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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by randyrand »

lumb63 wrote: post #776
rayiner wrote: post #233

The Sierra Club guide is hilarious: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u... . > People of color” has in the past served as a collective term for people who are not white. A preferred term today is “BIPOC” referring to Black, Indigenous and people of color, which provides a unifying term for ease of use while still acknowledging the reality that Black and Indigenous people in the United States…

My opinion is the motivation behind “BIPOC” is to exclude Asians, who are rarely considered as minorities due to their economic and academic success.

Many asian have white or fair skin.

People of Color mainly refers to people with darker skin.

But ofc it depends who you ask.

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

#992

Post by tmn »

faeriechangling wrote: post #977
parineum wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is for people to make their preferences known and not hold it against people what is not done with malice. It's pretty simple.

Pretty simple if you don’t have to deal with the logistics of this. How can you judge if something was done with malice or not in the first place especially when we’re talking about disabilities which impair being able to read between the lines fairly often? People can make their preferences clear but how does one meet the preferences of many people in a mass communication?

Benefit of the doubt? Why is it important to know for sure if something so benign is done with malice or ignorance on an initial take. Just assume ignorance and if it continues it becomes clear that it's malice.

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

#993

Post by dotancohen »

faeriechangling wrote: post #975
KielFisch wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I came across a discussion on Twitter where a selection of scientists were arguing that the long-used term "blind peer review" (i.e. where the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and vice versa) could be construed as able-ist and should be referred to as "anonymous peer review". I'm all in favour of using inclusive language, but at the time this discussion struck me as odd because I've never…

Got to love scrubbing the culture of positive references to blindness in the service of inclusiveness simply because bunch of scientists are uncomfortable with disability.

I remember the second in command of a rather esteemed starship remarking that somebody should be taking notes about how a blind man teaches an android to paint.

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

#994

Post by op00to »

nhchris wrote: post #847
fleddr wrote: post #658

We should spend less time on the crazy outcomes of these institutes and more time on why they can even exist in the first place. They are somehow funded yet not accountable to anyone. Nobody asked for this, it doesn't help anyone, and it cannot survive the most basic scrutiny of the public or market. And yet it exists and even grows. Rather than playing whack-a-mole with outcomes, the underlying mechanism should be e…

> why they can even exist in the first place They're legally required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its consequences. Let me explain: The act prohibits discrimination on several protected characteristics, and the Supreme Court has expanded that to cover even things that merely correlate with those characteristics, unless an employer can convincingly show those characteristics are required [1]. But how can emplo…

Neutral, in your case, would be discriminatory and systemically racist. As in, that good old time for white folks before the Civil Rights Act.

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

#996

Post by pwinnski »

corbulo wrote: post #438
pwinnski wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that kindness never goes out of style. Negative words can change meaning or severity over time, in both directions, but if you aim for clear expression and avoid insults, it is unlikely anything you say or write will be judged badly in the future.

Why do you need freedom of speech? Just be nice! This might be the most British comment ive ever replied to

I am not British. Not even Canadian!

It's pretty simple: you have freedom to say whatever you want, but if you're worried about how you'll be judged, now or in the future, then you will curtail your worst impulses. Alternatively, you can lean into your freedom, say whatever you want, and then deal with the fallout when it eventually comes.

Look at the comment to which I replied, and then tell me my reply doesn't fit.

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

#997

Post by lynx23 »

faeriechangling wrote: post #892
RobotToaster wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically it's the opposite in the autism community, the white Knights insist it should be "autistic people" for some reason. None of this is going to change anyone's material conditions, it's just a distraction invented by well paid "diversity consultants". At least the fad for "differently abled" seems to have died.

Depends on if you’re talking to autistic people, or professionals who work with autistic people/their parents. The latter group still tends to use “person with autism” and I think it’s more funny than anything but people get really pissed at people who developed this vocabulary without actually asking Autistic people what they thought of it. I love the phrasing “person with autism” because it allows me to make a bunc…

Good point, weird constructed language can also be utilized as a filter to avoid hostile and/or paternalistic people. Weaponizing SJW language to fight bigots, I like it!

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

#998

Post by blahblah1234567 »

cassianoleal wrote: post #194
blahblah1234567 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Latine and LatinX both originate in (different geographical parts of) the spanish-first-language I doubt it. Having lived in Latin America, Latin American social norms are influenced by Catholicism and their societies are more conservative & traditionalist than the US and Europe. The vast majority of people in Latin American countries (outside of Costa Rica & Chile) struggle with academic achievement (including lite…

> The vast majority of people in Latin American countries (outside of Costa Rica & Chile) struggle with academic achievement (including literacy levels), adequate n utrition, enviornmental pollution. Do they? • Literacy rate: The average for 2020 based on 7 countries was 93.91 percent.The highest value was in Colombia: 95.64 percent and the lowest value was in El Salvador: 89.98 percent. https://www.theglobaleconomy.…

I was wondering... Have you lived in Latin America?

I've lived in Mexico, and visited Panama and Colombia.

I met very few educated citizens of those countries. The educated ones I did meet I felt were my equals, in terms of education. It was fantastic. The problem is that they're few and far between.

This article is from 2005, but may highlight the problem:

"Despite having three times the population of Argentina, Mexico produces about 2,000 fewer titles each year.

There are roughly 500 bookstores in Mexico, which translates into one for every 200,000 Mexicans, compared to a ratio of one to 35,000 in the US and one to 12,000 in Spain, according to the Mexican Booksellers Association.

A recent UNESCO study revealed that Mexicans read on average just over two books per year, while Swedes finish that many every month.""

https://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0216/p01s04-woam.html

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

#999

Post by garfieldnate »

I've mentioned this in a previous comment, but I see these policies about language control as fundamentally misguided because they assume that changing words can change the way we think to a significant extent. This is known as the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and is long considered false by linguists. If you want to change how people think, you must directly convince or teach them to do so. For example, "Mentally retarded" was introduced as a kinder term, and it led to the plain "retarded" that people use as an insult. "Special" went the same way.

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

#1000

Post by CarbonaNotGlue »

jmull wrote: post #825

I hope people realize The Atlantic is baiting us to outrage. For the clicks, of course. No question, these language guides are pretty absurd (at least to someone my age) and have very doubtful moral value... but these are internal guides, for their own communications. It's the Sierra Club's job to figure that out what language their donors/members (potential or current) want to hear. I have no idea if they are gettin…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN