3 ms·

If an article is titled “Woke wars:” it's probably deliberately inflammatory.

torstenvl 5y ago
Your position is that it's the reporting that's inflammatory? Not the underlying accusation that someone is racist or colonialist for using "Alice" and "Bob"? That's absurd.
- ttmb 5y ago
  It is possible for both to be inflammatory. The comment you replied to only mentioned the article.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  I downvoted because nowhere in the article did someone suggest that calling two personas Alice and Bob was racist or colonialist. That's an extrapolation you made on your own and makes no sense. Suggesting other names than Alice and Bob is part of a drive to use more diverse examples. Security is not just for Alice and Bob, but also for Anita and Bilal, and many others. Far from a new question, see also: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/09/replacing_alice.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/09/replacing_ali...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- matthewmacleod 5y ago
  Nah, it’s not absurd; it’s accurate. The Telegraph of late is a deliberately inflammatory campaigning newspaper. This story is a great example of that - it uses precisely-picked language in an attempt to goad you into a “WOKERATI PC GONE MAD” reaction, which has unfortunately been successful. In reality what has happened is a group of people has said “as academics we should be mindful of the legacy and effects of the language we use and the bias it can contain”. They want you to be mad about that, and it’s so silly to give them what they want.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  To reply to a subcomment which has been deleted since then: > in the latest decolonisation drive This is a comment by the narrator and not a political argument presented by the activists. Arguments on the "pro" side have apparently been quoted from a university communique, while the "contras" have been individually interviewed for arguments. It is common in journalism (i would say ethical, but i'm not familiar with that domain's standards) when interviewing people criticizing "something", to also interview people who agree with "something" (or are responsible for it) and ask them about those critiques. > Removing X from does not make something less Yish unless X is inherently Yish. Noone suggested calling two characters "Alice" and "Bob" was "inerhently" colonialist. It is suggested that always naming them that way, and not leaving room for other personas, hinders the capability of people from a different cultural background to identify with the characters (though it does not nullify it). Being more flexible about names in scenarios is a drive for diversity, which is correlated with a drive for decolonization. Decolonization does entail making the global north more aware that other civilizations/cultures have existed and continue to exist on this planet, which can be helped by using more diverse characters. That does not mean that naming your characters Alice and Bob is inherently colonialist, or that naming them Abdel and Barbara is inherently anti-colonialist. Human and political context matters.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    The official position is not to use other names in addition. The official position is not to be more flexible. The official position is to "avoid using predominantly Western names such as Alice/Bob" (emphasis added).
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      I don't understand the difference between "avoid using X" and "being more flexible" / "using other names than X in addition". It's just like if your cafeteria served apple pie every day for the past 50 years for desert. Would a policy to "avoid apple pie" mean the death of apple pie across society? Or even on that specific campus?
rvz 5y ago
Possibly. But is the contents of article incorrect, misleading or outright made up? I don't see how it is different to the Economist's take on the subject: [0] Maybe I just generally read the actual contents of article(s) rather than just the titles, but again this article from the Telegraph is proving the point of the one from the Economist. [0] https://archive.ph/jVOl3 https://archive.ph/jVOl3

Your position is that it's the reporting that's inflammatory? Not the underlying accusation that someone is racist or colonialist for using "Alice" and "Bob"? That's absurd.

ttmb 5y ago
It is possible for both to be inflammatory. The comment you replied to only mentioned the article.
southerntofu 5y ago
I downvoted because nowhere in the article did someone suggest that calling two personas Alice and Bob was racist or colonialist. That's an extrapolation you made on your own and makes no sense. Suggesting other names than Alice and Bob is part of a drive to use more diverse examples. Security is not just for Alice and Bob, but also for Anita and Bilal, and many others. Far from a new question, see also: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/09/replacing_alice.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/09/replacing_ali...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
matthewmacleod 5y ago
Nah, it’s not absurd; it’s accurate. The Telegraph of late is a deliberately inflammatory campaigning newspaper. This story is a great example of that - it uses precisely-picked language in an attempt to goad you into a “WOKERATI PC GONE MAD” reaction, which has unfortunately been successful. In reality what has happened is a group of people has said “as academics we should be mindful of the legacy and effects of the language we use and the bias it can contain”. They want you to be mad about that, and it’s so silly to give them what they want.
southerntofu 5y ago
To reply to a subcomment which has been deleted since then: > in the latest decolonisation drive This is a comment by the narrator and not a political argument presented by the activists. Arguments on the "pro" side have apparently been quoted from a university communique, while the "contras" have been individually interviewed for arguments. It is common in journalism (i would say ethical, but i'm not familiar with that domain's standards) when interviewing people criticizing "something", to also interview people who agree with "something" (or are responsible for it) and ask them about those critiques. > Removing X from does not make something less Yish unless X is inherently Yish. Noone suggested calling two characters "Alice" and "Bob" was "inerhently" colonialist. It is suggested that always naming them that way, and not leaving room for other personas, hinders the capability of people from a different cultural background to identify with the characters (though it does not nullify it). Being more flexible about names in scenarios is a drive for diversity, which is correlated with a drive for decolonization. Decolonization does entail making the global north more aware that other civilizations/cultures have existed and continue to exist on this planet, which can be helped by using more diverse characters. That does not mean that naming your characters Alice and Bob is inherently colonialist, or that naming them Abdel and Barbara is inherently anti-colonialist. Human and political context matters.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  The official position is not to use other names in addition. The official position is not to be more flexible. The official position is to "avoid using predominantly Western names such as Alice/Bob" (emphasis added).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    I don't understand the difference between "avoid using X" and "being more flexible" / "using other names than X in addition". It's just like if your cafeteria served apple pie every day for the past 50 years for desert. Would a policy to "avoid apple pie" mean the death of apple pie across society? Or even on that specific campus?

rvz 5y ago

Possibly. But is the contents of article incorrect, misleading or outright made up? I don't see how it is different to the Economist's take on the subject: [0] Maybe I just generally read the actual contents of article(s) rather than just the titles, but again this article from the Telegraph is proving the point of the one from the Economist. [0] https://archive.ph/jVOl3 https://archive.ph/jVOl3