4 ms·

I think it's crazy that we spend time thinking about minor bs like this instead of spending that effort trying to solve actual problems. This type of stuff is

by alexb_ 4y ago

I think it's crazy that we spend time thinking about minor bs like this instead of spending that effort trying to solve actual problems. This type of stuff is great for people who want to feel like they have made a positive change without actually having accomplished anything of value.

jamesrcole 4y ago
I think it’s worse than that. It makes people have to police their own thought about what they’re going to say, to avoid stumbling over one of the linguistic trip wires. I think that’s antithetical to creative thought.
- whythre 4y ago
  It also gives power to bad actors who can take advantage of such ‘linguistic tripwires’ to invalidate or abuse others.
- scubbo 4y ago
  Counterpoint - mindfully reviewing and examining your thoughts and speech is an effective way to improve clarity and to identify unexamined (and perhaps unfounded) assumptions.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    Cool, as long as it's your thoughts and not mine. I have no problem with other people policing their own speech and thoughts. My problem starts when they start to enforce what they found on other people.
    - scubbo 4y ago
      Do you recognize that there is a distinction between enforcement, and being told "using this particular form of speech is harmful to certain people - if you continue choosing to use it, you are choosing to present yourself as someone who values your own speech over someone else's comfort, and will be judged accordingly"? If so, then we're in broad agreement (though we may disagree about where the line between social judgement and enforcement lies)
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        I was with you earlier in the thread when you wrote "effective way to improve clarity and to identify unexamined (and perhaps unfounded) assumptions". With you on that because that is ultimately a selfish motivation - one wants one's ideas to be understood, one wants to influence, one wants to be correct ("check assumptions"). But this: > using this particular form of speech is harmful to certain people ... are a few bridges too far in my mind. Who are these certain people? What do they think, not you? For instance, I'm gay, and homophobic slurs happen all the time in my life, whether coded or overt. But they don't harm me in any reasonable sense of the word. I mean, should we not distinguish between physical harm, mental abuse, and discomfort with words? To put a fine point on it, equating "discomfort" and "harm" is flawed.
        scubbo 4y ago
        > To put a fine point on it, equating "discomfort" and "harm" is flawed. That's fair! Negative impacts certainly exist on a continuum! I felt like "harm" was a reasonable synonym for "negatively impact", but you're right that it carries a stronger connotation than "mildly inconvenience"; and it also has a more direct connotation than "perpetuate negative stereotypes in listeners" (using homophobic slurs has negative impact _even if no homosexual people are around to hear them_, because it emboldens homophobes and normalizes homophobia) So let me loosen my original statement to "using this particular form of speech will negatively impact (whether directly or indirectly) certain people, ...etc.". And please do notice that I didn't describe the outcome as "then you are a bad person"! It's reasonable and justifiable to pick a point on that spectrum and say "you know what - negative impacts that are weaker than this just really don't matter to me. There's a certain level of tip-toeing around that just isn't worth it for the miniscule risk". Hell, I do it too. There's a tiny chance that my use of "hell" as a casual interjection might offend a religious reader - but in my determination, that offence is less important to me than that particular form of speech. There are probably a ton of other words or phrases I use for which I've made a similar (conscious or unconscious) determination. My point is - speech has an impact. Indeed, if it didn't, it would be pointless. The point of speech is to communicate. Communication distributes ideas, concepts, thoughts from one brain to others. Those ideas will not just be the ones that are directly communicated in the speech, but also "meta-ideas" communicated by the form of speech. Meta-communication, more often than not, is about the speaker rather than just the content. If I hear someone teaching a complicated topic, I will assume (rightly or wrongly!) something about their level of intelligence and knowledge. If I hear someone speaking clearly and convincingly, I will assume that they've taken the time to prepare and research - and vice versa. If I hear someone using an obscure word, I'll assume they have an interest in vocabulary (and/or are involved in the field in which that term is common). If I hear someone using a well-known slur, I'll assume that they have made the deliberate choice to do so in the knowledge that it _is_ a slur. It's a form of social signalling. So, y'know - if you believe that forms of speech that do cause "discomfort" are acceptable, and ones that cause "harm" are not (based on your own determination of the likelihood of those impacts, hopefully informed by the people who are actually impacted), _that's justifiable_. I'm not saying that words should be banned. I'm asking for a recognition that the use of a word - _any_ word - is a signal; that some signals are more distinct than others; and that that signal will be interpreted by listeners as reflecting something about the speaker's value system. That's not policing - it's a recognition of personal choice.
Barrin92 4y ago
being precise in your language is of great value, both when it comes to thinking and communicating. Per Wittgenstein, "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world". If you're a software developer you should be familiar with how important syntactic precision is. Someone who runs around the office and complains about everything being 'so crazy' is genuinely not articulating anything meaningful but just ranting. And it's quite amazing how many people can't tell the difference between a rant and a productive argument. Perceiving this as 'policing' is just an excuse to not putting an effort into what you think and say.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  Okay, but sometimes things are so crazy.
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    Crazy Eddie really was criminally insane!!! 80s Commercial | Crazy Eddie | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml6S2yiuSWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml6S2yiuSWE The Biggest Retail Fraud In American History - Masterminds - Crazy Eddie - Eddie Antar Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9PGROHZzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9PGROHZzg
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  "limits of my language mean the limits of my world". The arguments to replace certain words would do the opposite though. On the other hand, sometimes expression is not too important to transport a point.
- sithadmin 4y ago
  Aside from the communicative value, there's a socio-political angle to it as well. Speaking in nebulous terms like calling things 'crazy' without sufficient elaboration is a great way to alienate people as a new-to-the-org resource or as an embedded outsider (e.g. consultant).
eckza 4y ago
`git pull origin main`
khazhoux 4y ago
> I think it's crazy that we spend time thinking about minor bs like this instead of spending that effort trying to solve actual problems. False dichotomy. We all (you included) already spend plenty of time thinking about "minor bs". A discussion about language will probably use up less time in your week than you spent deciding what to get for lunch. Personally I don't have any problem with the word "crazy"... but I don't mind thinking about it for a minute.

by alexb_ 4y ago

jamesrcole 4y ago

I think it’s worse than that. It makes people have to police their own thought about what they’re going to say, to avoid stumbling over one of the linguistic trip wires. I think that’s antithetical to creative thought.

whythre 4y ago
It also gives power to bad actors who can take advantage of such ‘linguistic tripwires’ to invalidate or abuse others.
scubbo 4y ago
Counterpoint - mindfully reviewing and examining your thoughts and speech is an effective way to improve clarity and to identify unexamined (and perhaps unfounded) assumptions.
- poszlem 4y ago
  Cool, as long as it's your thoughts and not mine. I have no problem with other people policing their own speech and thoughts. My problem starts when they start to enforce what they found on other people.
  - scubbo 4y ago
    Do you recognize that there is a distinction between enforcement, and being told "using this particular form of speech is harmful to certain people - if you continue choosing to use it, you are choosing to present yourself as someone who values your own speech over someone else's comfort, and will be judged accordingly"? If so, then we're in broad agreement (though we may disagree about where the line between social judgement and enforcement lies)
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      I was with you earlier in the thread when you wrote "effective way to improve clarity and to identify unexamined (and perhaps unfounded) assumptions". With you on that because that is ultimately a selfish motivation - one wants one's ideas to be understood, one wants to influence, one wants to be correct ("check assumptions"). But this: > using this particular form of speech is harmful to certain people ... are a few bridges too far in my mind. Who are these certain people? What do they think, not you? For instance, I'm gay, and homophobic slurs happen all the time in my life, whether coded or overt. But they don't harm me in any reasonable sense of the word. I mean, should we not distinguish between physical harm, mental abuse, and discomfort with words? To put a fine point on it, equating "discomfort" and "harm" is flawed.
      - scubbo 4y ago
        > To put a fine point on it, equating "discomfort" and "harm" is flawed. That's fair! Negative impacts certainly exist on a continuum! I felt like "harm" was a reasonable synonym for "negatively impact", but you're right that it carries a stronger connotation than "mildly inconvenience"; and it also has a more direct connotation than "perpetuate negative stereotypes in listeners" (using homophobic slurs has negative impact _even if no homosexual people are around to hear them_, because it emboldens homophobes and normalizes homophobia) So let me loosen my original statement to "using this particular form of speech will negatively impact (whether directly or indirectly) certain people, ...etc.". And please do notice that I didn't describe the outcome as "then you are a bad person"! It's reasonable and justifiable to pick a point on that spectrum and say "you know what - negative impacts that are weaker than this just really don't matter to me. There's a certain level of tip-toeing around that just isn't worth it for the miniscule risk". Hell, I do it too. There's a tiny chance that my use of "hell" as a casual interjection might offend a religious reader - but in my determination, that offence is less important to me than that particular form of speech. There are probably a ton of other words or phrases I use for which I've made a similar (conscious or unconscious) determination. My point is - speech has an impact. Indeed, if it didn't, it would be pointless. The point of speech is to communicate. Communication distributes ideas, concepts, thoughts from one brain to others. Those ideas will not just be the ones that are directly communicated in the speech, but also "meta-ideas" communicated by the form of speech. Meta-communication, more often than not, is about the speaker rather than just the content. If I hear someone teaching a complicated topic, I will assume (rightly or wrongly!) something about their level of intelligence and knowledge. If I hear someone speaking clearly and convincingly, I will assume that they've taken the time to prepare and research - and vice versa. If I hear someone using an obscure word, I'll assume they have an interest in vocabulary (and/or are involved in the field in which that term is common). If I hear someone using a well-known slur, I'll assume that they have made the deliberate choice to do so in the knowledge that it _is_ a slur. It's a form of social signalling. So, y'know - if you believe that forms of speech that do cause "discomfort" are acceptable, and ones that cause "harm" are not (based on your own determination of the likelihood of those impacts, hopefully informed by the people who are actually impacted), _that's justifiable_. I'm not saying that words should be banned. I'm asking for a recognition that the use of a word - _any_ word - is a signal; that some signals are more distinct than others; and that that signal will be interpreted by listeners as reflecting something about the speaker's value system. That's not policing - it's a recognition of personal choice.

Barrin92 4y ago

being precise in your language is of great value, both when it comes to thinking and communicating. Per Wittgenstein, "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world". If you're a software developer you should be familiar with how important syntactic precision is. Someone who runs around the office and complains about everything being 'so crazy' is genuinely not articulating anything meaningful but just ranting. And it's quite amazing how many people can't tell the difference between a rant and a productive argument. Perceiving this as 'policing' is just an excuse to not putting an effort into what you think and say.

alexb_ 4y ago
Okay, but sometimes things are so crazy.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  Crazy Eddie really was criminally insane!!! 80s Commercial | Crazy Eddie | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml6S2yiuSWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml6S2yiuSWE The Biggest Retail Fraud In American History - Masterminds - Crazy Eddie - Eddie Antar Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9PGROHZzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9PGROHZzg
raxxorraxor 4y ago
"limits of my language mean the limits of my world". The arguments to replace certain words would do the opposite though. On the other hand, sometimes expression is not too important to transport a point.
sithadmin 4y ago
Aside from the communicative value, there's a socio-political angle to it as well. Speaking in nebulous terms like calling things 'crazy' without sufficient elaboration is a great way to alienate people as a new-to-the-org resource or as an embedded outsider (e.g. consultant).

eckza 4y ago

`git pull origin main`

khazhoux 4y ago

> I think it's crazy that we spend time thinking about minor bs like this instead of spending that effort trying to solve actual problems. False dichotomy. We all (you included) already spend plenty of time thinking about "minor bs". A discussion about language will probably use up less time in your week than you spent deciding what to get for lunch. Personally I don't have any problem with the word "crazy"... but I don't mind thinking about it for a minute.