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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by rayiner »

undersuit wrote: post #292
tastysandwich wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" Calling my wife a "birthing person" just made her feel like some gross vessel for having a baby. We purposefully chose providers that didn't use that language. "Chestfeeding" is another one that's cropping up and makes zero sense. Men have breasts, so breastfeeding is already gender-neutral. But it's seen as female-centric so out th…

[flagged]

It can’t be that complex if virtually every human society came up with two distinct words to express the concepts.

It’s only complicated if you start from the premise that language must accord the same importance to the experience of small minorities as to the experience of the overwhelming majority.

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

#302

Post by Aloha »

Spivak wrote: post #262
angarg12 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that one of the issues is that the (more extreme) woke culture has put the entire burden of communication on the speakers rather than the listeners. Is not enough that you intend to offend, or that you say something that offends someone, is whether something that you say could possibly offend someone, even if you didn't have the slightest intentions. On the other say the listeners are free to interpret…

Eh, that’s just internet discourse in general. Once you put down Twitter this stops being an issue. I would love for someone to deconstruct what about social media, regardless of leaning of the platform, the people, or the subject being discussed causes these bad faith takes.

The issue is when you didn't say it on twitter, or even intend it for public consumption and it's posted as receipts on twitter as examples of your badness - often out of context. Then there are some knock on second and third order effects on your life.

It's one thing if communities on twitter would like to define their own use of the language - it's another when it's imposed on others without their consent.

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

#303

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

echelon wrote: post #287
dimva wrote: post #277

The ever-changing euphemistic language seems to me like mostly just a new way to be a hipster. The new vocabulary is a shibboleth to distinguish people who got the right sort of education from the right sort of places. Your knowledge of all the proper euphemisms to use sets you apart from the uneducated rubes. The problem is, it sets you apart from the people you're allegedly trying to help, given that the marginaliz…

> shibboleth to distinguish people who got the right sort of education from the right sort of places I don't think you're right. We're being told our words are wrong on a daily basis. I think that this started with Tumblr in the early 2010's and has grown into a movement sometime during the Trump presidency.

The Tumblr kids went to college and corporations

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

#304

Post by sirmarksalot »

jurassic wrote: post #54

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep…

I take any equity language guides with a grain of salt, but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are. Obviously there are problems with it. It's largely performative, it can distract from bigger advocacy work, and it's often a lazy attempt by a large organization or corporation to avoid having to make meaningful changes. The thing is, when you add terms like "victimhood culture" to your response, it makes it extremely clear that you're not taking issue with awkward terminology, but with the entire concept of equity itself.

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

#305

Post by jimbokun »

jurassic wrote: post #54

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep…

Hard to miss the similarities with Orwell’s Newspeak.

The attempt to make certain thoughts unthinkable by removing the words that denote those ideas.

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

#306

Post by rendall »

crazygringo wrote: post #271
farnsworth wrote: post #230

Only tangentially related but I think it's interesting that just as we popularized the word "Ms.", and I think it makes perfect sense not to refer to women primarily by their marital status, we sort of worked around the issue by... largely just not using title/last name anymore. Right? I don't think I've referred to anyone by a title since my grade school teachers, and at least in my industry and corner of society, i…

Was there a time when adults referred to each other by Mr. and Mrs. in regular spoken conversation? Like if you were asking a work colleague where another colleague was, it was normal to say "Where is Mr. Smith?" rather than "Where is Mark?" Since in my lifetime I've only known calling everyone by their first name (except, like you say, teachers in childhood), I'm curious when the change occurred and how.

There are older Americans who insist that calling a stranger by their first name is rude. That was never my culture so I was taken aback to hear this.

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

#307

Post by kristianbrigman »

crazygringo wrote: post #271
farnsworth wrote: post #230

Only tangentially related but I think it's interesting that just as we popularized the word "Ms.", and I think it makes perfect sense not to refer to women primarily by their marital status, we sort of worked around the issue by... largely just not using title/last name anymore. Right? I don't think I've referred to anyone by a title since my grade school teachers, and at least in my industry and corner of society, i…

Was there a time when adults referred to each other by Mr. and Mrs. in regular spoken conversation? Like if you were asking a work colleague where another colleague was, it was normal to say "Where is Mr. Smith?" rather than "Where is Mark?" Since in my lifetime I've only known calling everyone by their first name (except, like you say, teachers in childhood), I'm curious when the change occurred and how.

Not sure, but people certainly talk that way in Victorian novels (does anyone actually know Mr. Darcy’s first name? :)

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

#308

Post by jimbokun »

Spivak wrote: post #262
angarg12 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that one of the issues is that the (more extreme) woke culture has put the entire burden of communication on the speakers rather than the listeners. Is not enough that you intend to offend, or that you say something that offends someone, is whether something that you say could possibly offend someone, even if you didn't have the slightest intentions. On the other say the listeners are free to interpret…

Eh, that’s just internet discourse in general. Once you put down Twitter this stops being an issue. I would love for someone to deconstruct what about social media, regardless of leaning of the platform, the people, or the subject being discussed causes these bad faith takes.

Until the Twitter people are running your HR department or university or media outlet or government.

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

#309

Post by throwbadubadu »

cassonmars wrote: post #273
jurassic wrote: post #54

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep…

I'm trans myself and this language policing game is insane. The most surreal part about it is it's rarely anyone allegedly impacted by it who is actually asking for these things.

Yep, same with disabilities, or children playing/costuming as cowboy and indian, or cultural appropriation where certain people are now not allowed wear a rasta haircut, or, or, or... Most ""affected"" people actually don't give a shit AND don't want this shit. But sjws can scapegoat any doubt to this holy mission and make one look like a Nazi.

Usually never is also the intention or context taken into account.. You will always find someone who will say he feels insulted for anything, but we won't find a common denominator if we need to account for every salty person on earth. True respect, equality and no discrimination for everybody is what should count... but it feels today more and more that this is actually alienating, and also excluding people more than what it helps, the contrary! How to stop? Intention is good, but taken to the extreme, this is todays discrimination and exclusion..

Post reply on HN