5 ms·

> In reality, Investopedia is probably labeling it "offensive" for people like me who know it is not offensive, but are unaware that using it could lead to prob

> In reality, Investopedia is probably labeling it "offensive" for people like me who know it is not offensive, but are unaware that using it could lead to problems. Nothing is objectively inoffensive. Whether something is or not depends on delivery and to whom it's delivered. Clearly "open kimono" does imply nakedness, so if you ask a person to be "open kimono" I can see how someone might be offended by that when just saying "be more open" would serve. I don't know the exact phrasing that this employee found offensive. It could just be a misunderstanding where a manager was saying they need to "open the kimono" on a product, such as by making an API that other people can use to easily interface it.

anon9001 5y ago
> Nothing is objectively inoffensive. Apparently not. There's almost 0 chance that managers at Apple got the colloquialism wrong and were using it in any sort of sexual or racist way. And if they were, Ashley would have surely brought it to light. This was not a misunderstanding. What happened here is that Ashley thought the term sounded offensive enough to weaponize, and so she did. From the Slack reaction emojis, and from our own sibling HN comments, we can tell other people also feel grossed out by the "open kimono" phrase. Particularly people who have never heard it before. The obvious conclusion is that the phrase just doesn't pass the vibe check in 2021, and no additional research is required. It sounds kind of old and maybe a little racist or sexist, so anyone that uses it needs to be called out, so we can erase this uncomfortable phrase from the tech lexicon. Problem solved? The real problem is that adopting such a niggardly view of workplace language leads to precisely the type of in-group/out-group division and discrimination that people like Ashley claim to be fighting against. Of course, if it works, she ends up in the in-group with power because she knows the rules. The in-group is then free to exclude other cultures because they're seen as crude or offensive or somehow "less than" the enlightened rule makers of civil society.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  > There's almost 0 chance that managers at Apple got the colloquialism wrong and were using it in any sort of sexual or racist way. And if they were, Ashley would have surely brought it to light. This was not a misunderstanding. That sounds more like jumping to conclusions than objectivity. We're not going to know the truth on either side of this. The facts are, she felt harmed, reported it, started an investigation, threatened to publicize some details, and was let go. > What happened here is that Ashley thought the term sounded offensive enough to weaponize, and so she did. You think she pretended to be offended in order to raise a stink publicly, thereby risking her job over a false claim? That doesn't pass the smell test for me. More likely is she truthfully felt wronged, wanted it made right, and overstepped herself a bit along the way. > The real problem is that adopting such a niggardly view of workplace language leads to precisely the type of in-group/out-group division and discrimination that people like Ashley claim to be fighting against. Of course, if it works, she ends up in the in-group with power because she knows the rules. The in-group is then free to exclude other cultures because they're seen as crude or offensive or somehow "less than" the enlightened rule makers of civil society. Not everything's a conspiracy. Quit looking at the world in black and white. People are complex.
- pests 5y ago
  I'm really having trouble phrasing this because I feel like ultimately we agree, but does passing the vibe check actually matter? Or whose doing the checking? Cause some may say you haven't passed the vibe check either, as far back as 1999 and at least as recent as 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_n... It sounds kind of old and maybe a little racist, so should we call you out on your usage? I don't agree, but others might not agree of your classification of the open kinomo phrase either.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    He may have dropped niggardly in there in order to "prove his point" about people creating in-groups and out-groups. Now he's a victim too. It's a common reaction from people who don't want to accept that other people are expressing emotions, and may come from the fact they haven't been allowed to express theirs either. In other words, "Nobody accepted my sadness, why should I accept yours?"
  - anon9001 5y ago
    > does passing the vibe check actually matter? Or whose doing the checking? > should we call you out on your usage? You're asking all the right questions. Lately, it seems that the only thing that matters is passing the vibe check. Things that surprisingly pass the vibe check: * "long time no see" or "no can do" -- making fun of broken English (particularly Chinese and Native American) * "got gypped" -- clearly insulting toward gypsies * criticism from the "peanut gallery" -- that's a reference to poor seating for black people during the Vaudeville era, which is super racist by any standard Things that unsurprisingly don't pass the vibe check but should if people were more educated: * "jimmies" for sprinkles has a pop culture reputation for being racist and people have corrected me for saying it, but actually ice cream sprinkles were just invented by a guy named James * "niggardly" shares no root with its racist homophone * "那个" is a filler word that chinese speakers need to be careful with because of the same racist homophone I get that language is always evolving and the vibe check does matter to lots of people, so I try to accommodate the sensibilities of the masses. I know that "niggardly" is so uncommon these days that it practically is a racist dog whistle (though it really shouldn't be), so I wouldn't use it in daily speech. But I also think it would be a shame if all the interesting turns of phrase that have stuck around over the years are intentionally censored and removed until we have nothing but bland language without metaphor or history or anything that could possibly cause offense. "Opening the kimono" is certainly not a phrase worth censoring. I think you could make a good faith argument that trying to censor it is actually a reflection of racist and sexist American stereotypes about Japanese people.

