5 ms·

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 c

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.
    - etblg 6y ago
      The use of "gaslighting" is the one that bugs me the most. Is this entity intentionally and repeatedly lying to you in a way to make you doubt your own sanity and rely on them for determining what is real or not ......or are they just disagreeing or disputing? Doesn't matter, if you call something gaslighting you get to be the victim and the other side can be labelled an abuser and who wants to side with an abuser?
      - Trasmatta 6y ago
        It's also a disservice to people who have actually been gaslit, because the term is no longer descriptive for what they experienced. People just use it for any form of lying, deception, or abuse now. Or sometimes just disagreements, like you said.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  Crook is a sort of synonym to criminal, thief, or con artist. It basically means someone who, while they maybe don’t commit a crime, do come about their means dishonestly. It’s maybe a little old-fashioned these days but not at all unusual. However, if someone says it and doesn’t know what it means, yeah, they’re probably sharing an emotional viewpoint or repeating someone else’s words or both.
  - Clewza313 6y ago
    I think we all understand what it means, it's just one of those words that had kind of drifted off into obsolescence after Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      > ...it's just one of those words that had kind of drifted off into obsolescence after Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. https://news.google.com/search?q=crook&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/search?q=crook&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=U... Excluding Crook as a name, it still seems to be in pretty common usage. It seems far more likely there is just regional variation. Most of the articles seem to be either from England or from the east coast. I heard the word in the Midwest all the time, although I can't say I've ever heard anyone on the west coast use the word.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Hillary Clinton was a "crook" I think that started with her Whitewater investment, which turned out not be a huge deal overall. But ... 1) The Clinton family has accepted up to $2 billion for their foundation from overseas donors, mostly the Saudis, with the understanding that she would be running for President. In addition, Hillary has accepted a lot of money from Wall Street for speaking engagements at very high fees. 2) The basis for Trump's first impeachment appears to be Hillary paying off a British man to make false statements, and Joe Biden making false statements to get a FISA warrant. So crook is the correct term. Also, you're welcome to ask me anything the MSM is being evasive about.
- schoen 6y ago
  > Edit. Just caught myself say "parroting". That's one of those needlessly contentious or offensive words. It might be needlessly contentious or offensive, but not in the exact same way that the original post is talking about: although it's an insult, it doesn't signal an affiliation, and it isn't hard to understand properly without a lot of background or explanation. (You might signal an affiliation through your choice of whom you compare to parrots, or which ideas or concepts you compare to their squawks, but every audience will probably easily understand correctly what you meant by doing it!)
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    O guess so. I was imagining how off-putting it would be to a reader who sees it as directed at themselves. Not quite the same as staking a standard position though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deanCommie 6y ago
> And, generally speaking, anyone who you could hope to convince of your point can smell this from a mile off. The kind of folks who can "smell" parroted points are reacting emotionally and viscerally, yet seem to think it is others that cannot make cohesive/rational arguments. More and more I see that there is no hope to trying to convince these people of anything - they've already made up their minds about these concepts and are not interested in having their minds changed.
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  Choosing not to engage with someone you don't know well because their argument has a "smell" is perfectly rational - it's no different to choosing not to merge a large commit from a random stranger because of "code smell". In both cases, a significant amount of time is required to fully evaluate the other person's contribution, and you also have strong (heuristic) information telling you that the contribution is likely to be of extremely low quality. (In the case of parroted buzzwords, specifically, it's likely that they'll state a point you've already heard dozens of times before and lack the ability to provide anything more than that even when directly poked).
  - deanCommie 6y ago
    Why are you so certain about the validity of your heuristics? There is a significant difference between the example in your analogy. If you are a maintainer of a code base, and you are looking at a merge commit from a stranger, you are the authority. The domain is the one you are the expert in, and you are encountering strangers of dubious credibility whose claims you have to evaluate drawing upon your experience. That's valid. But, judging from your example and the forum on which we are speaking, your domain is NOT sociology, psychology, philosophy, or politics (and whatever intersection of those fields leads to analysis of racism/gender discrimination etc). Maybe you took some classes in it. Maybe you even have a minor. But it's probably not your profession or area of study. Yet you are willing to dismiss academics who've chosen to spend years of their life studying these concepts, analyzing root causes, and coming up with conclusions. How does that work?
claudiawerner 6y ago
Alternatively, for those who are only used to hearing parroted points, they could hear such words and turn off - assuming that the speaker using those terms is only using parroted points. Further, some parroted points are useful. Most HN comments are in essence parroted points from books, articles, and papers. The fact that we choose what to parrot is a kind of filter, and that filtering can bring useful information to the table.

