4 ms·

Not directly related, but I'm a bit afraid that as someone who is not a native speaker of English, it becomes more and more difficult not to inadvertantly cause

by wozer 7y ago

Not directly related, but I'm a bit afraid that as someone who is not a native speaker of English, it becomes more and more difficult not to inadvertantly cause a shit storm on American websites. People seem to become incredibly sensitive to "correct speech".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
johnchristopher 7y ago
I recently got caught off-guard on HN. Until a few months I didn't really get that 'they' could be used to refer to a company and I believe it led to some quiproquo in a conversation. One HN commentator went into my post history and hinted I was lying about it. shrugged
- Fellshard 7y ago
  This history-trolling is a nasty element in this new landscape. I've noticed the more zealous members of this policing regime creating automated tools for each forum that will scan through post history and divine - for example - occurrences of the n--- word, listing how many times they've said it, and whether they've tried to cover their tracks since the last search. https://www.reddit.com/user/nwordcountbot https://www.reddit.com/user/nwordcountbot
  - traderjane 7y ago
    I think it's more clear-headed to judge somebody from the perspective of history than as if you had Alzheimer's. What may be unfair is information asymmetry between the strong and the weak. As for the erroneous judgment stemming from analysis (like doing a word count for taboo words), would analysis arising from drastically less historical data be any more impressive?
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      It's intentionally ignorant of change, intentionally aiming to derail redemption and forgiveness, and intentionally crafting an isolated narrative without constructing the /actual/ context of those historical posts. It's a very narrow, distorted view.
      - traderjane 7y ago
        Compared to an Alzheimer's perspective? How does one even remotely discuss a history of unwell behavior? Obviously through a documentation of a person's history. Or does one somehow incredibly discuss a person from a single snapshot? Surely one-shot judgment is what's shallow, and zero-history judgment is called prejudice. How does one crave context and then forget the past? And when court compassionately considers events in a person's life which may have lead to a crime, how is that a "derailing" of forgiveness? What would clarity even mean here?
        Fellshard 7y ago
        I'm not arguing to forget the past. I'm arguing that the current trend is that of merely skimming and cherry-picking, the least useful of historical analyses.
        traderjane 7y ago
        Yes, you're saying you wish some people would stop analyzing badly. I presume you have more confidence in HN moderators who analyze personal history. There are some people you trust, and some you don't. I guess the deep distinction you are proposing is that the random HN person who cherry-picked is bad, while HN moderation is good. How do we recognize your distinction? Through a history of behavior.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        HN, I trust to some greater degree, yes. That doesn't mean temperature doesn't change, as it has on many platforms before, and will on many after. The tool I linked above is an example of working around the issue: it's a form of doxxing, in which the information is dumped publicly beneath the user's post in order to tag and attempt to remove the validity of the post in the public opinion, even (and especially) when used in a non-sequitur manner.
audessuscest 7y ago
It's not just more difficult, it also feels weird (to not say more). In France, they want to change how to write things so you write the masculine and feminine version of each word at the same time, and even though it looks like the most stupid thing in the world, a lot of people working at university or some politician do it. Progress they say....
- jraph 7y ago
  > they want to change how to write things Who? Far from everybody. > looks like the most stupid thing in the world At the very least… > Progress they say.... Almost nobody is for progress for the sake of progress. Rejecting a solution that tries to address a (arguably) less-than-ideal status quo as stupid is not very helpful. We could argue that the status quo is stupid too anyway. Don't you see that the solution you find stupid (which you can, of course) is an attempt to address something some people see as a problem? At least, enlighten us with reasons why you find it stupid, it's easy to find interesting things to say on this matter.
  - conradfr 7y ago
    It's unreadable and totally disconnected from the oral form and even these people can't apply their made-up rules consistently.
tootie 7y ago
Ha, so true. I know a lot of people (particularly East Asians) who struggle with basic English gender pronouns. I used to have a Chinese co-worker who just always got them backwards and when she said "him or his" I always assumed she was talking about a woman and vice-versa.
alkonaut 7y ago
I think there is plenty of leeway and acceptance for honest mistakes here. I don't think many people are easily offended by mistakes.
kamaal 7y ago
A few months back I took the IELTS(International english language testing system) exam. There was nothing in the entire syllabus, or sample tests I took, or the exam I appeared in, about all this. In fact I did a fair bit of practice on listening, reading, writing and speaking tests. Worked my way through some 7 - 8 workbooks. Had a good score in the exam too. This entire thing is so confusing to a point it almost requires a fair degree of exposure to politics, sub culture and social narrative cutting across various issues just to be able to ask some one to serve them a cup of tea. I'm surprised a language proficiency testing system, with may be tens of thousands of people taking the exam, with books, and training material designed with may be a century worth of experience from English speaking cultures across the world doesn't have anything on this. Or doesn't train us on this. There is no right way, grammatical or cultural accepted across the English speaking world to get this right. It so confusing. At this point in time its like I have to run a rule engine inside my brain just be be able to say 'Hi $title, $name, Did $pronoun take the book from my desk' Try filling in $title and $pronoun and see how it goes, especially when $name has a gender attached to it over entire known human history.

