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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by HyperSane »

Spivak wrote: post #239
8note wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least, the person that birthed you is your mother. I'd question the association between mother and woman, rather than mother and birth

Thank you, I swear half the time I can’t figure out if people are genuinely confused by inclusive language or if they confuse it on purpose just to get riled up. It’s the same with people who menstruate — not only for trans men but for post menopausal women, women who’ve had hysterectomies, or are otherwise have amenorrhea.

Humans can handle exceptions without having to created incredibly vague or generic terms like "birthing person"

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

#962

Post by andrekandre »

mrguyorama wrote: post #822
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone asked Mel Brooks the same about Blazing Saddles once. "Today? You couldn't even make it then!" We overestimate the effect the this sort of thing has. I imagine someone reading that line is about to talk about the cancelling of some so-and-so, but in almost all cases that is either just a lot of hot air from Twitter or the so-and-so in question is legitimately and obviously actually a bigot.

"Chapelle was canceled!!!" which is why he is selling out stadiums and making millions right?

it is definitely seems a patterns that alot of people who claim to be "canceled" or complaining about "canceling" are usually very well-off people who usually get thousands of re-tweets/posts and millions of subscribers on youtube or sell-out whenever they make an appearance somewhere...

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

#963

Post by nitwit005 »

The obsession with language directly relates to the fact that it doesn't matter. They want a safe, meaningless, issue.

Real problems are difficult and scary. No one wants to deal with homelessness, drug use, gang violence, or whatever else.

If you're willing to engage in a little self deception, why not "solve" a pretend issue instead? Go home feeling like a hero because you told people to stop using the word blind as a metaphor. Safe, easy, fulfilling.

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

#964

Post by kodt »

eru wrote: post #608
Lazare wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My partner is disabled, and by chance and via support groups she is a member of, she has many friends annd acquaintences who are as well. And while it's by no means universal, she and all her disabled friends absolutely loathe the "people first language" currently in vogue (ie, "person with a disability" over "disabled"). And it's odd! Because while there are certainly disabled people who prefer one form over another…

Of course, 'disabled' is just the euphemism you grew up with, so it feels neutral enough. The euphemism treadmill has a long history. At some point cripple used to be the neutral term for many kinds of disabled. It's long been deemed offensive. Similar with idiot or retard. Give it a few decades, and all of the 'people first language' will perhaps turn into neutral and then offensive, too. (I am writing the above dis…

Didn’t most of those terms change because they evolved into common insults? Disabled is not used as a common insult as far as I know. This case feels more like a dictate from “well meaning” groups vs a reaction to evolving use of language.

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

#965

Post by pictureofabear »

kbenson wrote: post #820
Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly related: in German, a strange thing happened at the end of the last century. Disabled people used to be called "behindert" (might be translated as "impeded" or "hindered"). I think the word was a good choice, because it took the blame away from people, and just described that they had to overcome bigger obstacles because of their situation. In the eighties or nineties, people started to use the term as a slu…

This points towards part of what's actually going on and why people keep trying to change the terminology. There's always a subset of people that use the terminology as a pejorative, because they see the people it refers to as either lesser or embarrassing to be a part of. Often children, because they don't know any better, but adults (whether children that never stopped or for other reasons) as well. Then the fact t…

It's called the "euphemism treadmill."

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

#966

Post by strix_varius »

vannevar wrote: post #947
strix_varius wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's crazy to me that you're arguing about the definitions of common, useful, specific words, for some kind of virtue signaling I suppose?

The word "child" and the word "felon" both have easy-to-find definitions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+child

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+felon

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

#967

Post by 00F_ »

stcroixx wrote: post #945
00F_ wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i didnt brandish because brandishing it showing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate. if a person draws their weapon in self defence they arent brandishing even if they dont end up firing. i didnt draw my pistol to stop a theft i did it to stop the man from attacking me. he turned around, put his fists up, approached me and verbally threatened me with violence and trust me he meant it. thats why charges werent pressed.

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

#968

Post by hellojesus »

red1reaper wrote: post #720
jraph wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? No? Same grammar regardless of who is near, just need to remember which pronouns to designate which people, which: - is the intuitive one for most people - the asked pronoun for the few people who have pronouns that don't match your intuition. (I also have troubles with remembering names, but pronouns are fine) And f…

They requires effort... or just using they left and right for everyone, who needs pronouns when they exists anyway? Or better yet, avoid using pronouns by using the name over and over. That is what I do, not he, not she, not it, not especial ones. Only they, they supremacy.

They is plural. You would use it for a singular person. And it does lose context.

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

#970

Post by ghodith »

chownie wrote: post #846
mrguyorama wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you attributing a ranking to an initialism?

Initialisms apparently naturally have a hierarchy, like when lesbians invented the LGBT and graciously donated the other letters to good causes.

I suppose it would be more similar if it went from "Queer" to "LGPWAQ", as in "Lesbians, gays, and people who are queer".

BIPOC definitely reads like "Black and Indigenous people, and the rest." Which makes sense since the intent of the term is to "center the experiences of Black and Indigenous groups." Can't effectively center something without moving everything else out to the margins.

Post reply on HN