4 ms·

> using language that upsets people is bad Shouldn't be. Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. Otherwise you get a Euphemism Treadmill, and that

> using language that upsets people is bad Shouldn't be. Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. Otherwise you get a Euphemism Treadmill, and that's a goddamn fucking waste of time.

godelski 5y ago
> intent only. I disagree. Intent matters, a lot, and you're right, but it isn't the only thing. Right now I think we fall on the other side, that reception is all that matters (in the bias training I receive they specifically mention that it is 100% reception and not intent). I believe the law works on reception because that's easier to quantify. Intent is very tricky. You can do something that most people would consider wrong and just say "well I didn't mean it that way." (the inverse can happen too, but less people are likely to start a legal case out of spite compared to people defending themselves. It is tricky) I believe that there is a middle ground somewhere. Where that is I'm not sure and I think we need to work together as a society to figure that out. I think somewhere in there there is a "reasonable" set of norms, and we have other laws to suggest that we can use this as a basis. But even this can be tricky as there are many different cultural norms and customs. It isn't even just ethnic customs. In America we have very different regional customs that often butt heads. I think we need to recognize that people are different and operate based on different values and often this is fine. But I think a big thing we've lost in our current standing is good faith. There's three parts to any form of communication. 1) The idea that is within one's head that they are trying to convey to the other person. 2) The words, body language, inflection, etc that are used to codify this idea (aka: encoding). 3) The understanding of that language that was used to convey the idea (aka: decoding). Humans are pretty good encoders and decoders (we wouldn't have made it here where we are if we weren't) but there are limitations. Language is extremely messy and we often don't think it is because we're so used to it. But you can look at words being used today and you'll often find that people are talking past one another because they are using different definitions of the same word and actively refuse to interpret the other person's intended message (as an example, every internet conversation about capitalism/socialism/communism). The point of communication is to pass one idea from one head to another head. It requires understanding that there are these three components. If we do not act in good faith then we cannot communicate. With that knowledge it suggests there are two different actions to take if one wants to act in good faith. The communicator should try to encode their thoughts as best as they can, attempting to understand their audience (aka: speak to your audience). BUT we often forget that the listener's job is to decode, to do their best to determine the idea that the communicator is trying to convey (aka: __intent__). In fights we will say "but you said..." even knowing what was intended as a way to win. This is not in good faith but is so prevalent. When conversations are about mic drops and one upping another person, communication cannot be had.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  To you point about intent vs reception, I think the way the law works is actually more along the lines of "how a reasonable person might receive this". Which is perhaps harder to quantify, but IMO strikes a good balance. However I totally agree with your point about how some communication has become more about scoring points than having an empathetic and thoughtful dialogue
SilverRed 5y ago
This would save so much time wasting. When someone says "Can you push that to the master branch" there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery or racism so there is nothing wrong with it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zarzavat 5y ago
  The best thing to do is to ignore these people, they will never be happy so there's no point trying to please them. If you ignore someone who is never happy then in time they may respect you, but if you always comply then they will never respect you and their perceived power over you simply increases, which means they feel empowered to ask for more and more.
  - russelldjimmy 5y ago
    Exactly
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    But how will tech Cos show they're woke if they can't just change the names of things and say they did something important? It's literally a bragging point at my new Co.
    - jaimex2 5y ago
      Anyone else intentionally making master branches in new repos at work? It's hilarious watching the amount of mental energy people waste on this.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > ignore these people Unfortunately for the rest of us, they've been put in charge.
    - kleer001 5y ago
mc32 5y ago
It reminds me of all the synonyms and symbols, homophones and homographs Chinese use when referring to mr Xi on Weibo, etc., including the now censored Winnie the Pooh. To get around the censorship which blocks mentioning of me Xi in unflattering light. It’s ever evolving to keep ahead of the censors.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  Check out “Euphemism Treadmill”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmil...
soheil 5y ago
thinks the case of yelling fire in a movie theater jokingly
- Clubber 5y ago
  Yelling fire in a movie theater is perfectly legal and protected speech, even if false. It's only illegal if what is said is "likely to incite imminent lawless action," like a riot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... It's funny, this is often presented as a supporting example to limit citizens' free speech or other rights, typically paired with something along the lines of, "no freedom is limitless." Of course many people don't realize this example is a) outdated and currently false, and b) the argument used against citizens speaking out against WWI using the Espionage Act of 1917, which is considered by many to be one of the worst and oppressive laws to our rights ever written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 You may recognize the names of some of the act's victims: Among those charged with offenses under the Act are German-American socialist congressman and newspaper editor Victor L. Berger, labor leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, Eugene V. Debs, anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Cablegate whistleblower Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Defense Intelligence Agency employee Henry Kyle Frese, and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.
  - soheil 5y ago
    Thanks for this. I think it is shocking that so many people still use this. What about yelling bomb on an airplane?
    - Clubber 5y ago
      I'm not sure that has been tested in court yet. If based on precedent, I would assume it would also be legal, but it would take a brave soul with a lot of money and free time to find out for certain.
kube-system 5y ago
> Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. People can be unintentionally upset. I'm sure we can all think of a time when we've accidentally upset someone. I still try not to do it. We don't have to force people to change their language. It will happen over generations as we discuss these topics.
brianpan 5y ago
> intent only Communication is a multiple party activity. It's not just a speaker and a speaker's intent. The recipient and how it's received absolutely matter (and should). I've said plenty of things I didn't intend to be stupid. Still stupid. Is it ok for the Washington football team to be the Redskins because no current fan or owner intends to be using a racist name? It's not only the hearer getting upset that matters either. There's room for error and for grace and tact on both sides of a conversation. But it's definitely not just intent only. Humans don't work like that. Hell, even computers don't work like that.
- catgary 5y ago
  Yeah, this “intent is the only thing that matters” mindset is a naive perspective on communication. People like to act as though there's some liberal bogeyman reaching for social currency by acting “woke”, when what has generally happened is someone was thoughtless/inconsiderate and an offended party spoke up (this whole experience was, of course, quite traumatizing for the thoughtless/inconsiderate person).
judge2020 5y ago
Text is text, and you can't encode intent without assuming that the reader has a similar level of internet experience to be able to pull such hidden intent using context clues.
- dmix 5y ago
  It's sad we have to go so far down rabbit holes before asking basic questions fundamental to the alleged 'solutions'.
BigJono 5y ago
I've never got why people don't understand this. Judging people by their intent resolves a lot of ambiguity, for both political sides. If someone gets up infront of a room of 1000 people and says "hey guys!", clearly intending to reference the entire audience, they're not being fucking sexist. And if you're standing there with 5 racists showing a pepe flag or an ok sign or whatever random garbage it is this week, then you're a fucking racist. There's absolutely no need for nuance or ambiguity in either case. You can argue the toss all you want about how to determine whether someone is intending to do something (it's not like you can read minds so that can obviously have a ton of complexity to it), but if you're starting from a position that people can unintentionally do something offensive then everything that follows is just pointless bullshit. You've just built a trump card for both sides into the argument so they can just scream past each other like morons without contributing anything meaningful.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

