3 ms·

And this is back to where I commented recently about the "problem with 1984"; "I don't like the terms master/slave, they make me uncomfortable with the connota

And this is back to where I commented recently about the "problem with 1984"; "I don't like the terms master/slave, they make me uncomfortable with the connotations of my ancestor's slavery, can we change them?" -> "NO MORE CAN A MAN BE ENTITLED TO THE CHOICE OF ASCII CHARACTERS ONE WOULD DEMAND IN A FREE COUNTRY! THIS IS THOUGHTCRIME BY THE BACKDOOR! ORWELL! TYRANNY! HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN 1984 ALREADY?!" > "where we can't have an honest discussion about terms without automatically being slapped as racist despite multiple meanings of the same word." Except we can have such a discussion, without being automatically anything, and many people do have said-discussions. There is no accusation of racism in The Article against people who aren't making the change, there is only a discussion of pros and cons and reasons. Same (so far) in these comments about the article. Newspeak was not a "more politically correct" recommendation of words to avoid offending people, Newspeak was a reworking of the English language to make it literally impossible to think certain thoughts, and a combined revision of all historical records to wipe those ideas out completely. Asking people to change "master" to "main" like the opening tweet in the article, "I'm doing this. Join me" is not tyrannically oppressive insanity. It's not trying to wipe historical evidence of slavery. It's not trying to change what you can think about.

dbsmith83 6y ago
Sure, the article itself is not "tyrannically oppressive insanity" like you say, but when major corporations start picking up these articles because they seem en vogue, it can become a little tyrannical in the workplace. For instance, if this became a D&I initiative, speaking out against it could be... dangerous. It can have a chilling effect on other people who would otherwise not agree. I suppose that has a lot to do with the culture at a workplace. Given the current political climate with race relations though, it does make it a little scary to oppose measures D&I related, don't you agree? It would be nice to have an environment where you can respectfully speak your mind without getting labeled and/or canned.

dbsmith83 6y ago

Sure, the article itself is not "tyrannically oppressive insanity" like you say, but when major corporations start picking up these articles because they seem en vogue, it can become a little tyrannical in the workplace. For instance, if this became a D&I initiative, speaking out against it could be... dangerous. It can have a chilling effect on other people who would otherwise not agree. I suppose that has a lot to do with the culture at a workplace. Given the current political climate with race relations though, it does make it a little scary to oppose measures D&I related, don't you agree? It would be nice to have an environment where you can respectfully speak your mind without getting labeled and/or canned.