12 ms·

> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering

> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture. But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative - a greater negative than missing out on $100,000. In fact I suspect most people wouldn't accept that offer even if it had many more zeros. But still we must pretend? > Instead of "committed suicide", consider using "died by suicide". Context: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions. And with this they tip their hand. The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.

hulitu 4y ago
It's just normal newspeak. And some people still consider that Orwell wrote fiction.
- tiahura 4y ago
  Is it time for our two minutes of Musk hate?
kkoncevicius 4y ago
"blind review" is good - better than "non-blind review". So in some sense they are eliminating phrases where "blind" is used in a positive light.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  “Blind review” has blind once but view twice. Ableist!
jlebar 4y ago
> The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. I think the notion is that "committed suicide" is like "committed a crime" and harkens back to the Christian notion that suicide is a crime (against God). And so it's moralizing language that blames the person for killing themselves. You can verify that this is a common notion among people who work in the field by Googling. For example, the first hit when I search for "why shouldn't we say committed suicide" is https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-committed-suicide https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-mat... which says: > For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder." > That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents. It's interesting that you arrived at this conclusion before doing a minimal amount of research!
- zamadatix 4y ago
  I always knew GitHub was a place full of sin I just couldn't figure out where these feelings were coming from.
  - Pigalowda 4y ago
    I'm committed to my partner. She's evil, I knew it.
    - csande17 4y ago
      I say we should form a commission to investigate this further.
      - Pigalowda 4y ago
        The commission might find that I’m mostly at fault so I might have to walk back my original claim.
jlebar 4y ago
> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative As you can verify with some Googling, there are many Deaf people who choose not to undergo surgery to gain the ability to hear. (This isn't a universal preference by any means, but it's also not fringe.)
- geoduck14 4y ago
  I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language - even if you can hear later in life. So it is possible that you are reading stories of people who decide not to get the surgery because they know they won't get full function.
  - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    But music though
    - crdrost 4y ago
      Deaf people dance to music all the time.
      - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
        I’m aware.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - crdrost 4y ago
    You are simply wrong about this, that is not the cultural attitude that generates this response in something like 95%+ of cases. Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected for them to live a “normal” life. They believe that they are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly technically inferior due to its inherent one-dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure varying with time only, their language describes things with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in time. This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is not “I’m afraid,” it's “those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?”. It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.
zbrozek 4y ago
It's the same thing as replacing "homeless" with "experiencing homelessness". It's not saying anything different, but communication efficacy isn't the point.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  The "involuntarily unhoused"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
  - loco5niner 4y ago
    And for many, the "voluntarily unhoused".
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  Right, these guys are really going balls to the wall with this insanity.
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
    Which ironically has nothing to do with human anatomy, but nobody bothered doing the research: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      And "balls-out" refers to locomotive centrifugal governor: * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  I think that’s different. It’s nice to not have shitty circumstance be your identity. I’ve got a friend who was recently homeless. Thinking of him as a “homeless person” isn’t really so helpful. That said, I think developing a thick skin should be a curricular objective for all people.
rich_sasha 4y ago
Blind here means unseeing, not even negative or positive.
jnovek 4y ago
I’m disabled. I have mixed feelings about the things in this list. E.g. part of my disability experience involves my mental health and, when you’re talking about me, anyway, I don’t mind the term “mentally ill”. On the other hand, it sort of irritates me when people who are well describe others as “crazy”. Regarding your comment on disability being “abnormal and negative”, though, I have to disagree. I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative. There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society. It’s worth reading at least the introduction on the Wikipedia page, so I’ll link it. Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability Edit: To be clear, I’m just thinking about the list of words, not any sort of policy about what one can and can’t say. That’s a whole other can of worms!
- kgwgk 4y ago
  > impairments as being abnormal and negative That’s why you call them impairments. (From Late Latin peiorare "make worse”.)
