3 ms·

? They absolutely are requiring people to change their language. That's literally 1/2 the article. The term 'noosing' is perfectly reasonable language for desc

by jariel 6y ago

? They absolutely are requiring people to change their language. That's literally 1/2 the article. The term 'noosing' is perfectly reasonable language for describing how lizards are 'noosed'. Blacklist/Whitelists - again, perfectly reasonable language. People are being asked to change the use of their language for no pragmatic reason: even among possibly offended groups, nobody cares. If you were to ask 1000 random African Americans for some things they feel should change about America to make it more fair, and to combat systematic racism - 0 of them would identify the terms 'whitelist and blacklist' as problematic language. These are tropes in the minds of people who think for a living, and who have little better to do than argue over words like 'noosing'. There's legitimacy in the concept of 'micro triggers' etc. but I think it's been taken entirely out of context.

a1369209993 6y ago
> They absolutely are requiring people to change their language. I think happytoexplain is making a (unjustified, but understandable) distinction between 'common' language versus technical jargon? Fucking up the latter inevitably damages the former, but that's not necessarily obvious to someone who thinks "oh we're just inconveniencing a few stubborn specialists".
- jariel 6y ago
  It's not technical jargon. 'Noosing' the animal is not a term invented by Scientists, it's a colloquial term they've borrowed from trappers and hunters. It's just a 'regular term' and it's part of language. Why don't you check here by Googling "noosing a lizard". [1] Have a look at the myriad of results. There is not a single instance or comment anywhere on any of the videos etc. about such language being 'inappropriate' - because it isn't. Nobody but a single person is complaining about it. It's completely absurd to consider the concept of 'noosing an animal' as racially insensitive - if that is offensive - than everything is. By this logic, the 'threshold' for 'banning terms' would be effectively to condemn language that has literally a handful of people in the world who object to it. Now - the 'n-word' for example, is obviously inappropriate. What we need is common sense, and the ability to reasonably be able to draw the line somewhere. What is happening, is that a certain kind of people intellectualise the ordeal and loose sight of any material reality. Not that different from startups let by very smart people who spend a lot of money building products that nobody wants (how can that possibly happen?). [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=noosing+a+lizard&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA869CA869&oq=noosing+a+lizard&aqs=chrome..69i57.3637j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=noosing+a+lizard&rlz=1C5CHFA...
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > It's not technical jargon. 'Noosing' the animal is not a term invented by Scientists, it's a colloquial term they've borrowed from trappers and hunters. It's just a 'regular term' and it's part of language. > > (unjustified, but understandable) distinction [emphasis added] Natural language does not work the way it would have to for that distinction to make sense, and I did not claim otherwise; rather, I was pointing out the happytoexplain might not have realized that such a distinction makes no sense.

by jariel 6y ago

a1369209993 6y ago

> They absolutely are requiring people to change their language. I think happytoexplain is making a (unjustified, but understandable) distinction between 'common' language versus technical jargon? Fucking up the latter inevitably damages the former, but that's not necessarily obvious to someone who thinks "oh we're just inconveniencing a few stubborn specialists".

jariel 6y ago
It's not technical jargon. 'Noosing' the animal is not a term invented by Scientists, it's a colloquial term they've borrowed from trappers and hunters. It's just a 'regular term' and it's part of language. Why don't you check here by Googling "noosing a lizard". [1] Have a look at the myriad of results. There is not a single instance or comment anywhere on any of the videos etc. about such language being 'inappropriate' - because it isn't. Nobody but a single person is complaining about it. It's completely absurd to consider the concept of 'noosing an animal' as racially insensitive - if that is offensive - than everything is. By this logic, the 'threshold' for 'banning terms' would be effectively to condemn language that has literally a handful of people in the world who object to it. Now - the 'n-word' for example, is obviously inappropriate. What we need is common sense, and the ability to reasonably be able to draw the line somewhere. What is happening, is that a certain kind of people intellectualise the ordeal and loose sight of any material reality. Not that different from startups let by very smart people who spend a lot of money building products that nobody wants (how can that possibly happen?). [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=noosing+a+lizard&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA869CA869&oq=noosing+a+lizard&aqs=chrome..69i57.3637j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=noosing+a+lizard&rlz=1C5CHFA...
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > It's not technical jargon. 'Noosing' the animal is not a term invented by Scientists, it's a colloquial term they've borrowed from trappers and hunters. It's just a 'regular term' and it's part of language. > > (unjustified, but understandable) distinction [emphasis added] Natural language does not work the way it would have to for that distinction to make sense, and I did not claim otherwise; rather, I was pointing out the happytoexplain might not have realized that such a distinction makes no sense.