14 ms·

Avoid Contentious Terms

95 points by apsec112 6y ago

klodolph 6y ago
I’ll say that it’s a lot easier to avoid contentious terms when they don’t affect you personally. For example, if you are a middle-class heterosexual white man living in the US, then it’s a low-stakes choice to avoid talking about patriarchy, institutional racism, heteronormativity, sexism, etc. The terms are partly contentious due to their connotations but these are contentious topics to talk about in the first place. If you’re going to dance around the most obvious and natural term for a concept that you’re talking about, it ends up sounding suspicious.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cgriswald 6y ago
  The problem in my mind is that when you use a contentious term to describe a precise concept, people—both those who largely agree and those who largely disagree with you—overload the term with their own assumptions about what the term means. I’ve seen people espouse Xism ideas while lambasting Xists because their view of Xism is a caricature.
  - twic 6y ago
    "I think what this country needs is for the rich to pay more taxes, stronger unions to protect the little guy, and public services run for the public, not profit! Also, i hate socialism."
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      That makes a lot of sense, because in socialism the most rich Party members didn't pay more taxes; the unions offered zero protection against the universal employer - state; and the public services... okay, those actually generated loss, you have a point.
  - klodolph 6y ago
    Avoiding controversy is an act that supports the status quo.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      Non sequitur. Choosing your words to best be heard is not about avoiding controversy. Do you want to spend your time talking about the controversy or constantly arguing about definitions to people who have already decided you’re right or wrong based on an assumed position you don’t even hold?
- coagmano 6y ago
  Avoiding contentious terms is not the same thing as avoiding contentious topics. The blog clearly says he's keen to talk about these things, but tries to do so in a way that doesn't drag in a bunch of baggage that makes it less likely that the people you're communicating with will listen to your point.
dvt 6y ago
Hah, a friend of mine is working on solving this exact problem with her startup (specifically when it comes to performance reports). I'm not exactly sold that most people understand the power of words or even care to differentiate between these linguistic nuances.
tacitusarc 6y ago
It feels to me like the author misses the point somewhat. I think the conclusion is correct, that is, contentious terms should be avoided. However, it seems to him contentious means divisive, rather than terms whose definitions are contended. The terms referred to certainly are divisive, but for good reason: they seem to have many interpretations and, from what I can tell, primarily facilitate equivocation. As in, the point of these contentious terms is not to guide everyone to a shared understanding, but to trick people into agreement to justify some action.
schoen 6y ago
I'm also somewhat reminded of the idea of "tabooing words" https://www.greaterwrong.com/tag/rationalist-taboo https://www.greaterwrong.com/tag/rationalist-taboo (which is not about words that are themselves taboo in a sociological sense, but about a procedure inspired by the word game Taboo)
deanCommie 6y ago
It's frustrating though when specific factual words with meaning become redefined and the new definition is what is contentious. > "We should defund the police" > No, we should instead invest more in non-police social programs like mental health. > "Yes, that's what I mean when I say we should defund the police" > No, we shouldn't defund the police. How do you proceed from that? When I was a teenager 15 years ago my friend who studied Gender Studies told me about the concept of "privilege". I was livid. I understood what she was trying to say (I thought) but I was angry that she dared suggest that I had something. I was an immigrant. My family spent time on welfare. I worked super hard in school. Sure, I was white. So? How dare she? It didn't even occur to me to consider who she was comparing me against. It took me some time, I did some reading, I understood what the term meant, and I recognized some context (Yes, my parents were on Welfare for 2 months when we moved to the West. But they also had PhDs and were able to find good jobs soon after, etc) I went back to my friend and I said "look, i agree with your premise. But I still think the word privilege is too contenious. It makes people react negatively. She said, but that's the academic term. You reacted negatively because you reacted to a mischaracterization of the definition rather than what it actually meant. I thought about it and agreed. So now it's 15 years later, and I see people my own age - grown men in their 30s and older reacting to terms like privilege with the same vitreol I did as an angry teenager. At a time when there is more information than ever for people to find. The problem is not the contentious terms. The problem is some (lots) people just don't want to have a reasonable debate no matter what they say. They are entrenched in their ways, uninterested in growing, are arrogant about their beliefs, and lack the empathy to consider the feelings of others. If you discover new "non contentious" terms, they'll just find a way to make them contentious too.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  "The best move..."
- edbob 6y ago
  "Privilege" is an everyday word with established meanings. If academics want to redefine it to serve their political goals, the burden is on them to make their case to the people. We don't have to accept that a word means something different than what it's always meant before just because some ivory tower elitists said so. When someone wants to introduce a term to clarify meaning, they generally put two or three words together and create a unique term. When someone with a political agenda wants to create confusion and division, they choose common terms and give them new, contentious meanings. A sibling has a better approach for this particular term: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26247166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26247166