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    The point is that physical impairments, while real, shouldn't matter all that much. We'll all be physically impaired to a greater or lesser extent as we age. Social impairment however matters a great deal, because it's next to impossible to live a healthy and fulfilling life if you can't relate to others on a reasonably equal basis. Of course trying to enforce this on everyone else with "person-first" language is a total non-starter, but the basic insight found in the "social model" is quite valuable and in fact something that classical authors were already familiar with.
- pannSun 4y ago
  > I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative. [..] Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em! Why not? I have several traits I consider abnormal, and some I consider negative (i.e. unlike the merely abnormal ones, I wish to overcome them. And some cannot be overcome but are very normal - e.g. mortality.) - why should that characterization impair my effort or desire to survive and thrive? Or rather, why does it impair yours? > There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society. If I may speculate, is this the answer? You want to be seen as good and desirable by society, so if any of the multiple meanings of a word used to describe you carry negative implications, that results in a reduction of your self-worth? Even when a word is merely objective description, used without moral baggage, its mere proximity to alternate meanings taints it?
flandish 4y ago
Also “anonymous” does not mean the same enough to replace “blind” - anon could mean “giver of test does not know subjects” or “subjects do not know what they are testing”.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
faeriechangling 4y ago
> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture. Such recommendations reflect the authors own prejudices. Some forms of blinding like "Blind auditions" are literal and are largely indistinguishable from how blind people normally conduct auditions. "Blindness" is a symbol of justice and fairness and non-prejudice. Blindness is also one of the easiest disabilities to achieve, temporarily or permanently. If blindness is at least neutral state of being, nothing stops one from wandering about with a blindfold. Somebody who fails to do so while talking about how blindness isn't a negative is insincere and all talk.
- tuukkah 4y ago
  You can't just go and wander about in a blindfold - it requires practise and skill as well as some affordances from the environment: tactile pavements, audible traffic lights etc. Blindness is perhaps somewhat negative in how it makes you vulnerable to some of the society's shortcomings, but then again aren't we all to some extent? Consider people who are blind since birth vs people who are otherwise disadvantaged say because they will encounter more racism. Both can be shortcomings compared to the mode but does it make sense to talk of them as "negative"?
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    Ultimately in such matters I find that truth is the supreme value. If what you’re saying about a disability isn’t true, no matter what good intentions you may have, the things you’re saying are likely just going to confuse matters further. The biggest problem with the guide on the point of blindness is it prescribes the correct attitude to have towards blindness, but people have all sorts of feelings about blindness, for all sorts of different and valid reasons. I think you’ve lost the plot to some extent when you start insisting that ANY disability shouldn’t be portrayed in a negative light, because the reality is people have many negative experiences with disability, there are positive experiences as well, but negative feelings are a big part of disability (even if you don’t feel them presently you’re probably felt them at some point), and not just for reasons of culture. The blindfold example is a bit facetious, but if being blind is just as good as not being blind, why do people go to such lengths to stay sighted? Glasses are an entire industry. Why don’t people just live without sight? A theory about the world which cannot answer such questions is incomplete.
zzo38computer 4y ago
I fail to see how "blind review" "perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative". I understand how disability "is abnormal and negative", and that makes sense; although in many contexts is better to be specific and use a neutral point of view. (Someone wrote "normal" (and "natural") is a bad word, and I can see, it is compared to something which is allegedly "normal" and "abnormal", though.) (However, some people if they are already blind, might not care anymore if they can see, and might be able to compensate for blindness, if they are used to being blind, opposed to someone who is temporarily blinded.) However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review" instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review" makes sense, and is better descriptive. There are many problems with this list, although some of the things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).
- benj111 4y ago
  Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person. And anonymous could be seen as being disrespectful to unidentified bodies. This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic. The list suggests hooked instead of addicted, which to me still has the same connotations, so even the author can't avoid all problematic words.
  - zzo38computer 4y ago
    > Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person. In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a contradiction, isn't it? > This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic. Of course, you are right. But to me, my intention isn't about being disrespectful or not, but rather, to be clear and accurate.
PaulRobinson 4y ago
