6 ms·

>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 doe

>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.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    Sure, and nothing is stopping you from saying that Max Rebo is a jizz master—go crazy! I'm just noting that despite (presumably) there being no vulgar intent behind the term, it doesn't change the fact that most people will read "Max Rebo is a jizz master" and immediately think "lol jizz." Regardless of whether your intentions are pure, if a certain term instills certain associations in your audience, you can either change it to remove the association or live with the consequences of not doing so. But it's not the audience's fault that "jizz" has an existing meaning that's cemented in their minds, and your newfangled space jazz probably won't supplant that.
  - hathchip 3y ago
    The Star Wars universe is fictional. Do you honestly believe that the author from our universe who came up with this name was not aware of the (Earth universe) meaning of the word 'jizz'?
    - deadbeeves 3y ago
      When did I say that, and how is it relevant if they knew it or not?
      - hathchip 3y ago
        You said 'by a different etymology'. It's not a different etymology if they knew and were referring to the other meaning.
        deadbeeves 3y ago
        That's not how etymology is determined. The etymology of a word describes the reason why it's spelled or spoken the way it is. "Jizz" was chosen because it sounds like "jazz", but different. We can infer that the person who chose the word meant to convey that jizz music is like jazz music but different. We can suppose that if the slang for sperm didn't exist that the writer would definitely have chosen "jezz", "juzz", or "jozz" instead, but personally I don't have any evidence to make that claim.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
wpietri 3y ago
As a frequent writer, I think most of the burden lies upon the writer because they are the one choosing to put things in front of an audience. Yes, I think readers also have an obligation to not be, say, willfully obtuse. But if they're approaching something I say in good faith and have a bad reaction that I didn't intend, I think that's mostly my problem. My good intent may explain how I got there, but I'm still going to try to change how I write so that I have the effect I am seeking. So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women", I do have to wonder at their motivation. Do they also pen strident defenses of writers any time something is misunderstood? Or is there a more particular pattern to their vigorous reactions?
- wpietri 3y ago
  And perhaps I should add that if I focused on my supposed good intent to the exclusion of changing, then I'd have to question what my intent was. Or, putting it differently, the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. If I instead make it about my hurt feelings, I'd think that a better indicator of my deeper intent.
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    >So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women" If Vanessa makes a complaint and I say "okay, but why should we care that you don't like it?", am I saying that we shouldn't care women don't like it, or am I saying we shouldn't care that Vanessa is the only one who doesn't like it? >the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. I mean, it's your writing. You can do whatever you want. I'm saying a) it's unreasonable to demand that others change what you don't like just because you don't like it, and b) it's not unreasonable for others to ask you to defend your request for changes.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      [flagged]
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
Very much agreed. The principle of charity is an important virtue when reading things online, and only the audience is capable of bringing that to the table. I have on a number of occasions misread a statement as its opposite (skimming over a 'not' or forgetting important context, perhaps). That might offend me to the point of making an argument, and I think it would be crazy for me to expect an apology rather than a "I didn't say that, you argumentative prick". That's the extreme case, where the error is unquestionably my own, but there's a vast gray area where I might default to a less than charitable interpretation of someone's words and they haven't done anything wrong. For example, if someone were to describe my word choice as gross[1], I might take that as a personal insult. Putting the responsibility on the writer to account for every possible interpretation from every possible audience member is a great way to abolish good writing altogether. [1] Using this example not to go after the author here in particular, but to avoid using a more divisive example that's not already part of the conversation

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.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Sure, and nothing is stopping you from saying that Max Rebo is a jizz master—go crazy! I'm just noting that despite (presumably) there being no vulgar intent behind the term, it doesn't change the fact that most people will read "Max Rebo is a jizz master" and immediately think "lol jizz." Regardless of whether your intentions are pure, if a certain term instills certain associations in your audience, you can either change it to remove the association or live with the consequences of not doing so. But it's not the audience's fault that "jizz" has an existing meaning that's cemented in their minds, and your newfangled space jazz probably won't supplant that.
- hathchip 3y ago
  The Star Wars universe is fictional. Do you honestly believe that the author from our universe who came up with this name was not aware of the (Earth universe) meaning of the word 'jizz'?
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    When did I say that, and how is it relevant if they knew it or not?
    - hathchip 3y ago
      You said 'by a different etymology'. It's not a different etymology if they knew and were referring to the other meaning.
      - deadbeeves 3y ago
        That's not how etymology is determined. The etymology of a word describes the reason why it's spelled or spoken the way it is. "Jizz" was chosen because it sounds like "jazz", but different. We can infer that the person who chose the word meant to convey that jizz music is like jazz music but different. We can suppose that if the slang for sperm didn't exist that the writer would definitely have chosen "jezz", "juzz", or "jozz" instead, but personally I don't have any evidence to make that claim.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wpietri 3y ago

As a frequent writer, I think most of the burden lies upon the writer because they are the one choosing to put things in front of an audience. Yes, I think readers also have an obligation to not be, say, willfully obtuse. But if they're approaching something I say in good faith and have a bad reaction that I didn't intend, I think that's mostly my problem. My good intent may explain how I got there, but I'm still going to try to change how I write so that I have the effect I am seeking. So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women", I do have to wonder at their motivation. Do they also pen strident defenses of writers any time something is misunderstood? Or is there a more particular pattern to their vigorous reactions?

wpietri 3y ago
And perhaps I should add that if I focused on my supposed good intent to the exclusion of changing, then I'd have to question what my intent was. Or, putting it differently, the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. If I instead make it about my hurt feelings, I'd think that a better indicator of my deeper intent.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  >So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women" If Vanessa makes a complaint and I say "okay, but why should we care that you don't like it?", am I saying that we shouldn't care women don't like it, or am I saying we shouldn't care that Vanessa is the only one who doesn't like it? >the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. I mean, it's your writing. You can do whatever you want. I'm saying a) it's unreasonable to demand that others change what you don't like just because you don't like it, and b) it's not unreasonable for others to ask you to defend your request for changes.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    [flagged]

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago

Very much agreed. The principle of charity is an important virtue when reading things online, and only the audience is capable of bringing that to the table. I have on a number of occasions misread a statement as its opposite (skimming over a 'not' or forgetting important context, perhaps). That might offend me to the point of making an argument, and I think it would be crazy for me to expect an apology rather than a "I didn't say that, you argumentative prick". That's the extreme case, where the error is unquestionably my own, but there's a vast gray area where I might default to a less than charitable interpretation of someone's words and they haven't done anything wrong. For example, if someone were to describe my word choice as gross[1], I might take that as a personal insult. Putting the responsibility on the writer to account for every possible interpretation from every possible audience member is a great way to abolish good writing altogether. [1] Using this example not to go after the author here in particular, but to avoid using a more divisive example that's not already part of the conversation