coagmano 6y ago
There's one term I always avoid in discussion, and that's Privilege. Beyond the dictionary definition, privilege already had widely used emotional connotations that made it an insult to call someone privileged. Which means when you try to talk to people about their White Privilege or Male Privilege, you're alreday starting with a penalty and need to assure them that you're not trying to insult them. Much easier to have a discussion about the concepts encoded in the terms when you don't use them. I find most people find them quite intuitive and it helps create some empathy, which is usually the point of the exercise
- function_seven 6y ago
  What do you use instead?
  - coagmano 6y ago
    It's context dependent, but I do like the difficulty setting analogy. Like the pact of punishment in Hades, except you don't get extra rewards. In one abstract example there'll be a discussion of why x group are so sensitve about y. Instead of saying "check your privilege" I say something like "maybe their tired of having to worry about z? When was the last time you had to think about z on a day to day basis?", asking genuinely and waiting for response, not just asked rhetorically.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      Oh, I see. I was thinking you had a different word. But you’re not using another word, but rather getting into analogy or explanation. I like it. “Privilege” means different things to the speaker and to the listener, so skip the label and delve into the thing that you mean instead.
  - ehutch79 6y ago
    Advantage has worked for me. I mean someone saying that to me instead of privilege. Privilege just invokes the idea of 'fat cats' in a dark hunting lodge smoking stogies and sipping whiskey, complaining about commoners.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
"Keto" and "low-carb" are often met with very different reactions. "Oh, I'm avoiding sugars" is completely reasonable, but Keto, not so much. To be more impartial, 'avoiding sugars' generally implies simple sugars (e.g, candy), whereas on Keto, you also avoid complex sugars/carbohydrates. To get more complicated, you're typically still eating vegetables on Keto, so you are consuming complex carbohydrates, truly 0-carb (versus an infinitesimal amount) would be practically impossible.
- jefftk 6y ago
  Doesn't "keto" refers to a diet that has the goal of putting your body into ketosis? Where it starts using metabolic pathways it doesn't usually use? Simply avoiding sugars or cutting down on carbs wouldn't do that. On the other hand, I agree that people have associations about the kind of people who choose to do keto, and that's part of what you're getting when you see those differing responses.
centimeter 6y ago
This blog is interesting because the author is clearly on the cusp of achieving a greater level of understanding. He's thinking about a lot of things as deeply as possible in the normie intellectual framework, and he's running into its limits. For example, his post "Dividing Tasks" has some pretty good insight into the advantages/disadvantages of gender roles, but he just barely fails to make the leap to the next level of understanding, which is to analyze these tradeoffs in terms of (multi-round) auctions in the sexual market. Instead he falls into the very normie suggestion of "what if we used time tracking?" Same with his article on tickling; he notices that reality violates his expectations here, but he doesn't quite make the leap to understanding why his prediction was wrong. The author is clearly very smart, but he seems to be stuck with an ontology designed to serve less intelligent people
- kbenson 6y ago
  I can't help but but interpret this as a very creative and well executed meta-troll.
renewiltord 6y ago
I try to avoid jargon when I'm not operating with the audience that understands this. On a blog, that's hard, because your audience is infinite and when you share that you want to "kill all the apaches" maybe your audience will understand that you want to kill all the apache forked processes but some moron will post it on Twitter as evidence that you hate Native Americans. Of course, the problem with this is that all the high information conversations are now private. Very few are sharing true insights in public because it's easy to find your audience and then you don't really need everyone else. This is why I'm personally a huge fan of a personal ban feature on networks with lots of overlap. It's not that I want to ban people (though I do want to). I want people who don't like reading my thoughts to ban me. If a HN user who doesn't like me never sees my comments again, that's a good thing. Ideally, I could reach only my people so we can talk and everyone else would exclude us.
- schoen 6y ago
  However, are "your people" actually transitively closed? My impression is this isn't really the case for most people (or at least not if you like to talk about more than one thing). I'm reminded of this article I saw several years ago https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ which suggests that we shouldn't assume friendship is transitive. I know I have friends whom I would never want to introduce to one another or have in the same conversation or social gathering! I agree with your suggestion that being able to ignore someone easily could make communications environments better; it seems like there was probably a lot of direct and indirect benefit in USENET killfiles (although I'm not such a fan of how people used them performatively, publicly announcing that they had killfiled other people -- usually by writing "PLONK!" at the end of a long rejoinder).
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    No, you're absolutely right. The closure of anyone over friendship is likely all people. But I think there's a scoring mechanism that's possible using a graph model that can usually reveal whether you want to see a person's comments or not. For the moment, I just settle for the opposite bias: there are people who I want to read what I say, but I don't let them. Instead I just settle for a group that most of the time also feels that way.
AussieWog93 6y ago