You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care. You don't get to say they should not feel that way. Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research thar asked more blind people than you have? Once you accept thar you can then decide on whether you care or not and act accordingly. All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people. If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting.
- chmod775 4y ago
  > All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people. > If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting. Your post may be politically correct, but it is not polite. In fact you come off as quite rude compared to the person you are replying to. > You don't get to say they should not feel that way. If GP were to say how they should feel, clearly they would be caring how they feel. Also, why not? People discuss how one should feel in a particular situations quite often. In fact the page being discussed here seems to concern itself a great deal with what should upset people, even though most of the groups on whose behalf it appears to be judging what is offensive to them could have probably pointed these things out themselves - and I'm not sure everyone appreciates being paternalized this way (see "Latinx").
- pannSun 4y ago
  > Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research that asked more blind people than you have? Since they propose to replace Hispanic with Latinx, a term that most Hispanics reject [1], such faith is unwarranted. > You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care. I propose an alternative dichotomy: I can prioritize truth, or I can prioritize the asserted feelings of the loudest complainers. And as a commenter pointed out, "blind" in "blind review" is a positive, not a negative! A blind review is objectively better and more socially desirable than a non-blind one (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but is becoming prevalent in academia, so it is also normal instead of abnormal). We have more than enough evidence to conclude this document is insincere. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
throwawayfear 4y ago
The people pushing these language initiatives are the obnoxious and worthless hall-monitor types no one likes to work or speak with. The ones who never do anything productive in the organization they find themselves in because they’re too busy trying to mount moral crusades. We’ll see less of this as shops and institutions find the need to focus on ROI, products, innovation, and shareholders once again now that the fairytale of free money and unlimited free labor is expiring. The people who do the actual work to build and teach and innovate at the periphery of their chosen industry will devour the hall monitors.
jwalton 4y ago
> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? Even if we were to accept that disabilities were not negative, a blind review is a good thing - it’s a review that’s more fair than a non-blind review. So if there’s nothing wrong with being blind, why would you want to stop people from using the term “blind” to describe a blind review? How does calling it a blind review imply that being blind is negative?
benj111 4y ago
But why is 'abnormal' always treated as a negative? This is one thing I don't get about modern woke politics. We are supposed to be accepting of each other, but need to ignore the things we are supposed to accept. People are different, people are abnormal, why can't that be celebrated?
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  I don't think that abnormal is always treated as a negative - it just means out of the norm meaning the majority of the people are not included. You can describe somebody is abnormally intelligent for example and it's a positive in this light. But I really doubt you're gonna find a group of people that want to celebrate the idea that they are unable to see, in that context vision impairment is a negative abnormal trait.
Natsu 4y ago
Or how come "boomer" isn't listed under ageism? It's not like anyone choose to be born then and it's literally used as a slur.
- pannSun 4y ago
  By now it should be obvious. Boomers are acceptable targets, so they don't get protection.
- soundnote 4y ago
  What pannSun said. Some target groups are acceptable, others are not. The same sorts of people as come up with these will easily call black people Uncle Toms and other fun things if they happen to have the wrong politics. It's ostensibly about taking others into account and being kind, in reality just conformity to their political ideology and not much else. These sorts of word lists are just compelled speech to force obeisance.
gallopingcomp 4y ago
One thing of note: there is likely no unified “they”, given that a document seems to be a mixed bag of elementary clarity-of-language items (“this is wild” vs. “this is insane”) and obsessive pedantic nonsense (about distinctions that do not exist to either the general population or most of the affected communities, eg. “committed suicide” [1]), and the forcibly mild language in the introduction. If I could hazard a guess, this document was probably the result of an uncomfortable compromise between some folks of varying levels of assertiveness, obsessiveness, and linguistic myopia[2]. Likely not intended to be a minefield by some/most of its authors, but would be treated as one by small but frustratingly vocal segments of both its staunchest defenders and most enraged critics. It would be really nice if both all of us could maybe just (figuratively) go out and touch some grass, instead of letting isolated personal frustrations turn into pet peeves and then into poorly-justified prescriptivism. [1] This also reminds me of the alleged distinction between “transwoman” and “trans woman”. (German speakers and the like might find it particularly superfluous.) [2] Speaking as a person with severe near-sightedness. (Edit: typo)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hulitu 4y ago