anon9001 5y ago

> Nothing is objectively inoffensive. Apparently not. There's almost 0 chance that managers at Apple got the colloquialism wrong and were using it in any sort of sexual or racist way. And if they were, Ashley would have surely brought it to light. This was not a misunderstanding. What happened here is that Ashley thought the term sounded offensive enough to weaponize, and so she did. From the Slack reaction emojis, and from our own sibling HN comments, we can tell other people also feel grossed out by the "open kimono" phrase. Particularly people who have never heard it before. The obvious conclusion is that the phrase just doesn't pass the vibe check in 2021, and no additional research is required. It sounds kind of old and maybe a little racist or sexist, so anyone that uses it needs to be called out, so we can erase this uncomfortable phrase from the tech lexicon. Problem solved? The real problem is that adopting such a niggardly view of workplace language leads to precisely the type of in-group/out-group division and discrimination that people like Ashley claim to be fighting against. Of course, if it works, she ends up in the in-group with power because she knows the rules. The in-group is then free to exclude other cultures because they're seen as crude or offensive or somehow "less than" the enlightened rule makers of civil society.

unityByFreedom 5y ago
> There's almost 0 chance that managers at Apple got the colloquialism wrong and were using it in any sort of sexual or racist way. And if they were, Ashley would have surely brought it to light. This was not a misunderstanding. That sounds more like jumping to conclusions than objectivity. We're not going to know the truth on either side of this. The facts are, she felt harmed, reported it, started an investigation, threatened to publicize some details, and was let go. > What happened here is that Ashley thought the term sounded offensive enough to weaponize, and so she did. You think she pretended to be offended in order to raise a stink publicly, thereby risking her job over a false claim? That doesn't pass the smell test for me. More likely is she truthfully felt wronged, wanted it made right, and overstepped herself a bit along the way. > The real problem is that adopting such a niggardly view of workplace language leads to precisely the type of in-group/out-group division and discrimination that people like Ashley claim to be fighting against. Of course, if it works, she ends up in the in-group with power because she knows the rules. The in-group is then free to exclude other cultures because they're seen as crude or offensive or somehow "less than" the enlightened rule makers of civil society. Not everything's a conspiracy. Quit looking at the world in black and white. People are complex.
pests 5y ago
I'm really having trouble phrasing this because I feel like ultimately we agree, but does passing the vibe check actually matter? Or whose doing the checking? Cause some may say you haven't passed the vibe check either, as far back as 1999 and at least as recent as 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_n... It sounds kind of old and maybe a little racist, so should we call you out on your usage? I don't agree, but others might not agree of your classification of the open kinomo phrase either.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  He may have dropped niggardly in there in order to "prove his point" about people creating in-groups and out-groups. Now he's a victim too. It's a common reaction from people who don't want to accept that other people are expressing emotions, and may come from the fact they haven't been allowed to express theirs either. In other words, "Nobody accepted my sadness, why should I accept yours?"
- anon9001 5y ago
  > does passing the vibe check actually matter? Or whose doing the checking? > should we call you out on your usage? You're asking all the right questions. Lately, it seems that the only thing that matters is passing the vibe check. Things that surprisingly pass the vibe check: * "long time no see" or "no can do" -- making fun of broken English (particularly Chinese and Native American) * "got gypped" -- clearly insulting toward gypsies * criticism from the "peanut gallery" -- that's a reference to poor seating for black people during the Vaudeville era, which is super racist by any standard Things that unsurprisingly don't pass the vibe check but should if people were more educated: * "jimmies" for sprinkles has a pop culture reputation for being racist and people have corrected me for saying it, but actually ice cream sprinkles were just invented by a guy named James * "niggardly" shares no root with its racist homophone * "那个" is a filler word that chinese speakers need to be careful with because of the same racist homophone I get that language is always evolving and the vibe check does matter to lots of people, so I try to accommodate the sensibilities of the masses. I know that "niggardly" is so uncommon these days that it practically is a racist dog whistle (though it really shouldn't be), so I wouldn't use it in daily speech. But I also think it would be a shame if all the interesting turns of phrase that have stuck around over the years are intentionally censored and removed until we have nothing but bland language without metaphor or history or anything that could possibly cause offense. "Opening the kimono" is certainly not a phrase worth censoring. I think you could make a good faith argument that trying to censor it is actually a reflection of racist and sexist American stereotypes about Japanese people.