There's a third reason for avoiding terms like "patriarchy" or "systemic racism": it encourages you to parrot points you've heard elsewhere rather than form a cohesive and rational argument. And, generally speaking, anyone who you could hope to convince of your point can smell this from a mile off.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  Yes. I've encountered people who can't explain what the patriarchy is but still use that term. Back in 2016 somebody told me Hillary Clinton was a "crook". What a strange word that nobody would normally use. He couldn't explain if it means criminal or corrupt or something else or why she was that. Better to just not say anything if you're only parroting buzzwords. Edit. Just caught myself say "parroting". That's one of those needlessly contentious or offensive words.
  - pwdisswordfish6 6y ago
    > "crook" [...] Better to just not say anything if you're only parroting buzzwords. The buzzword of 2020/2021 appears to be "grifter" and its variations. On topic with the article and related to this is the word "dogwhistle". (The funny thing is that "dogwhistle" can itself be a dogwhistle.) It doesn't get used as much in my experience as "grifter", though, which is so wantonly thrown about nowadays that it may as well have no meaning. I avoid using both of these words. There are better ways to say it.
    - Trasmatta 6y ago
      Dogwhistle is one of those phrases that has been so overused in the past year that it's largely lost its original meaning. It's like "gaslighting", which people seem to now use as a synonym for any kind of abuse. Or how people say "humblebrag" for regular brags.
      - temp-dude-87844 6y ago
        'Dogwhistle' has drifted in its invocation in subtle but important ways. Originally it referred to the notion that some people would interpret coded language in the choice of phrasing or a hear a different connotation that the author did not intend. Then it was used as a descriptive accusation by outgroup members to claim that the speaker deliberately used coded language to appeal to an ingroup. Then it was used to describe the deliberate tactic of crafting word choice to appeal to a group while maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding alienating those not in the know. Then it was used to disparage certain groups by claiming that the group's writers and readers were communicating in coded language by tacit agreement, to affirm among each other positions the critics considered reprehensible. And finally it achieved self-reference by becoming a word some feel is being used as coded language by other groups to disparage them. It's unfortunate because each shade of meaning is a useful concept that would benefit from a succinct descriptor, but 'dogwhistle' has been churned through the semantic drift to where it's a word of subjective vitriol and not an objective descriptor of anything in particular.
SummerlyMars 6y ago
This is something that's been on my mind for years. Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group[1]. If someone has any amount of hostility to that group, then using these terms is going to cause them to get angry/frustrated with what you have to say instead of actually listening to your argument on its own merits... or at least that's what I've noticed about myself. For a long time, certain terms or expressions would irritate me so much that I'd ignore what the person using them had to say, even though afterwards I found I usually agreed with much of it. Even knowing now that I have this response and actively trying to avoid it, it's still difficult to ignore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
- sneak 6y ago
  > Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group Sometimes readers jump to that conclusion, but it's frequently or even usually untrue, while a shibboleth conceptually is something that can only be done by a member of a certain group. Contrariwise, for example, both feminists and anti-feminists could use such "group identifier" terms as cited in the article ("patriarchy", "emotional labor", et c). Using those terms absolutely does not denote to anyone which group you are in, and people who continue as if it does are clearly making an error. I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group, to get readers to question the usefulness or applicability of their stereotypes. I have no idea if I achieve my goal or if I just confuse people. Having read your comment, a lot of my writing exists to trigger[1] people who take your view (in addition to conveying useful information for the people who don't fall for the stereotype trap). I reject the entire idea of the concept that using a word makes you a member of some group and thus permits a word-reader to infer some information about you. That's just bias, something we should all be looking out for and frustrating when possible. [1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless.
  - klodolph 6y ago
    > [1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless. Can you explain the joke for me? I’m not sure I get it. Edit: To be clear, I understand what the word “trigger” means and its connotations.
Lammy 6y ago
I like this post aside from the very end where a statement I agree with is used as the example of miscommunication arising from what not to do :p
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
josquindesprez 6y ago
I strongly agree with the sentiment of this, and naturally gravitate towards avoiding any such loaded language. But writing posts like the ones he's referring to doesn't seem like a great solution to me. They come off as a little disingenuous, like they're trying to show off how detached they are from the Big Moral Questions while still shunting you towards a Big Moral Opinion. His thoughts seem to be shaped by having been exposed to things defined by the contours of contentious terms. He's writing the posts to add a rational, more persuasive voice to a broader conversation, while intentionally alienating himself from the broader conversation. It's a worthwhile persuasive strategy...so I would've liked to have seen a bit more on how to get over the hurdle of tone.
jim-jim-jim 6y ago
It's extra fun when your language is not only contentious, but incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor#Definition
Niksko 6y ago
