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

Don't Ban “Bossy”

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#81

Post by gaius »

someguyonhn wrote: post #79
gaius wrote: post #30

I love the delicious lack of self-awareness with which these things are delivered. Like people who pay $50,000/year for college to study a subject of no practical use telling me to "check your privilege".

This is a kind of long response. But I hope maybe you'll read through it. Just saying "check your privilege" is probably not the best starting point for the conversation, so I'll try to do a better job of explaining. I don't know if you are misunderstanding what is meant by "privilege" or not, but the privilege being talked about when someone says "check your privilege" in my experience are the privileges that come f…

Things like white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, you get the idea.

What you are talking about, if it even exists, is a rounding error compared to the massive good fortune relative to the entire rest of the human race that has ever lived, of being born in the West in the late 20th/21st century.

Perhaps you can see that dropping a few hundred grand on a hobby makes the speaker incredibly more privileged even within this already privileged group, and gender is absolutely nothing to do with (as the majority of homeless, etc, happen to be men, where's the white male heterosexual privilege there? Oops your whole model of the world just imploded, sorry 'bout that).

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#82

Post by someguyonhn »

gaius wrote: post #81
someguyonhn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a kind of long response. But I hope maybe you'll read through it. Just saying "check your privilege" is probably not the best starting point for the conversation, so I'll try to do a better job of explaining. I don't know if you are misunderstanding what is meant by "privilege" or not, but the privilege being talked about when someone says "check your privilege" in my experience are the privileges that come f…

Things like white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, you get the idea. What you are talking about, if it even exists, is a rounding error compared to the massive good fortune relative to the entire rest of the human race that has ever lived, of being born in the West in the late 20th/21st century. Perhaps you can see that dropping a few hundred grand on a hobby makes the speaker incredibly more privil…

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. I tried to respond to you in what I believe was a mature and respectful way.

You've responded with a breathtaking amount of immaturity. And completely ignored any of the points I made. Perhaps one day you'll be more open to hearing and responding to what I wrote to you. Maybe that day won't come. Either way I wish you well.

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#83

Post by gaius »

someguyonhn wrote: post #82
gaius wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, you get the idea. What you are talking about, if it even exists, is a rounding error compared to the massive good fortune relative to the entire rest of the human race that has ever lived, of being born in the West in the late 20th/21st century. Perhaps you can see that dropping a few hundred grand on a hobby makes the speaker incredibly more privil…

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. I tried to respond to you in what I believe was a mature and respectful way. You've responded with a breathtaking amount of immaturity. And completely ignored any of the points I made. Perhaps one day you'll be more open to hearing and responding to what I wrote to you. Maybe that day won't come. Either way I wish you well.

You've responded with a breathtaking amount of immaturity

To a post displaying a breathtaking amount of naivety. I didn't ignore your points, they are, paraphrasing Feynmann, "not even wrong". And I am not sure what "troll" even means these days, it seems to be a catch-all term for "someone on the Internet who isn't a part of my echo chamber".

Likewise, I wish you well, and I hope that one day you will come around to what I wrote.

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#84

Post by stefantalpalaru »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #65
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.

HN, more than most, is a global forum, and with that in mind people should really stop and think before offering their opinion on a subject where critical cultural context is almost surely missing from one's perspective.

Funny you should say that. In my culture beating around the bush with irrational accusations is considered a grave insult that can only be resolved with an old fashioned duel. Choose your assistant at your earliest convenience.

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#85

Post by hackinthebochs »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #84
hackinthebochs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN, more than most, is a global forum, and with that in mind people should really stop and think before offering their opinion on a subject where critical cultural context is almost surely missing from one's perspective.

Funny you should say that. In my culture beating around the bush with irrational accusations is considered a grave insult that can only be resolved with an old fashioned duel. Choose your assistant at your earliest convenience.

My statement was neither irrational nor unclear. Just more evidence that you simply do not have the proper context to make meaningful statements on this subject (language being sub-culture specific).

It is interesting how race issues is one of only a few subjects where anyone that can form an opinion feels qualified to weigh in on it, no matter how far removed they are from the issue at hand.

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#86

Post by 001sky »

dfc wrote: post #70
ronaldx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice point. The etymology of the word bossy, boss with the -y suffix, suggests that the lady manager is acting like a boss but she is not a boss. The writer here makes it clear that this is intended to have a negative connotation and is therefore questioning her authority. Recent meme has reinforced that. If we want to express this idea positively, we don't say "bossy", we say "like a boss". "Bossy" means you are act…

> Recent meme has reinforced that. If we want to express this idea positively, we don't say "bossy", we say "like a boss". Similes require nouns and bossy is an adjective/adverb. How are we supposed to draw any conclusions from the use of boss? I have never heard someone use bossy to praise the actions of a male.

In english, a "noun_y" suffix signifies an approximate imperfection (ie a quasi~noun). Or in other words, a "corruption of concept". This is why you don't praise someone as "like a quasi-X". You rather say, "like an X".

TLDR: simple grammar, once understood, explains it.

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#88

Post by Steko »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #52
Steko wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When culture changes shouldn't language that reflects outdated culture also change? Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. No one thinks that change is what brought about the civil rights movement, but it's obviously a consequence of it that also contributed to the whole movement in a positive feedback loop.

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.

They aren't slurs when used in certain contexts. Here's the internets new favorite primer on linguistic context:

My father’s name is William Paul Coates. I, like my six brothers and sisters, have always addressed him as Dad. Strangers often call him Mr. Coates. His friends call him Paul. If a stranger or one of my father’s friends called him Dad, my father might have a conversation. When I was a child, relatives of my paternal grandmother would call my father Billy. Were I to ever call my father Billy, we would probably have a different conversation.

I have never called my father Billy. I understand, like most people, that words take on meaning within a context. It might be true that you refer to your spouse as Baby. But were I to take this as license to do the same, you would most likely protest. Right names depend on right relationships, a fact so basic to human speech that without it, human language might well collapse...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-d...

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#89

Post by stefantalpalaru »

Steko wrote: post #88
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.

They aren't slurs when used in certain contexts. Here's the internets new favorite primer on linguistic context: My father’s name is William Paul Coates. I, like my six brothers and sisters, have always addressed him as Dad. Strangers often call him Mr. Coates. His friends call him Paul. If a stranger or one of my father’s friends called him Dad, my father might have a conversation. When I was a child, relatives of m…

OK, I'll bite. In what linguistic context can a white person call a black person "nigger" in the country that once put free-speech at the center of its propaganda?

Re: Don't Ban “Bossy”

#90

Post by dragonwriter »

Steko wrote: post #9
wyager wrote: post #4

I'm immediately extraordinarily skeptical about anything that suggests solving a cultural problem by changing language. That's like trying to solve a math problem by changing the value of pi.

When culture changes shouldn't language that reflects outdated culture also change? Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. No one thinks that change is what brought about the civil rights movement, but it's obviously a consequence of it that also contributed to the whole movement in a positive feedback loop.

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore.

You mean, the yesterday's value-neutral racial descriptors that became today's racial slurs when used in the mouth of people with racial hate are no longer acceptable to people who don't share that hate -- but, of course, as has happened many times in the past, that just means that today's value-neutral descriptors will get used as slurs and become tomorrow's verbotten terms, and nothing will have changed.

Making words taboo that are used along with an unwelcome attitude is a particularly ineffective manner of eradicating the unwelcome attitude.

Post reply on HN