4 ms·

"Groping for a light switch" would be a valid phrase in American English as well. But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://

"Groping for a light switch" would be a valid phrase in American English as well. But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper I think that would be especially true for women, who, being the common targets of sexual groping, are going to be more aware of it. So even if it weren't my first association, I would still think it a reasonable association for women to make. As she says, original intent doesn't matter a ton. If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. Because what I care about is getting my point across. When I see instead strident defense of language that's bothersome to a historically marginalized group, I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change. A change I'll note the dig maintainers made back in 2017, so it's not like they care.

janalsncm 3y ago
> If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. If original intent doesn’t matter, your audience shouldn’t differentiate between writing which is intentionally offensive and accidentally so. That is, they may as well assume you are malicious. That’s not the world I want to live in. It’s also not the world we do live in. English is the most widely spoken language on the planet, and its speakers come from all sorts of cultural and educational backgrounds. They don’t have the time or the privilege of knowing about every term which can potentially be offensive. My point isn’t that we shouldn’t change “groper” to something more inclusive. My point is that in practical terms intent does matter.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  It's more that intent was irrelevant than any intent should be presumed. Word meanings drift and we update as we go. That doesn't mean the previous author was evil; it means they were writing in a different context and the context is defunct. Especially for a living document like the documentation of a still-used tool, modifying word choice to avoid unintended negative connotation is wise.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Please note that you went from my "doesn't matter a ton" to "doesn't matter" period. That's a straw man. If you'd like to argue with something I said, I'd be glad to engage. But not with a cartoon of my point.
johnnyworker 3y ago
> But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper The first (and the only non-slang one) definition of that is "a person or thing that gropes". Context matters, as in "groping $person" versus "groping $object". You cannot sexually touch domain information, so that couldn't possibly be the meaning.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deadbeeves 3y ago
>I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change That's easy to wonder when you're the one asking for the change. It's awfully convenient that "intent doesn't matter", as that puts the burden of action on the speaker/writer. If intent did matter, then the listener/reader would need to consider what the other person is trying to say and adjust their interpretation of the words accordingly. But since it doesn't, all that matters is that someone took offense at a particular word, and so it is the writer who needs to correct themselves.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Here's an example of why intent doesn't always matter: In the Star Wars universe, the kind of music that Max Rebo plays is a lot like our Earth jazz. But they don't refer to it as jazz. They call it jizz. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jizz https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jizz
  - quacksilver 3y ago
    Some accounts of the etymology of Jazz claim that they have the same root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_(word) jism -> jasm -> jass -> jazz and jism -> jizz Though none of us were there and nothing is conclusive, so I guess who knows
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you want me to conclude from this. Yes, "jizz" is indeed a vulgar slang in English. By a different etymology it is also the fictional name of a fictional musical genre that's similar to real jazz. By yet another etymology it is also the behavioral characteristics of a bird that enable a birdwatcher to identify it. It would be entirely correct to say "look at that jizz, that's definitely a golden-crested pygmy goose". Someone else listening in might be confused, but that's their problem. Words have multiple meanings. To ignore this and require that everyone just uses those meanings that you personally are aware of is an unreasonable request.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

janalsncm 3y ago

> If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. If original intent doesn’t matter, your audience shouldn’t differentiate between writing which is intentionally offensive and accidentally so. That is, they may as well assume you are malicious. That’s not the world I want to live in. It’s also not the world we do live in. English is the most widely spoken language on the planet, and its speakers come from all sorts of cultural and educational backgrounds. They don’t have the time or the privilege of knowing about every term which can potentially be offensive. My point isn’t that we shouldn’t change “groper” to something more inclusive. My point is that in practical terms intent does matter.

shadowgovt 3y ago
It's more that intent was irrelevant than any intent should be presumed. Word meanings drift and we update as we go. That doesn't mean the previous author was evil; it means they were writing in a different context and the context is defunct. Especially for a living document like the documentation of a still-used tool, modifying word choice to avoid unintended negative connotation is wise.
wpietri 3y ago
Please note that you went from my "doesn't matter a ton" to "doesn't matter" period. That's a straw man. If you'd like to argue with something I said, I'd be glad to engage. But not with a cartoon of my point.

johnnyworker 3y ago

> But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper The first (and the only non-slang one) definition of that is "a person or thing that gropes". Context matters, as in "groping $person" versus "groping $object". You cannot sexually touch domain information, so that couldn't possibly be the meaning.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deadbeeves 3y ago

>I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change That's easy to wonder when you're the one asking for the change. It's awfully convenient that "intent doesn't matter", as that puts the burden of action on the speaker/writer. If intent did matter, then the listener/reader would need to consider what the other person is trying to say and adjust their interpretation of the words accordingly. But since it doesn't, all that matters is that someone took offense at a particular word, and so it is the writer who needs to correct themselves.

spondylosaurus 3y ago
Here's an example of why intent doesn't always matter: In the Star Wars universe, the kind of music that Max Rebo plays is a lot like our Earth jazz. But they don't refer to it as jazz. They call it jizz. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jizz https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jizz
- quacksilver 3y ago
  Some accounts of the etymology of Jazz claim that they have the same root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_(word) jism -> jasm -> jass -> jazz and jism -> jizz Though none of us were there and nothing is conclusive, so I guess who knows
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you want me to conclude from this. Yes, "jizz" is indeed a vulgar slang in English. By a different etymology it is also the fictional name of a fictional musical genre that's similar to real jazz. By yet another etymology it is also the behavioral characteristics of a bird that enable a birdwatcher to identify it. It would be entirely correct to say "look at that jizz, that's definitely a golden-crested pygmy goose". Someone else listening in might be confused, but that's their problem. Words have multiple meanings. To ignore this and require that everyone just uses those meanings that you personally are aware of is an unreasonable request.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]