8 ms·

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what eve

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? That's the complexity I don't want.

phpisthebest 4y ago
We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicality or reality of the situation.
- tsgagnon 4y ago
  It feels a bit hypocritical to make this sort of proclamation on a social media site with extremely strict moderation. Almost as though this isn't as simple a topic as "stick and stones" and that everyone has different tolerances for what they'll put up with depending on the setting and context.
- jraph 4y ago
  > Offense is a you problem, not a me problem Most definitely not. Of course people need to work on themselves to avoid being offended. But if you communicate with other people, it's because you want to achieve something. Probably not offending the target (or else fuck you I guess ;-)). So, usually, offense gets in the way, so you should care about not offending your target. And beyond this, as human beings, we usually care not to hurt other human beings. It's a we problem. > no matter the practicality or reality of the situation. Do you have example of this? Of course you are expected to show some empathy/sympathy, but I've never seem people impose unrealistic expectations.
  - nasmorn 4y ago
    I would not call anyone the N-word but would ask for a brown paper bag if I needed it at the grocery store. I have personally never met someone that is offended by the use of eg. colors as a concept but yet some people are trying to remove them from language.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Nobody is saying you can't say the word brown FFS.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        There are entire documents in technology written to erase words White / Black List -> Allow / Deny Git "master" -> Main and about 10,000 other examples.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        You can name a branch master on git to your hearts content. We still have branches named master. We still have stuff we refer to as "whitelist" even though that was never an accurate descriptor for it in the first place. This shit isn't banned. Nobody stops you from using them.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        It would be unconstitutional in the US to ban it, the question or comment thread is not about being illegal to use the word.. The issue the social pressure against these terms, and the ever changing landscape one political segment of the population has in being forever offended by everything
        strix_varius 4y ago
        It's certainly not unconstitutional for organizations to ban words. It's happening every day at major tech companies.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" I think you miss the point of "sticks and stones". The point is not that it's ok to say whatever you want to anyone else. The point of "sticks and stones" is not to let other people bring down your self-esteem. Other people will intentionally try to denigrate you. They'll call you "stupid". They'll call you "ugly". Or they may call you a racial slur. That's all unacceptable. That's a "me" problem for the speaker. The point of "sticks and stones", on the other hand, is to resist internalizing these external insults and degradations. It's to put on a virtual suit of armor to protect you from verbal attacks — and let's be clear, they're real attacks. You don't just "accidentally" beat someone with physical sticks and stones, right? The intention is to hurt, to break their bones, as it were. That's the analogy, with intentionally hurtful words.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- skissane 4y ago
  > Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicality or reality of the situation. That’s absolutely not true though - you only have to affirm/support/validate people’s identities and emotional states when their identity/emotions aligns with the zeitgeist; if those things contradict the zeitgeist, then affirmation/support/validation is somewhere between optional and evil.
jraph 4y ago
> I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? No? Same grammar regardless of who is near, just need to remember which pronouns to designate which people, which: - is the intuitive one for most people - the asked pronoun for the few people who have pronouns that don't match your intuition. (I also have troubles with remembering names, but pronouns are fine) And for not implying a gender when speaking of someone for who we don't the gender, it's a constant exercise that also does not depend on the vicinity of a given person. It requires some effort, of course.
- red1reaper 4y ago
  They requires effort... or just using they left and right for everyone, who needs pronouns when they exists anyway? Or better yet, avoid using pronouns by using the name over and over. That is what I do, not he, not she, not it, not especial ones. Only they, they supremacy.
  - jraph 4y ago
    Repeating the name over and over would be cumbersome. I would agree with always using a genderless pronoun, the gender should almost never matter, but I would probably be in for endless debates if I started to do this now.
    - nasmorn 4y ago
      I agree that would be an actual progressive agenda. But people wanting me to call them with another pronoun where I can no longer use biological cues is just cementing gender roles. Because if I present as a man but say I am a woman you just also gotta accept that since a woman does not need to conform to some societal gender role. If a guy dresses up like a woman he can still be a he, maybe he just likes skirts and nail polish. If a woman can be whatever she wants what does being a woman even mean except biology. If you want to assume a gender role previously tied to sex it clearly reinforces the idea that gender roles are an actual immutable category. How you can at the same time also hold the belief that biology is not doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe it is the just deserved revenge on a society that ties so much to sex and gender roles that logically has no relation to it. I am talking about things like job expectations or assuming competence at random skills, division of domestic responsibilities etc. I cannot believe though that this fixation on gender identity continues forever. It just doesn’t seem like a sensible end state.