If you're viewing everything through a rational and sterile lens (and probably, a privileged lens), it makes a huge deal of sense to just avoid "contentious" terms. It's no skin off your back, and it makes it more likely that you're able to maintain social decorum when interacting with people. And maintaining social decorum is probably pretty high on your list of things you care about. If you're from a marginalised group, I don't think just "avoiding contentious terms" is so easy. There's an emotional aspect to things. There a probably groups with "contentious" labels that want you dead, or want your rights removed. This has probably affected people you love and care about. Maintaining social decorum by not putting people off-side is low on the list of things you care about. You've got bigger fish to fry, and using these marginalised terms to mark yourself as part of the in group probably serves a coping purpose as well as a safety purpose (to easily identify those that will marginalise you, because they are quick to be angered by your "contentious" terms).
- Clewza313 6y ago
  The downvotes you're getting here (not from me, mind you) are illustrating the author's point very well. Intentionally or not, you're using so many "contentious terms" (privileged, marginalised group, etc) that a lot of people are tuning out and ignoring what you're actually trying to convey. Stripped of the baggage, I think you're trying to say that it's hard for minorities to avoid using contentious terms for issues that affect them, and that they shouldn't have do that extra work just to avoid "putting people off-side"? While I sympathize, I also think that's a false dichotomy: if you want to be heard, you need to phrase yourself in a way that others will understand, and that's true for everybody. And if you don't want to be heard, well, then you're just (contentious term trigger warning) virtue signalling to others on "your" side.
  - sebastialonso 6y ago
    What I think grandparent comment should think is: is it more important to convey my idea or to show that I'm part of a group? Both do well for different contexts. Probably choosing one for every context is a terrible idea. As that saying goes: "if wearing a tie or not is more important than to pitch your idea, then your idea wasn't that important to begin with" edit: parent -> grandparent
trabant00 6y ago
Contentious? How about simply ridiculous? That's what I would call using "rape culture" when talking about tickling your kids. Maybe crazy too.
nathias 6y ago
How about not avoiding contentious terms, but rather avoiding people who feel they can not only identify a person by a term used, but then also guess and imply everything they have to say ... those people know everything already, why talk to them in the first place.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  If someone starts off with such terms, they're already putting an undue burden on me to sort out what they actually mean since the terms are so heavily overloaded and come with so much attached baggage. They're also strongly signalling that they have nothing meaningful to say and may not even be open to an honest discussion. It's not so much I feel I can identify them. It's that I can identify that they're a waste of my finite time and attention.
  - nathias 6y ago
    And how are people to know what is contentious to you and what comes with attached baggage for you?
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      Whether a term is contentious may not always be black-and-white but it isn’t really subjective.
      - nathias 6y ago
        Of course it's subjective, it just might be similar for other people in your exact context so it works for small groups, but it never works when you're talking to people outside of your immediate group.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        It is not my subjective opinion whether people are arguing over a word. I think you are confusing people who dislike the usage of a word with people (like me) recognizing that the word is contentious for that reason.
smitty1e 6y ago
Speak wisdom, sow peace, especially when reciprocated. But it is folly to cede ground when, as in our day, destroyers are afoot. David did not seek to empathize with Goliath. He did what was needful.
tinus_hn 6y ago
For an opposing view, listen to George Carlin - Euphemisms.
mbar84 6y ago
Yes, it is a good idea to avoid the use of terms, that carry with them an implication that the listener is a bad person. I feel like this is a breakthrough in how we communicate.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
On the contrary: choose contentious terms appropriately. > you're really good at talking about the patriarchy without talking about the patriarchy I’m not sure I read this comment in the same tone as the author seems to have. Calling something what it is is an important part of addressing it. Even if you might not persuade everyone. Whitewashing conflict just makes it less clear what your position is.
- thisiszilff 6y ago
  > Calling something what it is is an important part of addressing it. I think this is the problem the article is addressing -- "calling something what it is" doesn't convince people that don't agree with you on what it is, especially when the terms you use are loaded with possible implicit interpretations. A lot of this is related to the implied worldview these words drag in. > Whitewashing conflict just makes it less clear what your position is. Which is to say that in a discussion or persuasive piece, it should be clear what you are arguing for or discussing without having to expose your whole worldview. Arguments about the distribution of chores between males and females in a household, doesn't need to use the word "patriarchy" to make its argument. In fact, it tends to make the argument weaker given that "patriarchy" hides a lot of things that would otherwise need to be unpacked.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    I think it's worse than that. "Patriarchy" makes me buy the whole framework in which the analysis is done. If you're trying to persuade me, I probably don't already buy that framework. In fact, I probably reject it. But if you show me that the distribution of chores comes out unfairly to females, you now have a starting point for persuading me about the rest of the package. If you want to convince people of a point, tie the point to as little extraneous baggage as possible. Choosing the terms you express it in is part of avoiding baggage. (If your point is to let those who agree with you rejoice in the obvious rightness of their opinion, that's different. But that's an approach that does little to actually change things that, per your position, need changed.)
    - 6y ago