> using language that upsets people is bad Shouldn't be. Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. Otherwise you get a Euphemism Treadmill, and that's a goddamn fucking waste of time.

godelski 5y ago

> intent only. I disagree. Intent matters, a lot, and you're right, but it isn't the only thing. Right now I think we fall on the other side, that reception is all that matters (in the bias training I receive they specifically mention that it is 100% reception and not intent). I believe the law works on reception because that's easier to quantify. Intent is very tricky. You can do something that most people would consider wrong and just say "well I didn't mean it that way." (the inverse can happen too, but less people are likely to start a legal case out of spite compared to people defending themselves. It is tricky) I believe that there is a middle ground somewhere. Where that is I'm not sure and I think we need to work together as a society to figure that out. I think somewhere in there there is a "reasonable" set of norms, and we have other laws to suggest that we can use this as a basis. But even this can be tricky as there are many different cultural norms and customs. It isn't even just ethnic customs. In America we have very different regional customs that often butt heads. I think we need to recognize that people are different and operate based on different values and often this is fine. But I think a big thing we've lost in our current standing is good faith. There's three parts to any form of communication. 1) The idea that is within one's head that they are trying to convey to the other person. 2) The words, body language, inflection, etc that are used to codify this idea (aka: encoding). 3) The understanding of that language that was used to convey the idea (aka: decoding). Humans are pretty good encoders and decoders (we wouldn't have made it here where we are if we weren't) but there are limitations. Language is extremely messy and we often don't think it is because we're so used to it. But you can look at words being used today and you'll often find that people are talking past one another because they are using different definitions of the same word and actively refuse to interpret the other person's intended message (as an example, every internet conversation about capitalism/socialism/communism). The point of communication is to pass one idea from one head to another head. It requires understanding that there are these three components. If we do not act in good faith then we cannot communicate. With that knowledge it suggests there are two different actions to take if one wants to act in good faith. The communicator should try to encode their thoughts as best as they can, attempting to understand their audience (aka: speak to your audience). BUT we often forget that the listener's job is to decode, to do their best to determine the idea that the communicator is trying to convey (aka: __intent__). In fights we will say "but you said..." even knowing what was intended as a way to win. This is not in good faith but is so prevalent. When conversations are about mic drops and one upping another person, communication cannot be had.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
To you point about intent vs reception, I think the way the law works is actually more along the lines of "how a reasonable person might receive this". Which is perhaps harder to quantify, but IMO strikes a good balance. However I totally agree with your point about how some communication has become more about scoring points than having an empathetic and thoughtful dialogue

