6 ms·

Give up 70% of the way through the hyperstitious slur cascade

39 points by SenAnder 3y ago

CamperBob2 3y ago
I'm still not over HUNKY showing up in Wordle. :-P
nvm0n2 3y ago
This is why I refused to go along with the git master->main rename. Beyond being incredibly dumb and zero people being actually offended by this ever, if you get hyperstitious slur cascades in system identifiers that are hard-coded into a bajillion places, the result is an endless series of bugs and timesinks that will still be blowing up in people's faces a decade later. The worst thing about these cascades is that they make people who jump on them early incorrectly feel virtuous and powerful, and that's seductive. Allow them to get away with it and before you know it there's yet another attempt at starting a cascade, and then another, and then another, and suddenly everyone is at each other's throats all the time over nothing. This is how we end up with people being attacked at work for using the word female (https://twitter.com/JoshPower80/status/1722675156017889607 https://twitter.com/JoshPower80/status/1722675156017889607). The only fix for this is for enough people to start proactively spotting such cascades when they start and plant stakes in the ground. "That isn't offensive and you are being disruptive by claiming it is" is a line that needs to start being heard much more often in the workplace. Otherwise there seems to be no real end to how fast this particular wheel can spin.
- quantified 3y ago
  The most intolerant wins: [https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...]
- flashback2199 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    It's already obvious, the article is literally about that.
    - flashback2199 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        Master-slave in distributed systems has as much to do with slavery as "click the mouse" has to do with animal torture. Get a grip. Language is full of words that have different meanings in different contexts, and computing especially so due to its reliance on metaphors.
        flashback2199 3y ago
        I agree that it's not about actual slavery, but it goes deeper than that, and they were named that because the concepts do borrow the metaphor of slavery I mean, the master controls the bus and the slave(s) have to listen to the master.. I first heard about master-slave with IDE drives in the early 00s, I think I was in 6th grade or something trying to put a second hard drive in my computer, and I remember it seemed racist to me at the time, soo I'm pretty sure it's occurred to lots of other people as well.. Shouldn't have to be invoking slavery just to learn some comp sci or computer engineering concept..
    - zug_zug 3y ago
      I'm gonna defend the article from this claim (despite disagreeing with most people on this thread who see this article as some vindication of their victimhood mentality). I think the article comes from a good place, if a bit out-of-touch. If you grow up in an area that has no overt racism (or no racism against your race and you don't notice it against other races) then it's possible for somebody (especially us pedantic and socially imperceptive nerds) to think that the "cure" (political correctness) is more frustrating than the disease. Then hopefully you grow up, and realize that only a small part of the world is even a democracy, and that at least half the world is racist (e.g. apparently 30% of chinese were comfortable saying some races are better than others) [1]. Hopefully along the way you learn a little bit more about America too (even 1/20 Americans admitted to not believing in interracial marriage in 2021). [2] But not everybody moves out of their hometown, or reads the news. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
- anm89 3y ago
  completely agree. I'm not going to raise a stink if a project uses something other than master but I will continue to use master.
zug_zug 3y ago
Overall - fair enough, I'm sure it is a minor inconvenience to you that language and symbols can change out from under you. That said, don't expect much sympathy, feels like saying "The war out there is hurting my ears." Like I get it, if your favorite symbol was the swastika (an ancient religious symbol) then hitler comes to power and ruins it, bummer for you, but doesn't really seem be a battle worth fighting. Also re: > if you think there is, compare to eg “the rich”. Are we dehumanizing the rich every time we call them that? A little bit potentially yes. Like "eat the rich." Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as one entity. I think we all feel this at an innate level -- if I was at a rich friend's house I wouldn't say something like "The rich are..." because I would understand this is potentially offensive generalization.
- yathern 3y ago
  > Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as "one entity." You're right, but I don't think our tendency to group individuals is able to be overridden by removing words from our lexicon. These words and phrases exist because we group people, not the other way around.
  - zug_zug 3y ago
    I don't know if I agree with your take. I do agree that regulating language perfectly isn't sufficient means to eradicate all tribalism, but I bet it helps. Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust, and avoids asking "So exactly how did he talk an entire nation into this?" (And no, high reparations is not a sufficient answer). The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words. I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges.
    - yathern 3y ago
      > Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust That's such a strange statement, I realize you're not saying it's your own view, but I'd hope most people don't have such a simplified view of history. Blaming one man for the actions of millions is not a good way to avoid repeating history. > The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words I think it's out of scope to get into how Nazi Germany became the way it was, but it wasn't simply the skilled oration of one man. Hitler was a product of his time - and rose to power because he echoed the sentiments that were already growing among all of Germany. > I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges. Having recently been embarrassed in a World War, being in economic distress, the people craved the leadership of someone nationalistic, idealistic, and aggressive. Someone who has a plan to get them out of their situation. It wasn't just his grudges, many people shared the grudges. He didn't talk them into a war, the people wanted one. His ability to influence the public with rousing speeches certainly had a big impact in spreading his dogma, but I don't think they required politically incorrect speech. Whether that makes the past more or less horrifying is up to you.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
