3 ms·

We could write and talk in a way which is 100% factually correct and unbiased. But then it would take ages to say anything and nobody would bother reading it.

• fao_ 8y ago
  This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that. Nobody is saying we should talk in a 100% factual and unbiased way, what they are saying is that we should inspect and minimize the biases we have. The best way to do that is through altering and correcting our use of language to better describe reality, while ensuring it stays convenient. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we speak in the way you proposed in your example. While you are correct that shorter language sequences usually win out, the shorter and just as informative "Alligator lake", did not win out. The just as complex "Alligator-occupied lake", would serve just as well in it's informative capacity, but did not win out either. We are now in a position where so many critical species have been destroyed or usurped by humans, that a good 70% of the earth's ecosystems are reliant on human maintenance to continue existing. Meanwhile, animals that have survived for millions of years, such as the Alligator and the Crocodile, are becoming endangered and at threat from human-led ecosystem destruction. It is important to note there are still many, many humans with the idea that the human is at the top of the food chain, and that animals exist only for our use. In this context, the thread-parent makes an incredibly valid point -- the language use in the article carries with it an implicit assumption that animals are 'out of place' or otherwise 'wrong' in their natural habitat. Is it not right that we should examine and attempt to correct biases like these? Given that they were influencing factors that lead to the behaviour and attitudes that cause destruction? Why shouldn't we question those biases and influences? Why shouldn't we attempt to question implicit ideas that have the power to lead to the genocide and destruction of entire species. Isn't examining our language usage to ensure we are not enabling attitudes like those, part of pushing against those attitudes?
  • Verdex 8y ago
    | This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that. I mean, not really. My argument is simple and not particularly nuanced, but checkout what it's a response to: | Infest is not the right word to use for animals in their natural habitat. In wilderness, it is humans who can be considered to be infesting... AND | is disturbing in its human-centricity It's unreasonable to ask everyone else to change how they speak because one person finds something disturbing. I'm not going to write a book saying why that person is wrong when they can't be bothered to write a reasonable proposal as to why everyone else needs to change their language patterns. The onus is on the one asking for a wide scale change to provide a reasonable argument. Your statement is much better than the original one as it actually starts to make headway as to why language changes might be desirable. However, I can still just respond with "I care more about people than I do about crocodiles, so my language pattern is staying the same." So you kind of need studies on ecology (how do crocodile populations help people), studies on psychology (how will changing language help the crocodiles), and studies on language efficiency (will the cost of the language change be worth the benefit to crocodiles and indirectly people). Meanwhile, a person with a box of free t-shirts with pictures of cute crocodiles on them with the back saying "save Katie the Krock" will do mountains more to actually help crocodile populations than random people arguing about language on the internet ... which kind of proves my point about information theory compressing things down.