4 ms·

> They absolutely are requiring people to change their language. I think happytoexplain is making a (unjustified, but understandable) distinction between 'comm

by 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.

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.