SilverRed 5y ago

This would save so much time wasting. When someone says "Can you push that to the master branch" there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery or racism so there is nothing wrong with it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
The best thing to do is to ignore these people, they will never be happy so there's no point trying to please them. If you ignore someone who is never happy then in time they may respect you, but if you always comply then they will never respect you and their perceived power over you simply increases, which means they feel empowered to ask for more and more.
- russelldjimmy 5y ago
  Exactly
- reedjosh 5y ago
  But how will tech Cos show they're woke if they can't just change the names of things and say they did something important? It's literally a bragging point at my new Co.
  - jaimex2 5y ago
    Anyone else intentionally making master branches in new repos at work? It's hilarious watching the amount of mental energy people waste on this.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > ignore these people Unfortunately for the rest of us, they've been put in charge.
  - kleer001 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

It reminds me of all the synonyms and symbols, homophones and homographs Chinese use when referring to mr Xi on Weibo, etc., including the now censored Winnie the Pooh. To get around the censorship which blocks mentioning of me Xi in unflattering light. It’s ever evolving to keep ahead of the censors.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
Check out “Euphemism Treadmill”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmil...

soheil 5y ago

thinks the case of yelling fire in a movie theater jokingly

Clubber 5y ago
Yelling fire in a movie theater is perfectly legal and protected speech, even if false. It's only illegal if what is said is "likely to incite imminent lawless action," like a riot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... It's funny, this is often presented as a supporting example to limit citizens' free speech or other rights, typically paired with something along the lines of, "no freedom is limitless." Of course many people don't realize this example is a) outdated and currently false, and b) the argument used against citizens speaking out against WWI using the Espionage Act of 1917, which is considered by many to be one of the worst and oppressive laws to our rights ever written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 You may recognize the names of some of the act's victims: Among those charged with offenses under the Act are German-American socialist congressman and newspaper editor Victor L. Berger, labor leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, Eugene V. Debs, anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Cablegate whistleblower Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Defense Intelligence Agency employee Henry Kyle Frese, and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.
- soheil 5y ago
  Thanks for this. I think it is shocking that so many people still use this. What about yelling bomb on an airplane?
  - Clubber 5y ago
    I'm not sure that has been tested in court yet. If based on precedent, I would assume it would also be legal, but it would take a brave soul with a lot of money and free time to find out for certain.

kube-system 5y ago

> Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. People can be unintentionally upset. I'm sure we can all think of a time when we've accidentally upset someone. I still try not to do it. We don't have to force people to change their language. It will happen over generations as we discuss these topics.

brianpan 5y ago

> intent only Communication is a multiple party activity. It's not just a speaker and a speaker's intent. The recipient and how it's received absolutely matter (and should). I've said plenty of things I didn't intend to be stupid. Still stupid. Is it ok for the Washington football team to be the Redskins because no current fan or owner intends to be using a racist name? It's not only the hearer getting upset that matters either. There's room for error and for grace and tact on both sides of a conversation. But it's definitely not just intent only. Humans don't work like that. Hell, even computers don't work like that.

catgary 5y ago
Yeah, this “intent is the only thing that matters” mindset is a naive perspective on communication. People like to act as though there's some liberal bogeyman reaching for social currency by acting “woke”, when what has generally happened is someone was thoughtless/inconsiderate and an offended party spoke up (this whole experience was, of course, quite traumatizing for the thoughtless/inconsiderate person).

judge2020 5y ago

Text is text, and you can't encode intent without assuming that the reader has a similar level of internet experience to be able to pull such hidden intent using context clues.

dmix 5y ago
It's sad we have to go so far down rabbit holes before asking basic questions fundamental to the alleged 'solutions'.

BigJono 5y ago

I've never got why people don't understand this. Judging people by their intent resolves a lot of ambiguity, for both political sides. If someone gets up infront of a room of 1000 people and says "hey guys!", clearly intending to reference the entire audience, they're not being fucking sexist. And if you're standing there with 5 racists showing a pepe flag or an ok sign or whatever random garbage it is this week, then you're a fucking racist. There's absolutely no need for nuance or ambiguity in either case. You can argue the toss all you want about how to determine whether someone is intending to do something (it's not like you can read minds so that can obviously have a ton of complexity to it), but if you're starting from a position that people can unintentionally do something offensive then everything that follows is just pointless bullshit. You've just built a trump card for both sides into the argument so they can just scream past each other like morons without contributing anything meaningful.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]