3 ms·

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

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.

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.