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.
  - etblg 6y ago
    The use of "gaslighting" is the one that bugs me the most. Is this entity intentionally and repeatedly lying to you in a way to make you doubt your own sanity and rely on them for determining what is real or not ......or are they just disagreeing or disputing? Doesn't matter, if you call something gaslighting you get to be the victim and the other side can be labelled an abuser and who wants to side with an abuser?
    - Trasmatta 6y ago
      It's also a disservice to people who have actually been gaslit, because the term is no longer descriptive for what they experienced. People just use it for any form of lying, deception, or abuse now. Or sometimes just disagreements, like you said.
cgriswald 6y ago
Crook is a sort of synonym to criminal, thief, or con artist. It basically means someone who, while they maybe don’t commit a crime, do come about their means dishonestly. It’s maybe a little old-fashioned these days but not at all unusual. However, if someone says it and doesn’t know what it means, yeah, they’re probably sharing an emotional viewpoint or repeating someone else’s words or both.
- Clewza313 6y ago
  I think we all understand what it means, it's just one of those words that had kind of drifted off into obsolescence after Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > ...it's just one of those words that had kind of drifted off into obsolescence after Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. https://news.google.com/search?q=crook&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/search?q=crook&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=U... Excluding Crook as a name, it still seems to be in pretty common usage. It seems far more likely there is just regional variation. Most of the articles seem to be either from England or from the east coast. I heard the word in the Midwest all the time, although I can't say I've ever heard anyone on the west coast use the word.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Hillary Clinton was a "crook" I think that started with her Whitewater investment, which turned out not be a huge deal overall. But ... 1) The Clinton family has accepted up to $2 billion for their foundation from overseas donors, mostly the Saudis, with the understanding that she would be running for President. In addition, Hillary has accepted a lot of money from Wall Street for speaking engagements at very high fees. 2) The basis for Trump's first impeachment appears to be Hillary paying off a British man to make false statements, and Joe Biden making false statements to get a FISA warrant. So crook is the correct term. Also, you're welcome to ask me anything the MSM is being evasive about.
schoen 6y ago
> Edit. Just caught myself say "parroting". That's one of those needlessly contentious or offensive words. It might be needlessly contentious or offensive, but not in the exact same way that the original post is talking about: although it's an insult, it doesn't signal an affiliation, and it isn't hard to understand properly without a lot of background or explanation. (You might signal an affiliation through your choice of whom you compare to parrots, or which ideas or concepts you compare to their squawks, but every audience will probably easily understand correctly what you meant by doing it!)
- exporectomy 6y ago
  O guess so. I was imagining how off-putting it would be to a reader who sees it as directed at themselves. Not quite the same as staking a standard position though.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deanCommie 6y ago

> And, generally speaking, anyone who you could hope to convince of your point can smell this from a mile off. The kind of folks who can "smell" parroted points are reacting emotionally and viscerally, yet seem to think it is others that cannot make cohesive/rational arguments. More and more I see that there is no hope to trying to convince these people of anything - they've already made up their minds about these concepts and are not interested in having their minds changed.

AussieWog93 6y ago
Choosing not to engage with someone you don't know well because their argument has a "smell" is perfectly rational - it's no different to choosing not to merge a large commit from a random stranger because of "code smell". In both cases, a significant amount of time is required to fully evaluate the other person's contribution, and you also have strong (heuristic) information telling you that the contribution is likely to be of extremely low quality. (In the case of parroted buzzwords, specifically, it's likely that they'll state a point you've already heard dozens of times before and lack the ability to provide anything more than that even when directly poked).
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Why are you so certain about the validity of your heuristics? There is a significant difference between the example in your analogy. If you are a maintainer of a code base, and you are looking at a merge commit from a stranger, you are the authority. The domain is the one you are the expert in, and you are encountering strangers of dubious credibility whose claims you have to evaluate drawing upon your experience. That's valid. But, judging from your example and the forum on which we are speaking, your domain is NOT sociology, psychology, philosophy, or politics (and whatever intersection of those fields leads to analysis of racism/gender discrimination etc). Maybe you took some classes in it. Maybe you even have a minor. But it's probably not your profession or area of study. Yet you are willing to dismiss academics who've chosen to spend years of their life studying these concepts, analyzing root causes, and coming up with conclusions. How does that work?

claudiawerner 6y ago

Alternatively, for those who are only used to hearing parroted points, they could hear such words and turn off - assuming that the speaker using those terms is only using parroted points. Further, some parroted points are useful. Most HN comments are in essence parroted points from books, articles, and papers. The fact that we choose what to parrot is a kind of filter, and that filtering can bring useful information to the table.