4 ms·

Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It reminds me of that joke from The Office wher

Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It reminds me of that joke from The Office where Michael acts like the term "Mexican" is problematic. If there is a real problem here I am genuinely happy to hear about it and try to understand. I would love to see more diversity in computer science and I think the entire industry would benefit. But it sure feels like some rich white engineer taking advantage of a social movement to broadcast their own virtue.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
el_nahual 6y ago
Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument. The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is. To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc. (Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means many things, but that's the argument being made).
- salawat 6y ago
  Boulderdash. There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>. We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger! How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple? Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the color of the negative cable. What's white? Oh, ground? You mean where everything ends up going? Heavens, pull the wiring out! This moral panic reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis. >"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." Truly, in these Times have the moral busybodies had their Jimmy's rustled.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Please check your diction and spelling before launching into a linguistics-oriented tirade.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    > There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>. Do I ever have a new word for you. Have you ever heard of the term 'yellow peril'? Color coding is a remarkably easy and efficient way to encode racial stereotypes and spread propaganda. Nowadays the association with said color is lessened (though some elements still appear among racists) but it seems rather ignorant of history to ignore the uses of color coding for racial dogwhistles.
  - TerminalSystem3 6y ago
    Well said, and I like the quote. I think it's telling that the top response to your comment completely dodges the substance of the comment and just attacks your "diction." It seems to me that these moral purists are basically in a state of war - any rational argument against their position is met with overreactions, emotional responses, and insults. Sometimes I wonder whether some of this ridiculousness is put on by foreign influence operations. Because I could not imagine a more effective strategy to hand the election to Trump. Most people I know are rather appalled at the orwellian censorship of the current movement.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- thefounder 6y ago
  This thought just crossed my mind: I think we should stop using the yellow colour at the semaphore because some Asians may find it offensive, right? Like if it's yellow it's a warning!
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  Black people also find darkness and black things scary and bad vs light and white things. Night time and spiders etc are universal. THAT's what makes this an argument that fails a "sanity check". (They proposed "incoherent" as an alternative to sanity. Well, people can be insane and people can also be incoherent, and both are negative labels when applied to a person. What does the one improve over the other? I say nothing. It's a mixed bag. I don't see anything wrong with at least starting to steer the great ship of inertia away from "him" and "man" for everything when we do have perfectly servicable, not ridiculous, not confusing alternatives without even resorting to hir/sie/etc. It hurts no one to say their in place of his. Even "person-hours" is fine even though it's an extra syllable. In fact the new term is simply the truth. It's simply the more accurate communication, which all these supposed rationalists should be all for.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.

el_nahual 6y ago

Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument. The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is. To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc. (Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means many things, but that's the argument being made).

salawat 6y ago
Boulderdash. There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>. We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger! How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple? Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the color of the negative cable. What's white? Oh, ground? You mean where everything ends up going? Heavens, pull the wiring out! This moral panic reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis. >"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." Truly, in these Times have the moral busybodies had their Jimmy's rustled.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Please check your diction and spelling before launching into a linguistics-oriented tirade.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  > There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>. Do I ever have a new word for you. Have you ever heard of the term 'yellow peril'? Color coding is a remarkably easy and efficient way to encode racial stereotypes and spread propaganda. Nowadays the association with said color is lessened (though some elements still appear among racists) but it seems rather ignorant of history to ignore the uses of color coding for racial dogwhistles.
- TerminalSystem3 6y ago
  Well said, and I like the quote. I think it's telling that the top response to your comment completely dodges the substance of the comment and just attacks your "diction." It seems to me that these moral purists are basically in a state of war - any rational argument against their position is met with overreactions, emotional responses, and insults. Sometimes I wonder whether some of this ridiculousness is put on by foreign influence operations. Because I could not imagine a more effective strategy to hand the election to Trump. Most people I know are rather appalled at the orwellian censorship of the current movement.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
thefounder 6y ago
This thought just crossed my mind: I think we should stop using the yellow colour at the semaphore because some Asians may find it offensive, right? Like if it's yellow it's a warning!
Brian_K_White 6y ago
Black people also find darkness and black things scary and bad vs light and white things. Night time and spiders etc are universal. THAT's what makes this an argument that fails a "sanity check". (They proposed "incoherent" as an alternative to sanity. Well, people can be insane and people can also be incoherent, and both are negative labels when applied to a person. What does the one improve over the other? I say nothing. It's a mixed bag. I don't see anything wrong with at least starting to steer the great ship of inertia away from "him" and "man" for everything when we do have perfectly servicable, not ridiculous, not confusing alternatives without even resorting to hir/sie/etc. It hurts no one to say their in place of his. Even "person-hours" is fine even though it's an extra syllable. In fact the new term is simply the truth. It's simply the more accurate communication, which all these supposed rationalists should be all for.