95 points by apsec112 6y ago

I’ll say that it’s a lot easier to avoid contentious terms when they don’t affect you personally. For example, if you are a middle-class heterosexual white man living in the US, then it’s a low-stakes choice to avoid talking about patriarchy, institutional racism, heteronormativity, sexism, etc. The terms are partly contentious due to their connotations but these are contentious topics to talk about in the first place. If you’re going to dance around the most obvious and natural term for a concept that you’re talking about, it ends up sounding suspicious.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cgriswald 6y ago
The problem in my mind is that when you use a contentious term to describe a precise concept, people—both those who largely agree and those who largely disagree with you—overload the term with their own assumptions about what the term means. I’ve seen people espouse Xism ideas while lambasting Xists because their view of Xism is a caricature.
- twic 6y ago
  "I think what this country needs is for the rich to pay more taxes, stronger unions to protect the little guy, and public services run for the public, not profit! Also, i hate socialism."
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    That makes a lot of sense, because in socialism the most rich Party members didn't pay more taxes; the unions offered zero protection against the universal employer - state; and the public services... okay, those actually generated loss, you have a point.
- klodolph 6y ago
  Avoiding controversy is an act that supports the status quo.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    Non sequitur. Choosing your words to best be heard is not about avoiding controversy. Do you want to spend your time talking about the controversy or constantly arguing about definitions to people who have already decided you’re right or wrong based on an assumed position you don’t even hold?
coagmano 6y ago
Avoiding contentious terms is not the same thing as avoiding contentious topics. The blog clearly says he's keen to talk about these things, but tries to do so in a way that doesn't drag in a bunch of baggage that makes it less likely that the people you're communicating with will listen to your point.

dvt 6y ago

Hah, a friend of mine is working on solving this exact problem with her startup (specifically when it comes to performance reports). I'm not exactly sold that most people understand the power of words or even care to differentiate between these linguistic nuances.

tacitusarc 6y ago

It feels to me like the author misses the point somewhat. I think the conclusion is correct, that is, contentious terms should be avoided. However, it seems to him contentious means divisive, rather than terms whose definitions are contended. The terms referred to certainly are divisive, but for good reason: they seem to have many interpretations and, from what I can tell, primarily facilitate equivocation. As in, the point of these contentious terms is not to guide everyone to a shared understanding, but to trick people into agreement to justify some action.

schoen 6y ago

I'm also somewhat reminded of the idea of "tabooing words" https://www.greaterwrong.com/tag/rationalist-taboo https://www.greaterwrong.com/tag/rationalist-taboo (which is not about words that are themselves taboo in a sociological sense, but about a procedure inspired by the word game Taboo)

deanCommie 6y ago

It's frustrating though when specific factual words with meaning become redefined and the new definition is what is contentious. > "We should defund the police" > No, we should instead invest more in non-police social programs like mental health. > "Yes, that's what I mean when I say we should defund the police" > No, we shouldn't defund the police. How do you proceed from that? When I was a teenager 15 years ago my friend who studied Gender Studies told me about the concept of "privilege". I was livid. I understood what she was trying to say (I thought) but I was angry that she dared suggest that I had something. I was an immigrant. My family spent time on welfare. I worked super hard in school. Sure, I was white. So? How dare she? It didn't even occur to me to consider who she was comparing me against. It took me some time, I did some reading, I understood what the term meant, and I recognized some context (Yes, my parents were on Welfare for 2 months when we moved to the West. But they also had PhDs and were able to find good jobs soon after, etc) I went back to my friend and I said "look, i agree with your premise. But I still think the word privilege is too contenious. It makes people react negatively. She said, but that's the academic term. You reacted negatively because you reacted to a mischaracterization of the definition rather than what it actually meant. I thought about it and agreed. So now it's 15 years later, and I see people my own age - grown men in their 30s and older reacting to terms like privilege with the same vitreol I did as an angry teenager. At a time when there is more information than ever for people to find. The problem is not the contentious terms. The problem is some (lots) people just don't want to have a reasonable debate no matter what they say. They are entrenched in their ways, uninterested in growing, are arrogant about their beliefs, and lack the empathy to consider the feelings of others. If you discover new "non contentious" terms, they'll just find a way to make them contentious too.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
"The best move..."
edbob 6y ago
"Privilege" is an everyday word with established meanings. If academics want to redefine it to serve their political goals, the burden is on them to make their case to the people. We don't have to accept that a word means something different than what it's always meant before just because some ivory tower elitists said so. When someone wants to introduce a term to clarify meaning, they generally put two or three words together and create a unique term. When someone with a political agenda wants to create confusion and division, they choose common terms and give them new, contentious meanings. A sibling has a better approach for this particular term: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26247166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26247166