by wozer 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

johnchristopher 7y ago

I recently got caught off-guard on HN. Until a few months I didn't really get that 'they' could be used to refer to a company and I believe it led to some quiproquo in a conversation. One HN commentator went into my post history and hinted I was lying about it. shrugged

Fellshard 7y ago
This history-trolling is a nasty element in this new landscape. I've noticed the more zealous members of this policing regime creating automated tools for each forum that will scan through post history and divine - for example - occurrences of the n--- word, listing how many times they've said it, and whether they've tried to cover their tracks since the last search. https://www.reddit.com/user/nwordcountbot https://www.reddit.com/user/nwordcountbot
- traderjane 7y ago
  I think it's more clear-headed to judge somebody from the perspective of history than as if you had Alzheimer's. What may be unfair is information asymmetry between the strong and the weak. As for the erroneous judgment stemming from analysis (like doing a word count for taboo words), would analysis arising from drastically less historical data be any more impressive?
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    It's intentionally ignorant of change, intentionally aiming to derail redemption and forgiveness, and intentionally crafting an isolated narrative without constructing the /actual/ context of those historical posts. It's a very narrow, distorted view.
    - traderjane 7y ago
      Compared to an Alzheimer's perspective? How does one even remotely discuss a history of unwell behavior? Obviously through a documentation of a person's history. Or does one somehow incredibly discuss a person from a single snapshot? Surely one-shot judgment is what's shallow, and zero-history judgment is called prejudice. How does one crave context and then forget the past? And when court compassionately considers events in a person's life which may have lead to a crime, how is that a "derailing" of forgiveness? What would clarity even mean here?
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        I'm not arguing to forget the past. I'm arguing that the current trend is that of merely skimming and cherry-picking, the least useful of historical analyses.
        traderjane 7y ago
        Yes, you're saying you wish some people would stop analyzing badly. I presume you have more confidence in HN moderators who analyze personal history. There are some people you trust, and some you don't. I guess the deep distinction you are proposing is that the random HN person who cherry-picked is bad, while HN moderation is good. How do we recognize your distinction? Through a history of behavior.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        HN, I trust to some greater degree, yes. That doesn't mean temperature doesn't change, as it has on many platforms before, and will on many after. The tool I linked above is an example of working around the issue: it's a form of doxxing, in which the information is dumped publicly beneath the user's post in order to tag and attempt to remove the validity of the post in the public opinion, even (and especially) when used in a non-sequitur manner.

audessuscest 7y ago

It's not just more difficult, it also feels weird (to not say more). In France, they want to change how to write things so you write the masculine and feminine version of each word at the same time, and even though it looks like the most stupid thing in the world, a lot of people working at university or some politician do it. Progress they say....

jraph 7y ago
> they want to change how to write things Who? Far from everybody. > looks like the most stupid thing in the world At the very least… > Progress they say.... Almost nobody is for progress for the sake of progress. Rejecting a solution that tries to address a (arguably) less-than-ideal status quo as stupid is not very helpful. We could argue that the status quo is stupid too anyway. Don't you see that the solution you find stupid (which you can, of course) is an attempt to address something some people see as a problem? At least, enlighten us with reasons why you find it stupid, it's easy to find interesting things to say on this matter.
- conradfr 7y ago
  It's unreadable and totally disconnected from the oral form and even these people can't apply their made-up rules consistently.

tootie 7y ago

Ha, so true. I know a lot of people (particularly East Asians) who struggle with basic English gender pronouns. I used to have a Chinese co-worker who just always got them backwards and when she said "him or his" I always assumed she was talking about a woman and vice-versa.

alkonaut 7y ago

I think there is plenty of leeway and acceptance for honest mistakes here. I don't think many people are easily offended by mistakes.

kamaal 7y ago

A few months back I took the IELTS(International english language testing system) exam. There was nothing in the entire syllabus, or sample tests I took, or the exam I appeared in, about all this. In fact I did a fair bit of practice on listening, reading, writing and speaking tests. Worked my way through some 7 - 8 workbooks. Had a good score in the exam too. This entire thing is so confusing to a point it almost requires a fair degree of exposure to politics, sub culture and social narrative cutting across various issues just to be able to ask some one to serve them a cup of tea. I'm surprised a language proficiency testing system, with may be tens of thousands of people taking the exam, with books, and training material designed with may be a century worth of experience from English speaking cultures across the world doesn't have anything on this. Or doesn't train us on this. There is no right way, grammatical or cultural accepted across the English speaking world to get this right. It so confusing. At this point in time its like I have to run a rule engine inside my brain just be be able to say 'Hi $title, $name, Did $pronoun take the book from my desk' Try filling in $title and $pronoun and see how it goes, especially when $name has a gender attached to it over entire known human history.