5 ms·

Really, is that the reason? Do you have any sources explaining this? Seems insane, 'supremacy' just makes me think of Jason Bourne movies, not racism.

by 6nf 6y ago

ahelwer 6y ago
Here you go, letter published in Nature explaining the reasoning: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0 It really isn't a big deal, the field is trying to be more welcoming to people. Not sure why this is "insane".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- beervirus 6y ago
  It’s insane to kowtow to the people who get offended by this.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    It isn't kowtowing, it's wanting to make your field more welcoming so you maybe get to work with a broader set of people? Research scientists tend to be quite a bit more egalitarian than your average corpo engineer.
    - unishark 6y ago
      I'd say research is far more hierarchical and non-egalitarian than industry engineering. It's all about ranking of people based on reputation, and trying to get your name on things first like explorers trying to get places named after themselves.
    - superdisk 6y ago
      Authoritarians and policing language under the guise of inclusivity. Name a more iconic duo.
- 6nf 6y ago
  Complete insanity.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Great argument!
    - 6nf 6y ago
      I'm not here to argue
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    Agreed. And this is only going to get worse and worse. Not to mention the fact that it makes our fields less inclusive to the regular, normal person who doesn't care about these things. I'd have probably get fired from my first job nowadays for saying the word "blacklist", not realising I'd somehow become a racist!
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      If you don't care, as you claim, then just use the new word. It isn't hard. You wouldn't be fired for using the word blacklist. At most, someone would consider gently suggesting using "blocklist" or something like that. If you continued to use blacklist, apparently to demonstrate some sort of thesis, you would eventually be asked to articulate this thesis. After being unable to do so without sounding like a petulant child, your coworkers might think less of you and maybe you would not be promoted or moved to a different team or something.
- andreareina 6y ago
  I really dislike the "more (welcoming|inclusive)" argument as it tends to shut down discussion. I don't think that's why you've chosen the phrasing you have, it's just the verbiage that's common now in these discussions. And it works! Can't be against more inclusive language, oh no. Nevermind that it's hardly ever defined, nor the costs discussed. Is the phrase "quantum supremacy" actually unwelcoming? Is it causing harm to people affected by white supremacy? Just because some people imagine a path from "quantum supremacy" to "white supremacy" doesn't mean that it's actually taken in any significant amount. Now, what's the cost? Political capital has to be spent, drawing down what's available for other initiatives. People who are otherwise sympathetic to the cause are being attacked, or wary of being attacked (c.f. Scott Aaronson's "The Far Right is destroying the world, and the Far Left is blaming me!"). Reputational damage [ed: from pushing through the walrus operator] is reportedly the reason that Guido stepped down as BDFL; it's not a minor concern. Personally in this case I don't really care one way or the other. Absent evidence I don't think there was any actual harm from the old term, but it not being an established term and being made fun of for being overly grandiose, the cost also seems very low, so meh.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    You say inclusivity isn't the real reason for the change. Then what is it?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - andreareina 6y ago
      I didn't say that. I said that framing it that way and not providing actual points that can be discussed on their merits shuts down discussion. Someone who argues against inclusive language is just wrapped up in their invisible privilege and just wants to perpetuate the status quo and avoid their own discomfort, right? Let's apply the principle of charity and suppose that the signatories of the letter are earnest and acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that anything that follows from those good intentions is itself good. Real harm has been done to good people in the pursuit of those good intentions; see the StackExchange/Monica Cellio drama for an egregious example. Even assuming good execution, productive discussion requires looking at the putative harm being done by the status quo, the benefit that would come from the change, and the cost (reputational and otherwise). Hardly ever see that.
tromp 6y ago
Just wait until they rename it to The Bourne Advantage
- 6nf 6y ago
  White Advantageists

Really, is that the reason? Do you have any sources explaining this? Seems insane, 'supremacy' just makes me think of Jason Bourne movies, not racism.

by 6nf 6y ago

Really, is that the reason? Do you have any sources explaining this? Seems insane, 'supremacy' just makes me think of Jason Bourne movies, not racism.

ahelwer 6y ago

Here you go, letter published in Nature explaining the reasoning: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0 It really isn't a big deal, the field is trying to be more welcoming to people. Not sure why this is "insane".

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
beervirus 6y ago
It’s insane to kowtow to the people who get offended by this.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  It isn't kowtowing, it's wanting to make your field more welcoming so you maybe get to work with a broader set of people? Research scientists tend to be quite a bit more egalitarian than your average corpo engineer.
  - unishark 6y ago
    I'd say research is far more hierarchical and non-egalitarian than industry engineering. It's all about ranking of people based on reputation, and trying to get your name on things first like explorers trying to get places named after themselves.
  - superdisk 6y ago
    Authoritarians and policing language under the guise of inclusivity. Name a more iconic duo.
6nf 6y ago
Complete insanity.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Great argument!
  - 6nf 6y ago
    I'm not here to argue
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Agreed. And this is only going to get worse and worse. Not to mention the fact that it makes our fields less inclusive to the regular, normal person who doesn't care about these things. I'd have probably get fired from my first job nowadays for saying the word "blacklist", not realising I'd somehow become a racist!
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    If you don't care, as you claim, then just use the new word. It isn't hard. You wouldn't be fired for using the word blacklist. At most, someone would consider gently suggesting using "blocklist" or something like that. If you continued to use blacklist, apparently to demonstrate some sort of thesis, you would eventually be asked to articulate this thesis. After being unable to do so without sounding like a petulant child, your coworkers might think less of you and maybe you would not be promoted or moved to a different team or something.
andreareina 6y ago
I really dislike the "more (welcoming|inclusive)" argument as it tends to shut down discussion. I don't think that's why you've chosen the phrasing you have, it's just the verbiage that's common now in these discussions. And it works! Can't be against more inclusive language, oh no. Nevermind that it's hardly ever defined, nor the costs discussed. Is the phrase "quantum supremacy" actually unwelcoming? Is it causing harm to people affected by white supremacy? Just because some people imagine a path from "quantum supremacy" to "white supremacy" doesn't mean that it's actually taken in any significant amount. Now, what's the cost? Political capital has to be spent, drawing down what's available for other initiatives. People who are otherwise sympathetic to the cause are being attacked, or wary of being attacked (c.f. Scott Aaronson's "The Far Right is destroying the world, and the Far Left is blaming me!"). Reputational damage [ed: from pushing through the walrus operator] is reportedly the reason that Guido stepped down as BDFL; it's not a minor concern. Personally in this case I don't really care one way or the other. Absent evidence I don't think there was any actual harm from the old term, but it not being an established term and being made fun of for being overly grandiose, the cost also seems very low, so meh.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  You say inclusivity isn't the real reason for the change. Then what is it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - andreareina 6y ago
    I didn't say that. I said that framing it that way and not providing actual points that can be discussed on their merits shuts down discussion. Someone who argues against inclusive language is just wrapped up in their invisible privilege and just wants to perpetuate the status quo and avoid their own discomfort, right? Let's apply the principle of charity and suppose that the signatories of the letter are earnest and acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that anything that follows from those good intentions is itself good. Real harm has been done to good people in the pursuit of those good intentions; see the StackExchange/Monica Cellio drama for an egregious example. Even assuming good execution, productive discussion requires looking at the putative harm being done by the status quo, the benefit that would come from the change, and the cost (reputational and otherwise). Hardly ever see that.

tromp 6y ago

Just wait until they rename it to The Bourne Advantage

6nf 6y ago
White Advantageists