Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#41

Post by hexagonc »

chc wrote: post #33
jcoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@karunamon Sorry, no. There's normalization due to changing norms and morays (e.g., "shit"), then there's normalization that's designed to subordinate a group (do you see many whites calling an unfamiliar black man "boy"?). This is much more like the latter. If you would tell your wife, girlfriend, or female coworker to "stop bitching" when she has something to say that you don't want to hear, then you are a chauvini…

> the meaning does not change Your entire argument seems to be predicated on this idea. But the thing is, pretty much every linguist in the world would disagree with the notion. The connotations of words are constantly shifting — there is ample evidence of this throughout the history of languages. I applaud you for thinking about this sort of thing and speaking out about it, but in this particular case I think you're…

I think you are correct. And it is funny that when I think of the meaning of the related curse, "son of a bitch", I always interpret it literally as "son of a female dog". I never think of it as, "son of a disreputable woman." This is in contrast to "son of a whore" where the human female allusion is clear.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#42

Post by billybob »

jcoder wrote: post #14
Zirro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think TechDirt aims to be "on par" with the traditional newspapers when it comes to "controversial" language ;)

Fuck, I don't give two shits about "controversial" language--but overtly, aggressively sexist language? Fuck that.

Dang, I don't give two craps about controversial language--but overtly violent sexual language, expressing contempt in a way that sounds like rape? Poops on that.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#43

Post by ajross »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #35
ajross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Steal?" You drank the koolaid. The fact that they haven't rectified this in their own search engine should be pretty good evidence that copying and piracy are not, in fact, "theft" and that they don't represent lost sales.

>The fact that they haven't rectified this in their own search engine should be pretty good evidence that copying and piracy are not, in fact, "theft" and that they don't represent lost sales What? Does not compute.

If MS truly felt they were losing money, they'd shut down the links. Bing links are, for obvious reasons, much easier to shut down than Google links. But they didn't. You can do the rest of the computation.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#44

Post by merraksh »

If we were to ascribe this to malice, MS achieves two things. First, those search results won't be available at least on one of the main search engines, and this has the effect of cutting the number of illegal downloads. Second, MS has just gotten some traffic to Bing --- MS sure won't be happy to see all those requests for Xbox game torrents, but now it has a little more control on them.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#45

Post by clarky07 »

ajross wrote: post #43
recoiledsnake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that they haven't rectified this in their own search engine should be pretty good evidence that copying and piracy are not, in fact, "theft" and that they don't represent lost sales What? Does not compute.

If MS truly felt they were losing money, they'd shut down the links. Bing links are, for obvious reasons, much easier to shut down than Google links. But they didn't. You can do the rest of the computation.

Never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#46

Post by Zirro »

JackC wrote: post #39
Zirro wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, do you really consider "bitch" or "bitching" in these contexts sexist, nowadays? I've seen it applied to both genders, and, as in this case, a verb. It's moved on from the controversial stage to a common expression.

Hmm. I agree that it's normalized (as you said below), and not controversial to lots of people. But I think that's because people are mostly fine with casual sexism, as long as it's not too obvious. So think about this. You've seen it applied to both genders. How is it applied to men? "Whiny little bitch"; "I'm gonna make you my bitch"; "Suck it, bitch"; "Stop bitching ..." Here's what those phrases mean to people, n…

Thank you for properly countering my post.

First, I'd like to address this:

"Go ahead and keep doing it if that's your thing."

This hurt me a bit. I was merely quoting and defending the words in this context. I can't recollect having used them myself either when speaking or writing before, ever. I am pretty reserved when it comes to using these kinds of words, even though I am surrounded by people using them every day.

Same thing with "But I think that's because people are mostly fine with casual sexism, as long as it's not too obvious". I am, for example, bothered at times when I hear male classmates saying "Get back in the kitchen." to female ones. It's meant as a joke, it always is, but that doesn't sit right with me.

I look at the individual, not the sex of a person. I consider "bitch" to be a word free from association to the female sex, today. One thing that may be influencing me is that nearly all of my classmates are male, which means that the times I do hear "bitch" it's used with a male... and certainly not in the way you suggest, except for the last one. Which brings me to the point I was trying to make:

It's an expression for "being a pain in the ass", something which both men and women (and all in-between) can be. Leaving the gender fully out of it is a good thing, as someone else has said, the meaning of words can change.

Finally, perhaps there are a few cultural differences. I grew up and live in Sweden, and while we borrow many words from English perhaps not all their meaning, and in particular, the history behind their usage is brought along with them. The old fashioned use of bitch may be more alive in other places, I suppose.

In short, I do not appreciate words and expressions where the downgrading of women is obvious, but I do not consider bitch being one of these words. If you do find someone using it to downgrade women, teach him (or her) a lesson. When I read "And yet, why don't we hear the people who always bitch about Google complaining about Microsoft?", I didn't get an image of "women in their right place" in my head, but one of raging nerds.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#47

Post by cpeterso »

ajross wrote: post #43
recoiledsnake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that they haven't rectified this in their own search engine should be pretty good evidence that copying and piracy are not, in fact, "theft" and that they don't represent lost sales What? Does not compute.

If MS truly felt they were losing money, they'd shut down the links. Bing links are, for obvious reasons, much easier to shut down than Google links. But they didn't. You can do the rest of the computation.

If MS removed those links from Bing, then people might complain that MS is selectively altering search results for its own benefit. (I'm only half-joking.)

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#49

Post by mr_luc »

jcoder wrote: post #23
jcoder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't buy that at all. It's unfortunate that it has moved to the common usage, because it is equivalent to "when you complain you sound like a woman, and that is bad." People should learn to speak respectfully instead of normalizing legitimately offensive language.

@karunamon Sorry, no. There's normalization due to changing norms and morays (e.g., "shit"), then there's normalization that's designed to subordinate a group (do you see many whites calling an unfamiliar black man "boy"?). This is much more like the latter. If you would tell your wife, girlfriend, or female coworker to "stop bitching" when she has something to say that you don't want to hear, then you are a chauvini…

I actually think that most people agree with you, but being hacker news, the downvotes come from a perceived lack of rigor in your reasoning.

For instance, you say "normalization that's designed to subordinate" -- 'designed,' eh? By whom?

You also state "by repeating it, that is the sentiment you are reinforcing," but I find the justification given confused and weak ('because the meaning does not change').

You also mention a common cultural trend: the notion that words originally applied negatively to groups can be appropriated for positive use by others. But instead analyzing this mechanism, you just blanket-assert that the negative words are the property of the slurred group and that others are, in general, not allowed to use those words.

I don't think most people here would state "I'll use derogatory word X all I want," and I think you're spot-on about the origins of the expression in this case, but this particular post smelled fishy for some reason.

Re: Bing shows results that MS asked Google to take down

#50

Post by rbanffy »

clarky07 wrote: post #45
ajross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If MS truly felt they were losing money, they'd shut down the links. Bing links are, for obvious reasons, much easier to shut down than Google links. But they didn't. You can do the rest of the computation.

Never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence.

It's much easier to do when the incompetence is not this selective.
Post reply on HN