It's just normal newspeak. And some people still consider that Orwell wrote fiction.

tiahura 4y ago
Is it time for our two minutes of Musk hate?

kkoncevicius 4y ago

"blind review" is good - better than "non-blind review". So in some sense they are eliminating phrases where "blind" is used in a positive light.

kgwgk 4y ago
“Blind review” has blind once but view twice. Ableist!

jlebar 4y ago

> The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. I think the notion is that "committed suicide" is like "committed a crime" and harkens back to the Christian notion that suicide is a crime (against God). And so it's moralizing language that blames the person for killing themselves. You can verify that this is a common notion among people who work in the field by Googling. For example, the first hit when I search for "why shouldn't we say committed suicide" is https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-committed-suicide https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-mat... which says: > For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder." > That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents. It's interesting that you arrived at this conclusion before doing a minimal amount of research!

zamadatix 4y ago
I always knew GitHub was a place full of sin I just couldn't figure out where these feelings were coming from.
- Pigalowda 4y ago
  I'm committed to my partner. She's evil, I knew it.
  - csande17 4y ago
    I say we should form a commission to investigate this further.
    - Pigalowda 4y ago
      The commission might find that I’m mostly at fault so I might have to walk back my original claim.

jlebar 4y ago

> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative As you can verify with some Googling, there are many Deaf people who choose not to undergo surgery to gain the ability to hear. (This isn't a universal preference by any means, but it's also not fringe.)

geoduck14 4y ago
I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language - even if you can hear later in life. So it is possible that you are reading stories of people who decide not to get the surgery because they know they won't get full function.
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  But music though
  - crdrost 4y ago
    Deaf people dance to music all the time.
    - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
      I’m aware.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- crdrost 4y ago
  You are simply wrong about this, that is not the cultural attitude that generates this response in something like 95%+ of cases. Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected for them to live a “normal” life. They believe that they are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly technically inferior due to its inherent one-dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure varying with time only, their language describes things with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in time. This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is not “I’m afraid,” it's “those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?”. It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.

zbrozek 4y ago

It's the same thing as replacing "homeless" with "experiencing homelessness". It's not saying anything different, but communication efficacy isn't the point.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
The "involuntarily unhoused"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
- loco5niner 4y ago
  And for many, the "voluntarily unhoused".
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
Right, these guys are really going balls to the wall with this insanity.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  Which ironically has nothing to do with human anatomy, but nobody bothered doing the research: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    And "balls-out" refers to locomotive centrifugal governor: * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
dr_dshiv 4y ago
I think that’s different. It’s nice to not have shitty circumstance be your identity. I’ve got a friend who was recently homeless. Thinking of him as a “homeless person” isn’t really so helpful. That said, I think developing a thick skin should be a curricular objective for all people.

rich_sasha 4y ago

Blind here means unseeing, not even negative or positive.

jnovek 4y ago

I’m disabled. I have mixed feelings about the things in this list. E.g. part of my disability experience involves my mental health and, when you’re talking about me, anyway, I don’t mind the term “mentally ill”. On the other hand, it sort of irritates me when people who are well describe others as “crazy”. Regarding your comment on disability being “abnormal and negative”, though, I have to disagree. I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative. There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society. It’s worth reading at least the introduction on the Wikipedia page, so I’ll link it. Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability Edit: To be clear, I’m just thinking about the list of words, not any sort of policy about what one can and can’t say. That’s a whole other can of worms!