coagmano 6y ago

There's one term I always avoid in discussion, and that's Privilege. Beyond the dictionary definition, privilege already had widely used emotional connotations that made it an insult to call someone privileged. Which means when you try to talk to people about their White Privilege or Male Privilege, you're alreday starting with a penalty and need to assure them that you're not trying to insult them. Much easier to have a discussion about the concepts encoded in the terms when you don't use them. I find most people find them quite intuitive and it helps create some empathy, which is usually the point of the exercise

function_seven 6y ago
What do you use instead?
- coagmano 6y ago
  It's context dependent, but I do like the difficulty setting analogy. Like the pact of punishment in Hades, except you don't get extra rewards. In one abstract example there'll be a discussion of why x group are so sensitve about y. Instead of saying "check your privilege" I say something like "maybe their tired of having to worry about z? When was the last time you had to think about z on a day to day basis?", asking genuinely and waiting for response, not just asked rhetorically.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    Oh, I see. I was thinking you had a different word. But you’re not using another word, but rather getting into analogy or explanation. I like it. “Privilege” means different things to the speaker and to the listener, so skip the label and delve into the thing that you mean instead.
- ehutch79 6y ago
  Advantage has worked for me. I mean someone saying that to me instead of privilege. Privilege just invokes the idea of 'fat cats' in a dark hunting lodge smoking stogies and sipping whiskey, complaining about commoners.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

"Keto" and "low-carb" are often met with very different reactions. "Oh, I'm avoiding sugars" is completely reasonable, but Keto, not so much. To be more impartial, 'avoiding sugars' generally implies simple sugars (e.g, candy), whereas on Keto, you also avoid complex sugars/carbohydrates. To get more complicated, you're typically still eating vegetables on Keto, so you are consuming complex carbohydrates, truly 0-carb (versus an infinitesimal amount) would be practically impossible.

jefftk 6y ago
Doesn't "keto" refers to a diet that has the goal of putting your body into ketosis? Where it starts using metabolic pathways it doesn't usually use? Simply avoiding sugars or cutting down on carbs wouldn't do that. On the other hand, I agree that people have associations about the kind of people who choose to do keto, and that's part of what you're getting when you see those differing responses.

centimeter 6y ago

This blog is interesting because the author is clearly on the cusp of achieving a greater level of understanding. He's thinking about a lot of things as deeply as possible in the normie intellectual framework, and he's running into its limits. For example, his post "Dividing Tasks" has some pretty good insight into the advantages/disadvantages of gender roles, but he just barely fails to make the leap to the next level of understanding, which is to analyze these tradeoffs in terms of (multi-round) auctions in the sexual market. Instead he falls into the very normie suggestion of "what if we used time tracking?" Same with his article on tickling; he notices that reality violates his expectations here, but he doesn't quite make the leap to understanding why his prediction was wrong. The author is clearly very smart, but he seems to be stuck with an ontology designed to serve less intelligent people

kbenson 6y ago
I can't help but but interpret this as a very creative and well executed meta-troll.

renewiltord 6y ago

I try to avoid jargon when I'm not operating with the audience that understands this. On a blog, that's hard, because your audience is infinite and when you share that you want to "kill all the apaches" maybe your audience will understand that you want to kill all the apache forked processes but some moron will post it on Twitter as evidence that you hate Native Americans. Of course, the problem with this is that all the high information conversations are now private. Very few are sharing true insights in public because it's easy to find your audience and then you don't really need everyone else. This is why I'm personally a huge fan of a personal ban feature on networks with lots of overlap. It's not that I want to ban people (though I do want to). I want people who don't like reading my thoughts to ban me. If a HN user who doesn't like me never sees my comments again, that's a good thing. Ideally, I could reach only my people so we can talk and everyone else would exclude us.

schoen 6y ago
However, are "your people" actually transitively closed? My impression is this isn't really the case for most people (or at least not if you like to talk about more than one thing). I'm reminded of this article I saw several years ago https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ which suggests that we shouldn't assume friendship is transitive. I know I have friends whom I would never want to introduce to one another or have in the same conversation or social gathering! I agree with your suggestion that being able to ignore someone easily could make communications environments better; it seems like there was probably a lot of direct and indirect benefit in USENET killfiles (although I'm not such a fan of how people used them performatively, publicly announcing that they had killfiled other people -- usually by writing "PLONK!" at the end of a long rejoinder).
- renewiltord 6y ago
  No, you're absolutely right. The closure of anyone over friendship is likely all people. But I think there's a scoring mechanism that's possible using a graph model that can usually reveal whether you want to see a person's comments or not. For the moment, I just settle for the opposite bias: there are people who I want to read what I say, but I don't let them. Instead I just settle for a group that most of the time also feels that way.

