4 ms·

If you built a system that translated word-by-word from a pidgin French into English, and then tried to sell it as a tool that would unlock "the fundamental rig

If you built a system that translated word-by-word from a pidgin French into English, and then tried to sell it as a tool that would unlock "the fundamental right of communication" for those poor French people, then yeah, I think you should expect some push-back.

notahacker 10y ago
Sure, but if the linguistics department wrote a response which spent half a page explaining why the app didn't actually interpret French very well and might have benefited from a native speaker on the team and devoted considerably more space to attacking the creators' motivation with specious drivel about how it was "cultural appropriation" to take their language "without permission", I'd think they were the ones displaying the arrogant colonialist mentality.
- teraflop 10y ago
  Well, I don't agree but that's probably because I don't think "cultural appropriation" is an inherently specious concept, as you seem to. Whatever else you might think about that letter, I thought the authors made it very explicit that they were not attacking the SignAloud creators' motivation.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    I realise the letter starts with a disclaimer about not attacking the creators, who seem to have been browbeaten into actually endorsing it, but it also spends two pages bashing them with phrases like "a feather in the cap—for members of the non-marginalized culture—hearing people", "reaping the rewards...of cultural appropriation" and "this is exploitation" which clearly apply to them more than to the PR office; internal consistency is not one of its strongpoints. FWIW, I don't think the concept of cultural appropriation is inherently specious, but I do think many if not most accusations of cultural appropriation are, and suggesting that the idea to demo a tech product as a potential translation gadget is "exploitation" is stupid and counterproductive beyond belief. I mean, if a student at this university in future has a choice between pursuing a neat idea for an app they think might help deaf people or a different project, which way is this letter going to nudge their decision? They could have made the same point about the disadvantages of not engaging the deaf community with the project at its inception and the resulting practical shortcomings by structuring the letter as an offer of help...

notahacker 10y ago

Sure, but if the linguistics department wrote a response which spent half a page explaining why the app didn't actually interpret French very well and might have benefited from a native speaker on the team and devoted considerably more space to attacking the creators' motivation with specious drivel about how it was "cultural appropriation" to take their language "without permission", I'd think they were the ones displaying the arrogant colonialist mentality.

teraflop 10y ago
Well, I don't agree but that's probably because I don't think "cultural appropriation" is an inherently specious concept, as you seem to. Whatever else you might think about that letter, I thought the authors made it very explicit that they were not attacking the SignAloud creators' motivation.
- notahacker 10y ago
  I realise the letter starts with a disclaimer about not attacking the creators, who seem to have been browbeaten into actually endorsing it, but it also spends two pages bashing them with phrases like "a feather in the cap—for members of the non-marginalized culture—hearing people", "reaping the rewards...of cultural appropriation" and "this is exploitation" which clearly apply to them more than to the PR office; internal consistency is not one of its strongpoints. FWIW, I don't think the concept of cultural appropriation is inherently specious, but I do think many if not most accusations of cultural appropriation are, and suggesting that the idea to demo a tech product as a potential translation gadget is "exploitation" is stupid and counterproductive beyond belief. I mean, if a student at this university in future has a choice between pursuing a neat idea for an app they think might help deaf people or a different project, which way is this letter going to nudge their decision? They could have made the same point about the disadvantages of not engaging the deaf community with the project at its inception and the resulting practical shortcomings by structuring the letter as an offer of help...