat insurance payouts, TikTok celebrities getting attention, everybody gets their piece. It's a label of scapegoating problems people have with an individual justified by the subjective observation of their behaviour and the inference their brains must be "disordered", "disturbed", "disregulated", and "dysfunctional" without any requirement to look deeper into societal or physiological problems. No wonder prevalence has increased more than a hundredfold since it first started being diagnosed, it's so convenient to so many people, and the diagnostic criteria is relativistic and thus pliable.

The rise of autism's popularity was to justify (POSITIVELY!) discriminatory treatment in schools, social groups, and work which were always wrapped up in this faux-sympathetic concern over defective brains which totally justifies differential treatment. People who just think that "Autism" is a funny way to make fun of somebody without any further motivation aren't even the problem, they merely reveal the reality of what over-socialised people have always thought when they call people "Autistic", and that look in the mirror revolts people.

Way I see it, this thing called autism being treated as a "mental disorder" is no different than transgenderism being called a "mental disorder". A difference in behaviour being belittled as a mental defect without non-inferential evidence or thought about if this framing actually helps people. That is how I see it more than I see it as a PC replacement for the word "Retard".

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

#947

Post by vannevar » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

strix_varius wrote: post #915

vannevar wrote: post #849

While I think a lot of these efforts are over-zealous, so is the response overblown. Take one example, the term felon . The San Francisco Board of Supervisors apparently recommended using the term "justice-involved person" instead. In response, the author writes: "When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors replaces felon with justice-involved person, it is making an ideological claim—that there is something illegiti…

Uh what? A person who has parented children is a parent. A person who has won a championship is a champion. A person who has graduated is a graduate. A person who has been convicted of a felony is a felon. The response to attempts to dismantle obvious and useful language constructs seems perfectly valid.

By your logic, then, we are all children, because at one time we all experienced childhood.

While "felon" may be useful in some cases, like describing someone who is currently serving time for a felony, it's a lot less useful as time goes on. And this goes for a lot of language that is used to describe a transitory state but ends up labeling the individual and making a separate class of them. This is why you see the shift from "the homeless" to "people experiencing homelessness." It may seem unfamiliar and cumbersome, but it's also more accurate and humane.

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

#948

Post by nhchris » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 6:48 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #944

nhchris wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why they can even exist in the first place They're legally required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its consequences. Let me explain: The act prohibits discrimination on several protected characteristics, and the Supreme Court has expanded that to cover even things that merely correlate with those characteristics, unless an employer can convincingly show those characteristics are required [1]. But how can emplo…

Very few companies have DEI programs. DEI isn't a trend because it's a defense against specious discrimination suits. It's a trend because it's fashionable. The argument in your last paragraph is thus easily falsified. A message board strategic tip: if you're going to try to make an argument about how antiracism is overreaching in our society --- which should be a layup! --- try to do it without citing an overt racis…

> Very few companies have DEI programs.

Please don't lie to me:

"I have surveyed the programming of every Fortune 100 company and have confirmed that all of them have now adopted so-called DEI programs." - https://www.city-journal.org/the-diversity-equity-and-inclus...

Though I'm sure if you look at all companies, including every corner store, hair salon, and taco shop, the proportion of DEI initiatives and HR departments falls.

> It's a trend because it's fashionable.

And it's fashionable in part because any company where it's not encouraged is in legal peril.

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

#949

Post by docmars » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 7:10 PM UTC

juve1996 wrote: post #937

docmars wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wh…

Can you share some examples of this violence?

Unfortunately I don't spend my days bookmarking videos on Twitter to share with people who are interested just enough to criticize these claims with strawmen / other fallacies, but too disinterested to seek the evidence readily available to them from news sources they've written off entirely.

I can't help you there. Now, I don't mean to assume you fall within the category I described above, but that's usually the case when people ask for examples, when they already know where to look, but don't wish to.

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

#950

Post by flangola7 » Sat, Mar 04, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #428

flangola7 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think that highlight my main gripe about what I'd call excessive inclusion. Sure there are some people who identify as male, who will go on to become pregnant, but they have to understand that they are not representative of anything. The number of trans-men who also become pregnant is so tiny that it's beyond an edge case, it's not something that needs to be accounted for everywhere. That's not to say that they sho…

Personally I use it for "I ate too much" too. Half the fun of emojis is the new unofficial uses that evolve (I wonder what the fruit peach folks' thoughts are).

I don't see the problem of including small groups - they are the ones who are most invisible and marginalized and therefore in need of recognition. You say it makes little sense, but to me it not only makes sense but is self-evident. Even if you're right, I can scroll through my emoji map and see many that are even more niche, yet none of them receive the angry flak GNC emoji do. (Not to even mention the even more obscure items in the rest of Unicode.)