AussieWog93 6y ago

There's a third reason for avoiding terms like "patriarchy" or "systemic racism": it encourages you to parrot points you've heard elsewhere rather than form a cohesive and rational argument. And, generally speaking, anyone who you could hope to convince of your point can smell this from a mile off.

exporectomy 6y ago
Yes. I've encountered people who can't explain what the patriarchy is but still use that term. Back in 2016 somebody told me Hillary Clinton was a "crook". What a strange word that nobody would normally use. He couldn't explain if it means criminal or corrupt or something else or why she was that. Better to just not say anything if you're only parroting buzzwords. Edit. Just caught myself say "parroting". That's one of those needlessly contentious or offensive words.
- pwdisswordfish6 6y ago
  > "crook" [...] Better to just not say anything if you're only parroting buzzwords. The buzzword of 2020/2021 appears to be "grifter" and its variations. On topic with the article and related to this is the word "dogwhistle". (The funny thing is that "dogwhistle" can itself be a dogwhistle.) It doesn't get used as much in my experience as "grifter", though, which is so wantonly thrown about nowadays that it may as well have no meaning. I avoid using both of these words. There are better ways to say it.
  - Trasmatta 6y ago
    Dogwhistle is one of those phrases that has been so overused in the past year that it's largely lost its original meaning. It's like "gaslighting", which people seem to now use as a synonym for any kind of abuse. Or how people say "humblebrag" for regular brags.
    - temp-dude-87844 6y ago
      'Dogwhistle' has drifted in its invocation in subtle but important ways. Originally it referred to the notion that some people would interpret coded language in the choice of phrasing or a hear a different connotation that the author did not intend. Then it was used as a descriptive accusation by outgroup members to claim that the speaker deliberately used coded language to appeal to an ingroup. Then it was used to describe the deliberate tactic of crafting word choice to appeal to a group while maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding alienating those not in the know. Then it was used to disparage certain groups by claiming that the group's writers and readers were communicating in coded language by tacit agreement, to affirm among each other positions the critics considered reprehensible. And finally it achieved self-reference by becoming a word some feel is being used as coded language by other groups to disparage them. It's unfortunate because each shade of meaning is a useful concept that would benefit from a succinct descriptor, but 'dogwhistle' has been churned through the semantic drift to where it's a word of subjective vitriol and not an objective descriptor of anything in particular.

SummerlyMars 6y ago

This is something that's been on my mind for years. Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group[1]. If someone has any amount of hostility to that group, then using these terms is going to cause them to get angry/frustrated with what you have to say instead of actually listening to your argument on its own merits... or at least that's what I've noticed about myself. For a long time, certain terms or expressions would irritate me so much that I'd ignore what the person using them had to say, even though afterwards I found I usually agreed with much of it. Even knowing now that I have this response and actively trying to avoid it, it's still difficult to ignore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

sneak 6y ago
> Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group Sometimes readers jump to that conclusion, but it's frequently or even usually untrue, while a shibboleth conceptually is something that can only be done by a member of a certain group. Contrariwise, for example, both feminists and anti-feminists could use such "group identifier" terms as cited in the article ("patriarchy", "emotional labor", et c). Using those terms absolutely does not denote to anyone which group you are in, and people who continue as if it does are clearly making an error. I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group, to get readers to question the usefulness or applicability of their stereotypes. I have no idea if I achieve my goal or if I just confuse people. Having read your comment, a lot of my writing exists to trigger[1] people who take your view (in addition to conveying useful information for the people who don't fall for the stereotype trap). I reject the entire idea of the concept that using a word makes you a member of some group and thus permits a word-reader to infer some information about you. That's just bias, something we should all be looking out for and frustrating when possible. [1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless.
- klodolph 6y ago
  > [1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless. Can you explain the joke for me? I’m not sure I get it. Edit: To be clear, I understand what the word “trigger” means and its connotations.

Lammy 6y ago

I like this post aside from the very end where a statement I agree with is used as the example of miscommunication arising from what not to do :p

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

josquindesprez 6y ago

I strongly agree with the sentiment of this, and naturally gravitate towards avoiding any such loaded language. But writing posts like the ones he's referring to doesn't seem like a great solution to me. They come off as a little disingenuous, like they're trying to show off how detached they are from the Big Moral Questions while still shunting you towards a Big Moral Opinion. His thoughts seem to be shaped by having been exposed to things defined by the contours of contentious terms. He's writing the posts to add a rational, more persuasive voice to a broader conversation, while intentionally alienating himself from the broader conversation. It's a worthwhile persuasive strategy...so I would've liked to have seen a bit more on how to get over the hurdle of tone.

jim-jim-jim 6y ago

It's extra fun when your language is not only contentious, but incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor#Definition

Niksko 6y ago

If you're viewing everything through a rational and sterile lens (and probably, a privileged lens), it makes a huge deal of sense to just avoid "contentious" terms. It's no skin off your back, and it makes it more likely that you're able to maintain social decorum when interacting with people. And maintaining social decorum is probably pretty high on your list of things you care about. If you're from a marginalised group, I don't think just "avoiding contentious terms" is so easy. There's an emotional aspect to things. There a probably groups with "contentious" labels that want you dead, or want your rights removed. This has probably affected people you love and care about. Maintaining social decorum by not putting people off-side is low on the list of things you care about. You've got bigger fish to fry, and using these marginalised terms to mark yourself as part of the in group probably serves a coping purpose as well as a safety purpose (to easily identify those that will marginalise you, because they are quick to be angered by your "contentious" terms).