kgwgk 4y ago
> impairments as being abnormal and negative That’s why you call them impairments. (From Late Latin peiorare "make worse”.)
- zozbot234 4y ago
  The point is that physical impairments, while real, shouldn't matter all that much. We'll all be physically impaired to a greater or lesser extent as we age. Social impairment however matters a great deal, because it's next to impossible to live a healthy and fulfilling life if you can't relate to others on a reasonably equal basis. Of course trying to enforce this on everyone else with "person-first" language is a total non-starter, but the basic insight found in the "social model" is quite valuable and in fact something that classical authors were already familiar with.
pannSun 4y ago
> I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative. [..] Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em! Why not? I have several traits I consider abnormal, and some I consider negative (i.e. unlike the merely abnormal ones, I wish to overcome them. And some cannot be overcome but are very normal - e.g. mortality.) - why should that characterization impair my effort or desire to survive and thrive? Or rather, why does it impair yours? > There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society. If I may speculate, is this the answer? You want to be seen as good and desirable by society, so if any of the multiple meanings of a word used to describe you carry negative implications, that results in a reduction of your self-worth? Even when a word is merely objective description, used without moral baggage, its mere proximity to alternate meanings taints it?

flandish 4y ago

Also “anonymous” does not mean the same enough to replace “blind” - anon could mean “giver of test does not know subjects” or “subjects do not know what they are testing”.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

faeriechangling 4y ago

> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture. Such recommendations reflect the authors own prejudices. Some forms of blinding like "Blind auditions" are literal and are largely indistinguishable from how blind people normally conduct auditions. "Blindness" is a symbol of justice and fairness and non-prejudice. Blindness is also one of the easiest disabilities to achieve, temporarily or permanently. If blindness is at least neutral state of being, nothing stops one from wandering about with a blindfold. Somebody who fails to do so while talking about how blindness isn't a negative is insincere and all talk.

tuukkah 4y ago
You can't just go and wander about in a blindfold - it requires practise and skill as well as some affordances from the environment: tactile pavements, audible traffic lights etc. Blindness is perhaps somewhat negative in how it makes you vulnerable to some of the society's shortcomings, but then again aren't we all to some extent? Consider people who are blind since birth vs people who are otherwise disadvantaged say because they will encounter more racism. Both can be shortcomings compared to the mode but does it make sense to talk of them as "negative"?
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Ultimately in such matters I find that truth is the supreme value. If what you’re saying about a disability isn’t true, no matter what good intentions you may have, the things you’re saying are likely just going to confuse matters further. The biggest problem with the guide on the point of blindness is it prescribes the correct attitude to have towards blindness, but people have all sorts of feelings about blindness, for all sorts of different and valid reasons. I think you’ve lost the plot to some extent when you start insisting that ANY disability shouldn’t be portrayed in a negative light, because the reality is people have many negative experiences with disability, there are positive experiences as well, but negative feelings are a big part of disability (even if you don’t feel them presently you’re probably felt them at some point), and not just for reasons of culture. The blindfold example is a bit facetious, but if being blind is just as good as not being blind, why do people go to such lengths to stay sighted? Glasses are an entire industry. Why don’t people just live without sight? A theory about the world which cannot answer such questions is incomplete.

zzo38computer 4y ago

I fail to see how "blind review" "perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative". I understand how disability "is abnormal and negative", and that makes sense; although in many contexts is better to be specific and use a neutral point of view. (Someone wrote "normal" (and "natural") is a bad word, and I can see, it is compared to something which is allegedly "normal" and "abnormal", though.) (However, some people if they are already blind, might not care anymore if they can see, and might be able to compensate for blindness, if they are used to being blind, opposed to someone who is temporarily blinded.) However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review" instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review" makes sense, and is better descriptive. There are many problems with this list, although some of the things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).

benj111 4y ago
Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person. And anonymous could be seen as being disrespectful to unidentified bodies. This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic. The list suggests hooked instead of addicted, which to me still has the same connotations, so even the author can't avoid all problematic words.
- zzo38computer 4y ago
  > Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person. In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a contradiction, isn't it? > This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic. Of course, you are right. But to me, my intention isn't about being disrespectful or not, but rather, to be clear and accurate.

