5 ms·

> —administrators have increasingly become enforcers of workplace discipline. Even if forbidden-word lists are presented as “advisory,” they exist as weapons in

> —administrators have increasingly become enforcers of workplace discipline. Even if forbidden-word lists are presented as “advisory,” they exist as weapons in administrators’ arsenal for penalizing faculty. The risk of abuse is significant as is the chilling effect on speech.

shadowgovt 4y ago
What kind of speech?
- mhuffman 4y ago
  Interesting that you seem to imply that you would be just fine with canceling people or with the chilling effects of speaking if the "kind of speech" fit some criteria that you personally have.
  - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
    Would you cancel the speech of people infringing on free speech?
    - mhuffman 4y ago
      I don't understand what you mean by that. How do you infringe on free speech with free speech?
      - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
        Getting someone cancelled by revealing heinous crimes they committed. Making forbidden word lists and convincing your company to adopt them.
        mhuffman 4y ago
        Ok, I see. No I would not cancel or end the careers of those people that did that. My true hope is that people can come to the understanding that ignoring people that try to do that is the proper approach. Just like I don't want to hurt people that believe in flat Earth. I just ignore them as kooks. People that make forbidden word lists and people that call the employers of people because they disagree with them should be ignored and this should become socially acceptable. Also, I will note that in both of your examples it wasn't free speech but specific actions taken by a person.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Oh, there's several ways. Simply driving down the SNR by out-speaking someone is the easiest, which is why so many forums have rules of etiquette or time-boxing. Inducing a speaker's audience to leave by making the environment so odious that they voluntarily stop associating there.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    As, well, a human being, yes: I am just fine with refraining from volunteering my time or attention to people who fit or do not fit some criteria. It's called "freedom of association."
- theodorejb 4y ago
  If normal, everyday words are blacklisted and put one at risk of discipline or censure, that has a chilling effect on speech in general. People consider it safer not to speak at all, even if they have an important idea or viewpoint which should be communicated.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Which normal, everyday words? (I'm someone who has lived through at least two cycles of "Stuff we all used to say we don't say anymore." Language moves. Things "everyone" accepts are fine until they aren't. Do you still use bare pointers in C++ or do you use options and smart pointers?).
    - poszlem 4y ago
      "chief", "tribe", "master", "gentlemen", "guys", "abort", "user". Oh, by all means, continue with your attempts at gaslighting by dismissing this as a normal evolution of language. Language does move alright, but apparently, we have a bunch of self-appointed activists who think they can dictate the direction it moves for everyone else. And how do we know they're clueless? Well, for one, they keep pushing things like "Latinx" nonsense, even though actual Latino Americans have made it clear they don't want it.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        What makes this abnormal evolution? By what process do you think we got to the place where the words that are on most text chat channels' banned or auto-flag-for-moderation lists got to be on those lists? It was by a group of people (which started small) explaining why those words weren't okay, over and over again, until people agreed. My personal opinion is that 2/3 of the words in your list could probably stand to be jettisoned from regular usage (I haven't heard a compelling explanation for the remaining third but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise).
        throwoutway 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

What kind of speech?

mhuffman 4y ago
Interesting that you seem to imply that you would be just fine with canceling people or with the chilling effects of speaking if the "kind of speech" fit some criteria that you personally have.
- ParetoOptimal 4y ago
  Would you cancel the speech of people infringing on free speech?
  - mhuffman 4y ago
    I don't understand what you mean by that. How do you infringe on free speech with free speech?
    - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
      Getting someone cancelled by revealing heinous crimes they committed. Making forbidden word lists and convincing your company to adopt them.
      - mhuffman 4y ago
        Ok, I see. No I would not cancel or end the careers of those people that did that. My true hope is that people can come to the understanding that ignoring people that try to do that is the proper approach. Just like I don't want to hurt people that believe in flat Earth. I just ignore them as kooks. People that make forbidden word lists and people that call the employers of people because they disagree with them should be ignored and this should become socially acceptable. Also, I will note that in both of your examples it wasn't free speech but specific actions taken by a person.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Oh, there's several ways. Simply driving down the SNR by out-speaking someone is the easiest, which is why so many forums have rules of etiquette or time-boxing. Inducing a speaker's audience to leave by making the environment so odious that they voluntarily stop associating there.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  As, well, a human being, yes: I am just fine with refraining from volunteering my time or attention to people who fit or do not fit some criteria. It's called "freedom of association."
theodorejb 4y ago
If normal, everyday words are blacklisted and put one at risk of discipline or censure, that has a chilling effect on speech in general. People consider it safer not to speak at all, even if they have an important idea or viewpoint which should be communicated.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Which normal, everyday words? (I'm someone who has lived through at least two cycles of "Stuff we all used to say we don't say anymore." Language moves. Things "everyone" accepts are fine until they aren't. Do you still use bare pointers in C++ or do you use options and smart pointers?).
  - poszlem 4y ago
    "chief", "tribe", "master", "gentlemen", "guys", "abort", "user". Oh, by all means, continue with your attempts at gaslighting by dismissing this as a normal evolution of language. Language does move alright, but apparently, we have a bunch of self-appointed activists who think they can dictate the direction it moves for everyone else. And how do we know they're clueless? Well, for one, they keep pushing things like "Latinx" nonsense, even though actual Latino Americans have made it clear they don't want it.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      What makes this abnormal evolution? By what process do you think we got to the place where the words that are on most text chat channels' banned or auto-flag-for-moderation lists got to be on those lists? It was by a group of people (which started small) explaining why those words weren't okay, over and over again, until people agreed. My personal opinion is that 2/3 of the words in your list could probably stand to be jettisoned from regular usage (I haven't heard a compelling explanation for the remaining third but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise).
      - throwoutway 4y ago