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

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

#321

Post by throwbadubadu » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:37 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #296

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…

> People-first language (“enslaved people” not “slaves”) “enslaved people” is not people/person-first language. “People who are enslaved” is people-first language. “enslaved people” is “situation first” (more commonly “identity first” or “disability first”, but neither strictly applies to “being enslaved”) language, just as “slaves” is. (In the disability context, “the disabled” and “disabled people” are textbook exa…

Close to a disability, I don't give a shit, and reading that I don't even understand til now what is better, for what reason... disability first, person first, what first, wtf?? Can we just communicate?

> can give birth, it is sub-optimal and exclusionary as a generic term for a person giving, or who has given, birth

Realize that smartassing someone with that excourse is alienating andor insulting andor exclusionary to other people the same, for whatever reason, may it be a different level of education or just disagreement.

> the mission was broader

It is good that you call it like that what it is, a mission for the new missionaries, almost just a religion of a strange minority that usually even is not affected at all. Please also try to understand a little the other side.

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

#322

Post by ftxbro » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:38 AM UTC

a meta comment but look how much engagement the culture war posts get in here

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

#323

Post by DubiousPusher » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:39 AM UTC

This has got to be one of the most over-anxiated, one side arguing with itself sociological phenomena since the white slaver panic that afflicted upper-class ladies in the late 19th century.

There is some magazine wash lib, crucifying themselves on this hill on the HN front page every other day. Yet there is practically no one arguing back.

Except of course on Twitter. Which apparently some large set of journalists believe reflects some significant portion of public opinion and influence.

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

#324

Post by tptacek » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:39 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #294

tptacek wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm involved in local politics in Oak Park, IL, also known as the People's Republic of Oak Park, 85.5% Clinton in '16, 72% college educated, median income about $15k higher than Evanston, and I have never heard any of these words in the elite white conversations I am continually dragged into. These guides get published to give The Groups something to do. Very few people in the real world --- yes, even the elite white…

It’s definitely “in the real world” here in DC, especially in the legal profession. This is where Sierra Club is, after all.

So, in The Groups, then, and around the headquarters city of The Groups.

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

#325

Post by rippercushions » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:39 AM UTC

low_tech_love wrote: post #108

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…

This is an academic issue, ”a solution in search of a problem” as almost all the rest of academia is. As such, it never stops at a reasonable, meaningful equilibrium; it has to be kept pacing, moving forward towards more and more ridiculous extremes. An academic, in order to stay relevant, needs to keep pushing the invisible and mostly inexistent boundaries that they perceive in whatever field they are involved in. I…

This phenomenon is known as a purity spiral, and here's a great story about one tearing an online knitting community to shreds.

In game theory terms, objecting to something was now always a dominant strategy, and rejecting an allegation of racism was always a losing strategy. Inevitably, a ratchet effect took hold in which those with the most strident vision of what ‘diversity’ meant were effectively handed the keys to the castle. That is — until someone with a more strident vision turned up behind them…

https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...

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

#326

Post by theossuary » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:39 AM UTC

JenrHywy wrote: post #286

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…

> There seems to be this weird erasure of women taking place at the moment. This is the crazy thing. After a century of legitimate struggle for equality, women are having the language of feminism turned on them to deny the existence of femininity. Honestly, I thought the lines would have been drawn with sport, but that fact that it's leaking into medicine is pure insanity. I've been somewhat worried about there not b…

You do realize that the terminology is meant for transmen right? It's weird you're complaining about terminology used for transmen, and then linking it to transwomen in sports.

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

#327

Post by remarkEon » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:40 AM UTC

sirmarksalot wrote: post #304

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,…

>but with the entire concept of equity itself.

A lot of people do take issue with the concept of equity itself. Because it's unattainable, a fantasy to keep the "movement" going. No amount of language puritanism will ever be enough for the kinds of people that write these guides, because no human society will ever exist - or has ever existed - where everyone is some sterile, "equitable" copy of each other.

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

#328

Post by prawn » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:41 AM UTC

angarg12 wrote: post #238

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…

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…

I describe these scenarios to my young children as concentric circles. One person can be acting reasonably (small circle around them) or very badly (larger circle). A person nearby can be very resilient (small circle) or fragile (larger circle). Where the circles overlap, is when there is tension and there are fights, tears or anything else that requires me to intervene.

Obviously very bad behaviour (large circle) is going to overlap with a nearby resilient child. Or a very tired and fractious child is going to sulk by their sibling doing just about anything. But the more resilient and better behaved the combinations, the better.

If the children are fighting, I've taken to just calling out "Circles!"

Unfortunately, a polarised society and social media seem to make everyone treat interaction as war, which is pretty tedious.

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

#329

Post by catiopatio » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #316

catiopatio wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is. Adult human female.

What is an adult human female?

An adult is a fully mature organism.

An adult human is a fully mature member of the species Homo sapien.

An adult human female is a fully mature member of the species Homo sapien who belongs to the reproductive class that produces large, immobile gametes. The reproductive system of an individual may be actual, potential, historic or broken.

How do you define “woman”?

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

#330

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 5:43 AM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #314

jimbokun wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

> Define woman simply

Define love. Define consciousness.

These words are fractals, simultaneously simple and complex. It’s alarming that we’re unable, as a matter of discourse, to accept this useful ambiguity anymore.

At its simplest, a woman is a person who identifies as such. At among its most complex, it’s an empowered expression of femininity. That there isn’t a single definition doesn’t make the word bad, it makes it human.