Clewza313 6y ago
The downvotes you're getting here (not from me, mind you) are illustrating the author's point very well. Intentionally or not, you're using so many "contentious terms" (privileged, marginalised group, etc) that a lot of people are tuning out and ignoring what you're actually trying to convey. Stripped of the baggage, I think you're trying to say that it's hard for minorities to avoid using contentious terms for issues that affect them, and that they shouldn't have do that extra work just to avoid "putting people off-side"? While I sympathize, I also think that's a false dichotomy: if you want to be heard, you need to phrase yourself in a way that others will understand, and that's true for everybody. And if you don't want to be heard, well, then you're just (contentious term trigger warning) virtue signalling to others on "your" side.
- sebastialonso 6y ago
  What I think grandparent comment should think is: is it more important to convey my idea or to show that I'm part of a group? Both do well for different contexts. Probably choosing one for every context is a terrible idea. As that saying goes: "if wearing a tie or not is more important than to pitch your idea, then your idea wasn't that important to begin with" edit: parent -> grandparent

trabant00 6y ago

Contentious? How about simply ridiculous? That's what I would call using "rape culture" when talking about tickling your kids. Maybe crazy too.

nathias 6y ago

How about not avoiding contentious terms, but rather avoiding people who feel they can not only identify a person by a term used, but then also guess and imply everything they have to say ... those people know everything already, why talk to them in the first place.

cgriswald 6y ago
If someone starts off with such terms, they're already putting an undue burden on me to sort out what they actually mean since the terms are so heavily overloaded and come with so much attached baggage. They're also strongly signalling that they have nothing meaningful to say and may not even be open to an honest discussion. It's not so much I feel I can identify them. It's that I can identify that they're a waste of my finite time and attention.
- nathias 6y ago
  And how are people to know what is contentious to you and what comes with attached baggage for you?
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    Whether a term is contentious may not always be black-and-white but it isn’t really subjective.
    - nathias 6y ago
      Of course it's subjective, it just might be similar for other people in your exact context so it works for small groups, but it never works when you're talking to people outside of your immediate group.
      - cgriswald 6y ago
        It is not my subjective opinion whether people are arguing over a word. I think you are confusing people who dislike the usage of a word with people (like me) recognizing that the word is contentious for that reason.

smitty1e 6y ago

Speak wisdom, sow peace, especially when reciprocated. But it is folly to cede ground when, as in our day, destroyers are afoot. David did not seek to empathize with Goliath. He did what was needful.

tinus_hn 6y ago

For an opposing view, listen to George Carlin - Euphemisms.

mbar84 6y ago

Yes, it is a good idea to avoid the use of terms, that carry with them an implication that the listener is a bad person. I feel like this is a breakthrough in how we communicate.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

On the contrary: choose contentious terms appropriately. > you're really good at talking about the patriarchy without talking about the patriarchy I’m not sure I read this comment in the same tone as the author seems to have. Calling something what it is is an important part of addressing it. Even if you might not persuade everyone. Whitewashing conflict just makes it less clear what your position is.

thisiszilff 6y ago
> Calling something what it is is an important part of addressing it. I think this is the problem the article is addressing -- "calling something what it is" doesn't convince people that don't agree with you on what it is, especially when the terms you use are loaded with possible implicit interpretations. A lot of this is related to the implied worldview these words drag in. > Whitewashing conflict just makes it less clear what your position is. Which is to say that in a discussion or persuasive piece, it should be clear what you are arguing for or discussing without having to expose your whole worldview. Arguments about the distribution of chores between males and females in a household, doesn't need to use the word "patriarchy" to make its argument. In fact, it tends to make the argument weaker given that "patriarchy" hides a lot of things that would otherwise need to be unpacked.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I think it's worse than that. "Patriarchy" makes me buy the whole framework in which the analysis is done. If you're trying to persuade me, I probably don't already buy that framework. In fact, I probably reject it. But if you show me that the distribution of chores comes out unfairly to females, you now have a starting point for persuading me about the rest of the package. If you want to convince people of a point, tie the point to as little extraneous baggage as possible. Choosing the terms you express it in is part of avoiding baggage. (If your point is to let those who agree with you rejoice in the obvious rightness of their opinion, that's different. But that's an approach that does little to actually change things that, per your position, need changed.)
  - 6y ago