In 3 months the phrase “Because it’s less than 70% of the way through the hyperstitious slur cascade, and that’s the boundary that I’ve set for myself.” will be a hyperstitious slur
- anm89 3y ago
  This article is half a year old, just for reference.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lilyball 3y ago
This is a very strange article. The author spends the whole time arguing against calling groups of people by the terms they prefer, with an extra focus on trying to excuse racism (such as claiming that "all lives matter" was perfectly innocent for the first week, despite the fact that it arose specifically as a counter to "black lives matter", and incidentally using ageism to make this claim). It's pretty obvious without even looking that the author is a white man.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I cannot tell whether this is sarcastic, or if you missed the point of the article. In either case, you did it spectacularly!
- anm89 3y ago
  The entire top level point of the article, the part that is literally the focus of the title, is a recommendation not to call groups by names they don't like. Did you read the article? Or did you read the first two paragaphs and decide it was wrong thought and go to yell to the internet?
  - compiler-guy 3y ago
    In fact, the point of the article is an attempt to reason about the mechanism that determine why groups prefer that others don’t use this or that word to describe them—not to argue in favor of doing it.
  - lilyball 3y ago
    No that's just the point of the first two paragraphs. Everything past that is claiming that we're taking this idea too far. It specifically used the hypothetical situation of Asian folks deciding that being called "Asian" was bad and that they should be called something like "People of Asia" (I forget the exact replacement phrase and the article isn't loading for me right now) as something that shouldn't be respected. I believe the point was something like the slur for Japanese folk was rooted in actual discrimination and so that's an understandable reason for not liking the term, but if a group of people just decide they want a different term, that's bad and we shouldn't respect their wishes because it makes life harder for white people.
groby_b 3y ago
It's pretty well understood language is defined by its use, prescriptivism is a fantasy, and "I'd like to oppose change as long as it doesn't single me out too much" isn't exactly new human behavior. It's neither a wrong stance, nor is it a right stance. We all like changes in some circumstances, and we're all OK with not conforming in some circumstances - and then we choose which ones matter to us. This happens well beyond slurs, too. Few people call somebody they consider stylish with edgy elements a "hep cat" anymore. We're not asking folks "How's tricks" to ask about their day. And though I do wish we'd resurrect “barmy on the crumpet", probably not going to happen either.
- quantified 3y ago
  It's a two-way street. You might intend a slur but have it not heard as one, you may not intend but have it heard as one. Who says it makes a difference. "Queer" was reclaimed, I think, no longer a slur. The "n-word" is or is not a slur based on the speaker being of black African descent. "Oppose change" is really sort of a social morphing. Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it? If so, that means you have to change when I do too, right?
  - groby_b 3y ago
    "Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it?" If it comes to shared language, it kinda does. I mean that not as a moral obligation, but as a matter of practical usage. If everybody but you has agreed on a meaning, your intent no longer matters. If usage is split... it's hard. "Queer" is still considered a slur by some LGBTQIA+ folks. (I was going to say "gay folks", but even that isn't entirely clear - is it the entire community, or is it men only). It leads to a good bunch of heated debate, still. And yes, of course context matters. The n-word is a prime example, but it's true for all language. But ultimately, when it comes to language hurting people? Intent doesn't matter that much. Impact does.
    - quantified 3y ago
      This all about the process of going from nobody agreeing to everybody agreeing. In HR policies, impact is all, intent nothing. However, you're kind of saying that once one person feels slurred, everybody must pivot. It can be addressed by the feeler changing how they feel, too.
barneygale 3y ago
> There's nothing at all dehumanising about the phrase "The Poor" (if you think there is, compare to eg “the rich”. Are we dehumanizing the rich every time we call them that?) Yes. That's why anti-capitalist protests will criticise "the rich" and not "rich people".
- anm89 3y ago
  I like this article but this is actually a good point. "The rich" is mostly used in a negative way. I'd argue this is because most attempts to reduce large groups of people to an idea like "the rich" or "the poor" are done in bad faith. A support of this would be, within academic sociology or economics these terms will be used in a non slur way and it's because they actually have a reason to be thinking in terms of these groups instead of throwing them out as stawmen for some argument
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
I enjoyed this take, it identifies a problem but doesn't take an extreme, foot stamping view which will offend a lot of people on one side or another. I am a humanist, and I have always tried to deal with everyone fairly. I still get pulled up occasionally on using language that is apparently now offensive. Oops, no offense meant. I will also now give up 70% of the way through the hyperstitious slur!
barneygale 3y ago
[flagged]
cameldrv 3y ago
I've been noticing this happening with the American flag, and it drives me crazy because that should be one thing that belongs to everyone.

