8 ms·
“It’s a beautiful thing the destruction of words… In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express
by troon-lover 5y ago
“It’s a beautiful thing the destruction of words…
In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”
- tptacek 5y agoThe article explicitly says that the word "ethnic" isn't bad, just inappropriate for the coverage that they're doing. If you thought Orwell was saying that it was OK to use the wrong word to describe something, you've wildly misunderstood him.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y agoNo it doesn't. It explicitly says it isn't "inherently evil", but still implies that the word is bad at least by virtue of being imprecise.
- tptacek 5y agoA hammer is a bad screwdriver. That doesn't make a hammer bad.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y agoI'm not sure what you mean exactly, but it seems that you've interpreted my interpretation of the words in the article as being isolated from the context of the article, which it isn't. I didn't think I needed to so comprehensively elaborate on such a simple point, but for the avoidance of doubt: the article implies the word is bad for the purposes of informative and accurate journalism.
- hedora 5y agoWe don’t use the bare word hammer around here. You could probably use a scaling or brick hammer as a flat bladed screwdriver in a pinch. If you’re talking about sledges, well yeah, but that’s a ridiculous strawman (straw ungendered humanoid? Is there an acceptable replacement word yet?)
- swayvil 5y agoYes, we don't say "bad" anymore. We say "inappropriate". Lol.
- renlo 5y ago> So I asked dozens of Bosnians in Utica and in Bosnia to explain what sparked that war. They described generational memories of violence that had happened long ago—conflict between their forefathers and the forefathers of their neighbors. They talked about why their country was split along religious lines even though people there shared the same ancestry. They remembered the years before the civil war began, when minor slights among people who were once friends were whipped into serious grievances by nationalists on both sides. Sounds to me like “ethnic tension” is the _right term_ to use and they’re avoiding using it because of political correctness
- dcow 5y agoWho’s saying ethnic is offensive and unspeakable? We’re all saying it here…
- tptacek 5y agoThey're avoiding it because it's vague, not because it's offensive.
- santoshalper 5y ago"even though people there shared the same ancestry" It's right there. They are not different ethnicities. They are different religions. The whole point of this is to avoid intellectual laziness and there you go proving their point.
- rgoulter 5y agoThe article says the word isn't "inherently evil". The author argues in a well-meaning way that every usage of the word 'ethnic' would instead be better served by another word. The style guide says "Don't use it". -- It seems fair to say the article is calling it a bad word.
- tptacek 5y agoJust because a word is a crutch for bad reporting doesn't make the word intrinsically bad, just the wrong tool for the kind of reporting they're doing.
- dcow 5y agoYeah I blame the clickbait title. This is a style guide and “banning” the word ethnic makes complete sense after reading the argument. I’ve even felt similar when hearing the word. It’s an ambiguous filler word used when you don’t know how to describe something. I’m glad to see a news institution recognize this and raise the bar for their own writing quality.
- paisawalla 5y agoThey're saying that certain categorical terms are going to be replaced with more descriptive explanations, so as to avoid relying on connotations. As always, the question is, which terms will get this treatment. I'm sure I could be reading too much into this, but I can't help but view this editorializing under the light of the current post-modern deconstructionist wave overtaking many parts of society, journalism especially. I imagine someone shocked to discover that readers out here have a mental category for conflicts they don't follow very closely, because its contours fit their priors about constantly quarreling people. This person understands that categorization as a moral outrage, especially if the Right People (read: anyone suffering "oppression") are doing the quarrelling, and sets about to correct it and make sure nobody is able to use this evil mental category again. Maybe this wasn't an "ethnic" conflict, but maybe it's not AP's job to tell me which conflicts to slot into my "those people are fighting again" category and which to pay renewed attention to?
- canadianfella 5y ago
- NumberWangMan 5y agoI think this article is exactly the opposite of what you're criticizing. The author is saying that the phrase "ethnic tensions" was virtually always used as a lazy shorthand for "people are mad at each other for some reasons we're not sure about". They are arguing for using the full richness of the English language to describe more precisely the reason for conflict, not trying to ban a particular idea by being the word. In my opinion, Orwell would probably agree with this principle.
- tptacek 5y agoYou're not 4 paragraphs through "Politics and the English Language" before: Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision
- logicalmonster 5y agoThe title makes this article appear like some modern bit of political correctness, but if you check it out I think this policy is basically calling out lazy journalists who defaulted to describing conflicts as something like "ethnic tension" instead of trying to investigate and figure out the complex land dispute or other nuanced issue that caused a fight. The thing that people should be asking here is if journalists can't be bothered to get matters of life and death correct, what else are they wrong about?
- zozbot234 5y ago> instead of trying to investigate and figure out the complex land dispute or other nuanced issue that caused a fight. Because the original cause is often irrelevant. A random spat about land might be what sparks conflict, but ethnic tension is what fuels it and keeps it going. And yes, "ethnic" is a complex word, mixing issues of religion, culture, language, ancestry, "tribe"-level social organization and whatnot. Guess what, these things get mixed up all the time anyway, and having a single word to describe the resulting mess is highly useful. The world is complex. Deal with it.
- Retric 5y agoThe point is saying ethnic is ambiguous in this context. So using it fails to specify what’s actually going on. Would you be fine if someone described the troubles in Northern Ireland as ethnic tension, or knowing more about what happened would you use some other description?
- zozbot234 5y ago> Would you be fine if someone described the troubles in Northern Ireland as ethnic tension Why not? It's a lot more accurate than the usual description of "Protestants and Catholics" while still being simple and clear.
- notahacker 5y agoYep, that's the counter argument right there. Sometimes it's better to be vaguely accurate than precisely missing much of the point.
- rectang 5y agoCategorizing this policy as an Orwellian "destruction of words", when simply reading the piece makes it clear that the intent is greater accuracy, is analogous to the laziness of throwing everything into the "ethnic tensions" bucket.
- hedora 5y agoAh, but this is the first step in Orwellian destruction of words. At this point, unless they violate this rule, no one in the press will accuse Putin of ethnic cleansing. Instead, we get complicated, varied, descriptions of individual events (“they bombed a school”, “a rocket hit a maternity ward”). Each could be discounted as one off accidents instead of a systematic campaign.
- santoshalper 5y ago1984 is a cargo cult. Millions of young men read it and then spend the rest of their life misapplying it.
- uncletaco 5y agoBold of you to assume they’ve read it first.
- kylecordes 5y agoThere is a big difference between: a) discouraging use of clear language, in favor of euphemisms that obscure or sanitize bad acts. b) discouraging euphemisms, in favor of clear language that sheds light on who is doing what. I have seen this Orwell quote hurled at both things.
- rectang 5y agoYou made my day with this comment. Thank you for capturing so succinctly what I've often found troubling about certain appeals to Orwell — the application of Orwell to further disinformation.