3 ms·

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 safe

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
      The abnormal part is these activists bring up ancient negative definitions (that no one else has ever heard of) for words like "brown bag", when no one uses the 'bad' definition in daily practice, and try to ban it. If a word/phrase has evolved toward a positive definition, then its abnormal and regressive and wrong to try to bring back the negative definition and force people to stop using it. Why do they do it? For just the twitter points?
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        I'd recommend asking them.

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
    The abnormal part is these activists bring up ancient negative definitions (that no one else has ever heard of) for words like "brown bag", when no one uses the 'bad' definition in daily practice, and try to ban it. If a word/phrase has evolved toward a positive definition, then its abnormal and regressive and wrong to try to bring back the negative definition and force people to stop using it. Why do they do it? For just the twitter points?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      I'd recommend asking them.