39 points by SenAnder 3y ago

I'm still not over HUNKY showing up in Wordle. :-P

This is why I refused to go along with the git master->main rename. Beyond being incredibly dumb and zero people being actually offended by this ever, if you get hyperstitious slur cascades in system identifiers that are hard-coded into a bajillion places, the result is an endless series of bugs and timesinks that will still be blowing up in people's faces a decade later. The worst thing about these cascades is that they make people who jump on them early incorrectly feel virtuous and powerful, and that's seductive. Allow them to get away with it and before you know it there's yet another attempt at starting a cascade, and then another, and then another, and suddenly everyone is at each other's throats all the time over nothing. This is how we end up with people being attacked at work for using the word female (https://twitter.com/JoshPower80/status/1722675156017889607 https://twitter.com/JoshPower80/status/1722675156017889607). The only fix for this is for enough people to start proactively spotting such cascades when they start and plant stakes in the ground. "That isn't offensive and you are being disruptive by claiming it is" is a line that needs to start being heard much more often in the workplace. Otherwise there seems to be no real end to how fast this particular wheel can spin.

quantified 3y ago
The most intolerant wins: [https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...]
flashback2199 3y ago
[flagged]
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  It's already obvious, the article is literally about that.
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Master-slave in distributed systems has as much to do with slavery as "click the mouse" has to do with animal torture. Get a grip. Language is full of words that have different meanings in different contexts, and computing especially so due to its reliance on metaphors.
      - flashback2199 3y ago
        I agree that it's not about actual slavery, but it goes deeper than that, and they were named that because the concepts do borrow the metaphor of slavery I mean, the master controls the bus and the slave(s) have to listen to the master.. I first heard about master-slave with IDE drives in the early 00s, I think I was in 6th grade or something trying to put a second hard drive in my computer, and I remember it seemed racist to me at the time, soo I'm pretty sure it's occurred to lots of other people as well.. Shouldn't have to be invoking slavery just to learn some comp sci or computer engineering concept..
  - zug_zug 3y ago
    I'm gonna defend the article from this claim (despite disagreeing with most people on this thread who see this article as some vindication of their victimhood mentality). I think the article comes from a good place, if a bit out-of-touch. If you grow up in an area that has no overt racism (or no racism against your race and you don't notice it against other races) then it's possible for somebody (especially us pedantic and socially imperceptive nerds) to think that the "cure" (political correctness) is more frustrating than the disease. Then hopefully you grow up, and realize that only a small part of the world is even a democracy, and that at least half the world is racist (e.g. apparently 30% of chinese were comfortable saying some races are better than others) [1]. Hopefully along the way you learn a little bit more about America too (even 1/20 Americans admitted to not believing in interracial marriage in 2021). [2] But not everybody moves out of their hometown, or reads the news. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
anm89 3y ago
completely agree. I'm not going to raise a stink if a project uses something other than master but I will continue to use master.