PaulRobinson 4y ago

You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care. You don't get to say they should not feel that way. Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research thar asked more blind people than you have? Once you accept thar you can then decide on whether you care or not and act accordingly. All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people. If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting.

chmod775 4y ago
> All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people. > If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting. Your post may be politically correct, but it is not polite. In fact you come off as quite rude compared to the person you are replying to. > You don't get to say they should not feel that way. If GP were to say how they should feel, clearly they would be caring how they feel. Also, why not? People discuss how one should feel in a particular situations quite often. In fact the page being discussed here seems to concern itself a great deal with what should upset people, even though most of the groups on whose behalf it appears to be judging what is offensive to them could have probably pointed these things out themselves - and I'm not sure everyone appreciates being paternalized this way (see "Latinx").
pannSun 4y ago
> Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research that asked more blind people than you have? Since they propose to replace Hispanic with Latinx, a term that most Hispanics reject [1], such faith is unwarranted. > You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care. I propose an alternative dichotomy: I can prioritize truth, or I can prioritize the asserted feelings of the loudest complainers. And as a commenter pointed out, "blind" in "blind review" is a positive, not a negative! A blind review is objectively better and more socially desirable than a non-blind one (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but is becoming prevalent in academia, so it is also normal instead of abnormal). We have more than enough evidence to conclude this document is insincere. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...

throwawayfear 4y ago

The people pushing these language initiatives are the obnoxious and worthless hall-monitor types no one likes to work or speak with. The ones who never do anything productive in the organization they find themselves in because they’re too busy trying to mount moral crusades. We’ll see less of this as shops and institutions find the need to focus on ROI, products, innovation, and shareholders once again now that the fairytale of free money and unlimited free labor is expiring. The people who do the actual work to build and teach and innovate at the periphery of their chosen industry will devour the hall monitors.

jwalton 4y ago

> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? Even if we were to accept that disabilities were not negative, a blind review is a good thing - it’s a review that’s more fair than a non-blind review. So if there’s nothing wrong with being blind, why would you want to stop people from using the term “blind” to describe a blind review? How does calling it a blind review imply that being blind is negative?

benj111 4y ago

But why is 'abnormal' always treated as a negative? This is one thing I don't get about modern woke politics. We are supposed to be accepting of each other, but need to ignore the things we are supposed to accept. People are different, people are abnormal, why can't that be celebrated?

throwaway675309 4y ago
I don't think that abnormal is always treated as a negative - it just means out of the norm meaning the majority of the people are not included. You can describe somebody is abnormally intelligent for example and it's a positive in this light. But I really doubt you're gonna find a group of people that want to celebrate the idea that they are unable to see, in that context vision impairment is a negative abnormal trait.

Natsu 4y ago

Or how come "boomer" isn't listed under ageism? It's not like anyone choose to be born then and it's literally used as a slur.

pannSun 4y ago
By now it should be obvious. Boomers are acceptable targets, so they don't get protection.
soundnote 4y ago
What pannSun said. Some target groups are acceptable, others are not. The same sorts of people as come up with these will easily call black people Uncle Toms and other fun things if they happen to have the wrong politics. It's ostensibly about taking others into account and being kind, in reality just conformity to their political ideology and not much else. These sorts of word lists are just compelled speech to force obeisance.

gallopingcomp 4y ago

One thing of note: there is likely no unified “they”, given that a document seems to be a mixed bag of elementary clarity-of-language items (“this is wild” vs. “this is insane”) and obsessive pedantic nonsense (about distinctions that do not exist to either the general population or most of the affected communities, eg. “committed suicide” [1]), and the forcibly mild language in the introduction. If I could hazard a guess, this document was probably the result of an uncomfortable compromise between some folks of varying levels of assertiveness, obsessiveness, and linguistic myopia[2]. Likely not intended to be a minefield by some/most of its authors, but would be treated as one by small but frustratingly vocal segments of both its staunchest defenders and most enraged critics. It would be really nice if both all of us could maybe just (figuratively) go out and touch some grass, instead of letting isolated personal frustrations turn into pet peeves and then into poorly-justified prescriptivism. [1] This also reminds me of the alleged distinction between “transwoman” and “trans woman”. (German speakers and the like might find it particularly superfluous.) [2] Speaking as a person with severe near-sightedness. (Edit: typo)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]