6 ms·

A self-censorship tool to prevent you accidentally "triggering" someone in the snowflake generation with "inconsiderate" terms, by enforcing what was first desc

by renaudg 11y ago

A self-censorship tool to prevent you accidentally "triggering" someone in the snowflake generation with "inconsiderate" terms, by enforcing what was first described by George Orwell as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> A self-censorship tool Have you considered that self-censorship is not necessarily always bad? You've probably thought some utterly disgusting things about people you love dearly before, and refused to say them, because you know it would damage your relationship. This also doesn't force you to censor anything. It points out things that might be problematic. > "triggering" Do you actually know what triggers are? Are you sure that avoiding forcing people to relive trauma is a bad thing? (Triggering is not the same as being offended or hurt, by the way.) > enforcing what was first described by George Orwell as Newspeak I'd question the word 'enforcing' again. This is, to make an analogy, a spell-checker, not autocorrect. Anyway, Newspeak is interesting. Among other things, it supposedly shows how you can control thought through shaping language. That's not really true, though. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that language determines thought, is not accepted in its strong form by most linguists. You can't absolutely control thought through language. Language probably does shape it a little, though, and certainly using different, more considerate terms does change how people think about things at least a little. But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing out from being kind?
- renaudg 11y ago
  But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing out from being kind? Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell of a strawman :) As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman". The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately (which we can all agree to), it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard, has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke"), and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges (again see : http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap... ) The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western societies have to an Inquisition today.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell of a strawman How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed. > As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman". "Damage to free speech"? Can you substantiate that? Remember that free speech is, quote: "the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship" The Government is not retaliating against you for using "un-PC" language, nor censoring you. > The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately (which we can all agree to) What would you consider 'speaking a little more considerately' to be then, if not avoiding terms which are inconsiderate to others? > it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard, While some comparisons to 'witch hunts' might be appropriate in certain cases, people aren't being hanged. People aren't going to jail. > has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke") The PyCon incident was not because of politically correct language. It was because of (ostensibly) sexist jokes and Internet call-out culture. Grouping these into political correctness is only useful if you're trying to discredit it. Internet outrage has its problems, but this doesn't discredit the idea of using kinder language. > and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges This is overblown. Certain students (often those who have suffered rape themselves) are asking to be warned when topics that might cause them distress are brought up. It doesn't prevent them learning: content warnings on TV don't prevent people from watching the news or documentaries, in fact it helps them as they can prepare for potentially distressing or dangerous (photosensitive epilepsy-triggering, say) content. > The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western societies have to an Inquisition today. Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc. What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dichotomy-of-trigger-warnings/ https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dic... >How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed. Excuse me, don't you mean straw person?

by renaudg 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> A self-censorship tool Have you considered that self-censorship is not necessarily always bad? You've probably thought some utterly disgusting things about people you love dearly before, and refused to say them, because you know it would damage your relationship. This also doesn't force you to censor anything. It points out things that might be problematic. > "triggering" Do you actually know what triggers are? Are you sure that avoiding forcing people to relive trauma is a bad thing? (Triggering is not the same as being offended or hurt, by the way.) > enforcing what was first described by George Orwell as Newspeak I'd question the word 'enforcing' again. This is, to make an analogy, a spell-checker, not autocorrect. Anyway, Newspeak is interesting. Among other things, it supposedly shows how you can control thought through shaping language. That's not really true, though. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that language determines thought, is not accepted in its strong form by most linguists. You can't absolutely control thought through language. Language probably does shape it a little, though, and certainly using different, more considerate terms does change how people think about things at least a little. But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing out from being kind?

renaudg 11y ago
But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing out from being kind? Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell of a strawman :) As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman". The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately (which we can all agree to), it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard, has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke"), and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges (again see : http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap... ) The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western societies have to an Inquisition today.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell of a strawman How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed. > As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman". "Damage to free speech"? Can you substantiate that? Remember that free speech is, quote: "the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship" The Government is not retaliating against you for using "un-PC" language, nor censoring you. > The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately (which we can all agree to) What would you consider 'speaking a little more considerately' to be then, if not avoiding terms which are inconsiderate to others? > it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard, While some comparisons to 'witch hunts' might be appropriate in certain cases, people aren't being hanged. People aren't going to jail. > has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke") The PyCon incident was not because of politically correct language. It was because of (ostensibly) sexist jokes and Internet call-out culture. Grouping these into political correctness is only useful if you're trying to discredit it. Internet outrage has its problems, but this doesn't discredit the idea of using kinder language. > and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges This is overblown. Certain students (often those who have suffered rape themselves) are asking to be warned when topics that might cause them distress are brought up. It doesn't prevent them learning: content warnings on TV don't prevent people from watching the news or documentaries, in fact it helps them as they can prepare for potentially distressing or dangerous (photosensitive epilepsy-triggering, say) content. > The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western societies have to an Inquisition today. Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc. What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dichotomy-of-trigger-warnings/ https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dic... >How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed. Excuse me, don't you mean straw person?