3 ms·

alienating language By what definition created by who?

jakelazaroff 10y ago
There's plenty of research and best practices on how language can be inclusive or exclusive. Here are some links if you're interested: - https://qz.com/797559/gender-bias-job-listings-language/ https://qz.com/797559/gender-bias-job-listings-language/ - http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/gender-inclusive-language/ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/gender-inclusive-langu... - https://mit.uloop.com/news/view.php/206562/On-Inclusive-Language https://mit.uloop.com/news/view.php/206562/On-Inclusive-Lang...
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That is an answer to a question I didn't ask. As I explained in the other reply, you'd need to simultaneously prove: * That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language" * That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme. So far, you have done none of those things. Your links argue that sexually exclusionary language 1. exists and 2. is a problem. Nothing more.
  - jakelazaroff 10y ago
    > By what definition created by who? What definition: - language that feels unwelcoming to people (all three articles) - language that studies show excludes people (Quartz article) Who: - people affected by exclusive language (MIT article) - people who research exclusive language (Quartz article) > * That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language" It's gendered language, which all the aforelinked sources list as exclusive > * That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme. We don't need to prove the same case over and over for every single word. Gendered terms have been shown to be exclusive + "bruh" is a gendered term = bruh is exclusive
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Gendered terms have been shown to be exclusive ..in certain contexts, where maximum inclusivity is the actual goal, if not the law. Why is maximum inclusivity the goal here, again? Why must it be? My earlier assessment appears to be correct. No person can be pointed to that actually feels excluded by this, and so all this sturm und drang is about hypothetical straw people. This conversation is no longer interesting.
      - jakelazaroff 10y ago
        > No person can be pointed to that actually feels excluded by this, and so all this sturm und drang is about hypothetical straw people. No, you just ignored the studies showing that this is excluding people. BTW, tokenization is also discriminatory: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amanialkhat/2016/02/29/amani-al-khatahtbeh-competition-minorities-tokenization https://www.forbes.com/sites/amanialkhat/2016/02/29/amani-al...
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Maybe you need to read a bit. Starting points: - Humor - Context for the context I come from a background that makes it possuble for me to get offended by a lot of things. I still choose not to care anymore and it is actually way better.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Using minority rhetoric to criticize minority behavior is a classic reversal that is closely related to arguments for "reverse racism." It's not a good look.

There's plenty of research and best practices on how language can be inclusive or exclusive. Here are some links if you're interested: - https://qz.com/797559/gender-bias-job-listings-language/ https://qz.com/797559/gender-bias-job-listings-language/ - http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/gender-inclusive-language/ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/gender-inclusive-langu... - https://mit.uloop.com/news/view.php/206562/On-Inclusive-Language https://mit.uloop.com/news/view.php/206562/On-Inclusive-Lang...

Karunamon 10y ago
That is an answer to a question I didn't ask. As I explained in the other reply, you'd need to simultaneously prove: * That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language" * That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme. So far, you have done none of those things. Your links argue that sexually exclusionary language 1. exists and 2. is a problem. Nothing more.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  > By what definition created by who? What definition: - language that feels unwelcoming to people (all three articles) - language that studies show excludes people (Quartz article) Who: - people affected by exclusive language (MIT article) - people who research exclusive language (Quartz article) > * That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language" It's gendered language, which all the aforelinked sources list as exclusive > * That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme. We don't need to prove the same case over and over for every single word. Gendered terms have been shown to be exclusive + "bruh" is a gendered term = bruh is exclusive
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Gendered terms have been shown to be exclusive ..in certain contexts, where maximum inclusivity is the actual goal, if not the law. Why is maximum inclusivity the goal here, again? Why must it be? My earlier assessment appears to be correct. No person can be pointed to that actually feels excluded by this, and so all this sturm und drang is about hypothetical straw people. This conversation is no longer interesting.
    - jakelazaroff 10y ago
      > No person can be pointed to that actually feels excluded by this, and so all this sturm und drang is about hypothetical straw people. No, you just ignored the studies showing that this is excluding people. BTW, tokenization is also discriminatory: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amanialkhat/2016/02/29/amani-al-khatahtbeh-competition-minorities-tokenization https://www.forbes.com/sites/amanialkhat/2016/02/29/amani-al...
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Maybe you need to read a bit. Starting points: - Humor - Context for the context I come from a background that makes it possuble for me to get offended by a lot of things. I still choose not to care anymore and it is actually way better.
rhizome 10y ago
Using minority rhetoric to criticize minority behavior is a classic reversal that is closely related to arguments for "reverse racism." It's not a good look.