phpisthebest 4y ago

We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicality or reality of the situation.

tsgagnon 4y ago
It feels a bit hypocritical to make this sort of proclamation on a social media site with extremely strict moderation. Almost as though this isn't as simple a topic as "stick and stones" and that everyone has different tolerances for what they'll put up with depending on the setting and context.
jraph 4y ago
> Offense is a you problem, not a me problem Most definitely not. Of course people need to work on themselves to avoid being offended. But if you communicate with other people, it's because you want to achieve something. Probably not offending the target (or else fuck you I guess ;-)). So, usually, offense gets in the way, so you should care about not offending your target. And beyond this, as human beings, we usually care not to hurt other human beings. It's a we problem. > no matter the practicality or reality of the situation. Do you have example of this? Of course you are expected to show some empathy/sympathy, but I've never seem people impose unrealistic expectations.
- nasmorn 4y ago
  I would not call anyone the N-word but would ask for a brown paper bag if I needed it at the grocery store. I have personally never met someone that is offended by the use of eg. colors as a concept but yet some people are trying to remove them from language.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Nobody is saying you can't say the word brown FFS.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      There are entire documents in technology written to erase words White / Black List -> Allow / Deny Git "master" -> Main and about 10,000 other examples.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        You can name a branch master on git to your hearts content. We still have branches named master. We still have stuff we refer to as "whitelist" even though that was never an accurate descriptor for it in the first place. This shit isn't banned. Nobody stops you from using them.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        It would be unconstitutional in the US to ban it, the question or comment thread is not about being illegal to use the word.. The issue the social pressure against these terms, and the ever changing landscape one political segment of the population has in being forever offended by everything
        strix_varius 4y ago
        It's certainly not unconstitutional for organizations to ban words. It's happening every day at major tech companies.
lapcat 4y ago
> Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" I think you miss the point of "sticks and stones". The point is not that it's ok to say whatever you want to anyone else. The point of "sticks and stones" is not to let other people bring down your self-esteem. Other people will intentionally try to denigrate you. They'll call you "stupid". They'll call you "ugly". Or they may call you a racial slur. That's all unacceptable. That's a "me" problem for the speaker. The point of "sticks and stones", on the other hand, is to resist internalizing these external insults and degradations. It's to put on a virtual suit of armor to protect you from verbal attacks — and let's be clear, they're real attacks. You don't just "accidentally" beat someone with physical sticks and stones, right? The intention is to hurt, to break their bones, as it were. That's the analogy, with intentionally hurtful words.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
skissane 4y ago
> Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicality or reality of the situation. That’s absolutely not true though - you only have to affirm/support/validate people’s identities and emotional states when their identity/emotions aligns with the zeitgeist; if those things contradict the zeitgeist, then affirmation/support/validation is somewhere between optional and evil.

jraph 4y ago

> I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? No? Same grammar regardless of who is near, just need to remember which pronouns to designate which people, which: - is the intuitive one for most people - the asked pronoun for the few people who have pronouns that don't match your intuition. (I also have troubles with remembering names, but pronouns are fine) And for not implying a gender when speaking of someone for who we don't the gender, it's a constant exercise that also does not depend on the vicinity of a given person. It requires some effort, of course.

red1reaper 4y ago
They requires effort... or just using they left and right for everyone, who needs pronouns when they exists anyway? Or better yet, avoid using pronouns by using the name over and over. That is what I do, not he, not she, not it, not especial ones. Only they, they supremacy.
- jraph 4y ago
  Repeating the name over and over would be cumbersome. I would agree with always using a genderless pronoun, the gender should almost never matter, but I would probably be in for endless debates if I started to do this now.
  - nasmorn 4y ago
    I agree that would be an actual progressive agenda. But people wanting me to call them with another pronoun where I can no longer use biological cues is just cementing gender roles. Because if I present as a man but say I am a woman you just also gotta accept that since a woman does not need to conform to some societal gender role. If a guy dresses up like a woman he can still be a he, maybe he just likes skirts and nail polish. If a woman can be whatever she wants what does being a woman even mean except biology. If you want to assume a gender role previously tied to sex it clearly reinforces the idea that gender roles are an actual immutable category. How you can at the same time also hold the belief that biology is not doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe it is the just deserved revenge on a society that ties so much to sex and gender roles that logically has no relation to it. I am talking about things like job expectations or assuming competence at random skills, division of domestic responsibilities etc. I cannot believe though that this fixation on gender identity continues forever. It just doesn’t seem like a sensible end state.