zug_zug 3y ago

Overall - fair enough, I'm sure it is a minor inconvenience to you that language and symbols can change out from under you. That said, don't expect much sympathy, feels like saying "The war out there is hurting my ears." Like I get it, if your favorite symbol was the swastika (an ancient religious symbol) then hitler comes to power and ruins it, bummer for you, but doesn't really seem be a battle worth fighting. Also re: > if you think there is, compare to eg “the rich”. Are we dehumanizing the rich every time we call them that? A little bit potentially yes. Like "eat the rich." Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as one entity. I think we all feel this at an innate level -- if I was at a rich friend's house I wouldn't say something like "The rich are..." because I would understand this is potentially offensive generalization.

yathern 3y ago
> Our ape ability to discriminate against a whole group relies on our cognitive ability to present thousands of individuals as "one entity." You're right, but I don't think our tendency to group individuals is able to be overridden by removing words from our lexicon. These words and phrases exist because we group people, not the other way around.
- zug_zug 3y ago
  I don't know if I agree with your take. I do agree that regulating language perfectly isn't sufficient means to eradicate all tribalism, but I bet it helps. Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust, and avoids asking "So exactly how did he talk an entire nation into this?" (And no, high reparations is not a sufficient answer). The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words. I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges.
  - yathern 3y ago
    > Consider Hitler. Everybody puts sole blame on him for the Holocaust That's such a strange statement, I realize you're not saying it's your own view, but I'd hope most people don't have such a simplified view of history. Blaming one man for the actions of millions is not a good way to avoid repeating history. > The best explanation I've heard given was that he was a great orator and was able to drive people into an emotional frenzy with his words I think it's out of scope to get into how Nazi Germany became the way it was, but it wasn't simply the skilled oration of one man. Hitler was a product of his time - and rose to power because he echoed the sentiments that were already growing among all of Germany. > I bet if all of Hitler's speeches were replaced with politically correct speeches, he wouldn't have been able to talk so many people into dying in war over his grudges. Having recently been embarrassed in a World War, being in economic distress, the people craved the leadership of someone nationalistic, idealistic, and aggressive. Someone who has a plan to get them out of their situation. It wasn't just his grudges, many people shared the grudges. He didn't talk them into a war, the people wanted one. His ability to influence the public with rousing speeches certainly had a big impact in spreading his dogma, but I don't think they required politically incorrect speech. Whether that makes the past more or less horrifying is up to you.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

In 3 months the phrase “Because it’s less than 70% of the way through the hyperstitious slur cascade, and that’s the boundary that I’ve set for myself.” will be a hyperstitious slur

anm89 3y ago
This article is half a year old, just for reference.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lilyball 3y ago

This is a very strange article. The author spends the whole time arguing against calling groups of people by the terms they prefer, with an extra focus on trying to excuse racism (such as claiming that "all lives matter" was perfectly innocent for the first week, despite the fact that it arose specifically as a counter to "black lives matter", and incidentally using ageism to make this claim). It's pretty obvious without even looking that the author is a white man.

