4 ms·

Sorry, I don't understand this at all. You really can't spend the 30 seconds needed to think about "hmm, maybe be a bit careful about the words I'm using here

Sorry, I don't understand this at all. You really can't spend the 30 seconds needed to think about "hmm, maybe be a bit careful about the words I'm using here in case my message gets lost in criticism of my language"? As others have said, finding a non-offensive synonym for "Black market" takes a single search, about 5 seconds. Is it really that time-critical? Where are you sending these messages that those 30 seconds are "life or death" yet they're spread widely enough to be potentially offensive? "messing up" involves what, exactly? Because it seems to me that using a racist term is more likely to divert the attention from your message, not less.

cglace 6y ago
Should we really have to research each word we use before using it?
- bluntfang 6y ago
  It's important to know the meaning of the words you use. I can't believe I have to say that.
  - cglace 6y ago
    Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is a difference in knowing the meaning of a word and knowing the myriad of ways a word can be perceived by your audience. One is very easy the other is a gargantuan task.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      All communication is an attempt to create meaning in the mind of the listener. If you use words that the listener perceives to have a certain meaning, but that is not the meaning you intended to create, then your message will not communicate your meaning correctly. In other words, all words are given meaning by the listener, not the speaker. Your intentions when saying something are irrelevant (but are usually taken into consideration because no communication is perfect).
      - cglace 6y ago
        If my intent does not matter and my words can be construed to mean anything then where do we go from here?
        bluntfang 6y ago
        The point is that the only thing you can control, as the communicator, is the words you use. You can't control your audiences vocabulary and their interpretation, thus the onus is on the communicator to communicate their message, not the listener. It's up to the communicator to understand their audience and make the best faith attempt to communicate that they can, and to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs. You, accidentally, hit the nail on the head. I'm pretty sure that the intended audience often gets the message just fine. The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience; they just butt in to try to control how everyone else talks regardless of how much they actually care about the topic, group or subject matter. In this particular example, I highly doubt that anyone in the middle of working against slave trade cares about whether anyone used the words "black market". It's only later, if that ever were discussed on twitter or reddit, etc, that one would start finding people taking issue with that choice of words.
        bluntfang 6y ago
        >The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this. I also think it's really funny that you're assuming you know what people involved in fighting the slave trade want. Are you currently doing that?
        6y ago
julianmarq 6y ago
> You really can't spend the 30 seconds needed to think about "hmm, maybe be a bit careful about the words I'm using here in case my message gets lost in criticism of my language"? If I had thought there was a situation where "every second counts" was actually true, it would be human trafficking. You seem to disagree. > Because it seems to me that using a racist term is more likely to divert the attention from your message, not less. "Black market" is definitely a "racist" term now? GP only gave it as a potential example, or at least that's how I read it. The point is that wording the message like that is not actually going to divert attention. Except for the few people trying to police speech at every turn—and who will try to harm him over it—even though the message itself did its job (a far more helpful job than the people trying to police speech would ever do, for that matter).

cglace 6y ago

Should we really have to research each word we use before using it?

bluntfang 6y ago
It's important to know the meaning of the words you use. I can't believe I have to say that.
- cglace 6y ago
  Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is a difference in knowing the meaning of a word and knowing the myriad of ways a word can be perceived by your audience. One is very easy the other is a gargantuan task.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    All communication is an attempt to create meaning in the mind of the listener. If you use words that the listener perceives to have a certain meaning, but that is not the meaning you intended to create, then your message will not communicate your meaning correctly. In other words, all words are given meaning by the listener, not the speaker. Your intentions when saying something are irrelevant (but are usually taken into consideration because no communication is perfect).
    - cglace 6y ago
      If my intent does not matter and my words can be construed to mean anything then where do we go from here?
      - bluntfang 6y ago
        The point is that the only thing you can control, as the communicator, is the words you use. You can't control your audiences vocabulary and their interpretation, thus the onus is on the communicator to communicate their message, not the listener. It's up to the communicator to understand their audience and make the best faith attempt to communicate that they can, and to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs. You, accidentally, hit the nail on the head. I'm pretty sure that the intended audience often gets the message just fine. The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience; they just butt in to try to control how everyone else talks regardless of how much they actually care about the topic, group or subject matter. In this particular example, I highly doubt that anyone in the middle of working against slave trade cares about whether anyone used the words "black market". It's only later, if that ever were discussed on twitter or reddit, etc, that one would start finding people taking issue with that choice of words.
        bluntfang 6y ago
        >The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this. I also think it's really funny that you're assuming you know what people involved in fighting the slave trade want. Are you currently doing that?
        6y ago

julianmarq 6y ago

> You really can't spend the 30 seconds needed to think about "hmm, maybe be a bit careful about the words I'm using here in case my message gets lost in criticism of my language"? If I had thought there was a situation where "every second counts" was actually true, it would be human trafficking. You seem to disagree. > Because it seems to me that using a racist term is more likely to divert the attention from your message, not less. "Black market" is definitely a "racist" term now? GP only gave it as a potential example, or at least that's how I read it. The point is that wording the message like that is not actually going to divert attention. Except for the few people trying to police speech at every turn—and who will try to harm him over it—even though the message itself did its job (a far more helpful job than the people trying to police speech would ever do, for that matter).