karaterobot 3y ago
I cannot tell whether this is sarcastic, or if you missed the point of the article. In either case, you did it spectacularly!
anm89 3y ago
The entire top level point of the article, the part that is literally the focus of the title, is a recommendation not to call groups by names they don't like. Did you read the article? Or did you read the first two paragaphs and decide it was wrong thought and go to yell to the internet?
- compiler-guy 3y ago
  In fact, the point of the article is an attempt to reason about the mechanism that determine why groups prefer that others don’t use this or that word to describe them—not to argue in favor of doing it.
- lilyball 3y ago
  No that's just the point of the first two paragraphs. Everything past that is claiming that we're taking this idea too far. It specifically used the hypothetical situation of Asian folks deciding that being called "Asian" was bad and that they should be called something like "People of Asia" (I forget the exact replacement phrase and the article isn't loading for me right now) as something that shouldn't be respected. I believe the point was something like the slur for Japanese folk was rooted in actual discrimination and so that's an understandable reason for not liking the term, but if a group of people just decide they want a different term, that's bad and we shouldn't respect their wishes because it makes life harder for white people.

groby_b 3y ago

It's pretty well understood language is defined by its use, prescriptivism is a fantasy, and "I'd like to oppose change as long as it doesn't single me out too much" isn't exactly new human behavior. It's neither a wrong stance, nor is it a right stance. We all like changes in some circumstances, and we're all OK with not conforming in some circumstances - and then we choose which ones matter to us. This happens well beyond slurs, too. Few people call somebody they consider stylish with edgy elements a "hep cat" anymore. We're not asking folks "How's tricks" to ask about their day. And though I do wish we'd resurrect “barmy on the crumpet", probably not going to happen either.

quantified 3y ago
It's a two-way street. You might intend a slur but have it not heard as one, you may not intend but have it heard as one. Who says it makes a difference. "Queer" was reclaimed, I think, no longer a slur. The "n-word" is or is not a slur based on the speaker being of black African descent. "Oppose change" is really sort of a social morphing. Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it? If so, that means you have to change when I do too, right?
- groby_b 3y ago
  "Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it?" If it comes to shared language, it kinda does. I mean that not as a moral obligation, but as a matter of practical usage. If everybody but you has agreed on a meaning, your intent no longer matters. If usage is split... it's hard. "Queer" is still considered a slur by some LGBTQIA+ folks. (I was going to say "gay folks", but even that isn't entirely clear - is it the entire community, or is it men only). It leads to a good bunch of heated debate, still. And yes, of course context matters. The n-word is a prime example, but it's true for all language. But ultimately, when it comes to language hurting people? Intent doesn't matter that much. Impact does.
  - quantified 3y ago
    This all about the process of going from nobody agreeing to everybody agreeing. In HR policies, impact is all, intent nothing. However, you're kind of saying that once one person feels slurred, everybody must pivot. It can be addressed by the feeler changing how they feel, too.

barneygale 3y ago

> There's nothing at all dehumanising about the phrase "The Poor" (if you think there is, compare to eg “the rich”. Are we dehumanizing the rich every time we call them that?) Yes. That's why anti-capitalist protests will criticise "the rich" and not "rich people".

anm89 3y ago
I like this article but this is actually a good point. "The rich" is mostly used in a negative way. I'd argue this is because most attempts to reduce large groups of people to an idea like "the rich" or "the poor" are done in bad faith. A support of this would be, within academic sociology or economics these terms will be used in a non slur way and it's because they actually have a reason to be thinking in terms of these groups instead of throwing them out as stawmen for some argument

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

I enjoyed this take, it identifies a problem but doesn't take an extreme, foot stamping view which will offend a lot of people on one side or another. I am a humanist, and I have always tried to deal with everyone fairly. I still get pulled up occasionally on using language that is apparently now offensive. Oops, no offense meant. I will also now give up 70% of the way through the hyperstitious slur!

barneygale 3y ago

[flagged]

cameldrv 3y ago

I've been noticing this happening with the American flag, and it drives me crazy because that should be one thing that belongs to everyone.