3 ms·

An automatic ban is probably too harsh, a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms might be helpful to lowering the heat (regardless of wh

An automatic ban is probably too harsh, a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms might be helpful to lowering the heat (regardless of what political movement the terms are for, I'd discourage accusations of "fascism" just as much as "wokeness" unless accompanied by an explicit definition)

andsoitis 3y ago
> a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms No. We use vague and loaded terms all the time. That's OK. That's human. Paternalism yields resentment because it treats adults like babies. Some person in some corporate office trying to teach me how to think when they themselves lack critical thinking ability is unacceptable.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Whether it is "ok" in some absolute moral sense isn't relevant in this context, which is about whether it is more in keeping with the goals of hackernews to clamp down on the use of terms which result in flamewars due to confusion and misunderstanding (and no small amount of connotations and signalling). Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war. Tabooing the term and replacing it with one's intended meaning can really clear things up and prevent getting people's backs up. E.g. rather than "woke" one might use "race aware" or "tribalistic" or "injustice aware" or whatever specific meaning one intends to convey. That way you can actually be understood rather than offending people because they identify as "woke" but consider it to mean "injustice aware" rather than some negative meaning. Tl;dr: words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding of
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc. Thoughtful and curious debate should be encouraged. If a word triggers behavior that is unpleasant or counter productive, we should reprimand the individuals doing so not assume nobody can use the word in a civil discussion and I for one feel I learn different perspectives that I hope make me a better person. > words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding o That’s a very narrow perspective. Not only is it not achievable in principle (meanings of words shift over time and have cultural and personal context), but the point of communication is often to build shared understanding. I do, however, it is a valid decision to want to make certain topics off limits, because they tend to devolve into chaos and a broken community, but I would argue against a blacklist of words. We should be able to discuss porn but not share porn in this site. We should be able to debate each other on wokeness (the word and our differing perspectives) without getting disrespectful or assuming bad intent or overlooking abuse. Maybe I’m too idealistic and you have the more practical position… so I want to be open to that possibility.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      I don't think I particularly disagree. > Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc. I want to warn you that that does not apply to all words. I was informed by moderation that the following is not acceptable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 I'm pretty curious if you agree with them there (I've actually been meaning to get around to asking someone else for their opinion but it's still emotionally a bit difficult). (I think this subthread is dead enough that no one but you will read this)
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        > that the following is not acceptable I read it. What specifically did you hear was unacceptable - there’s no moderator comment attached to your writing so I cannot tell what they told you is unacceptable.
        concordDance 3y ago
        Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680537 (I was avoiding going to that thread again because looking at it stresses me out, I took a week long break from hackernews after that)
        fragmede 3y ago
        jumping in from the new comments page because you seem so earnest. those summations on that thread you think are unfair really don't come across as unfair summations of what you're trying to say. you call them a bald faced lie, but it's a fair reading of how what you actually wrote actually lands. what you wrote comes across as those summations. therein lies the problem. your writing doesn't land how you think it lands. there's no two ways around that. you say X, people hear Y, you say but I didn't say Y, but you really are saying Y with how you're saying X. you're trying to say Y without actually saying Y and think that if you say Y absolutely precisely enough, that Y is actually okay. so you insist you're saying X when you're saying Y, and Y simply isn't okay here. really deeply consider how you're really saying Y when you think you're saying or asking X. take the word eugenics, for example. we've decided that's not okay. by asking modern questions around it, you think you can make it okay to support eugenics. but unfortunately words can have two meanings, and the word eugenics has picked up the meaning that non-blonde blue eyed white people are to be euthanized. thus, you can't use the word eugenics. you want it to mean one thing, but the rest of us have agreed it means this other thing, and you're left confused because you're saying X and everyone else is hearing Y because Y is what that word means to everyone else.

andsoitis 3y ago

> a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms No. We use vague and loaded terms all the time. That's OK. That's human. Paternalism yields resentment because it treats adults like babies. Some person in some corporate office trying to teach me how to think when they themselves lack critical thinking ability is unacceptable.

concordDance 3y ago
Whether it is "ok" in some absolute moral sense isn't relevant in this context, which is about whether it is more in keeping with the goals of hackernews to clamp down on the use of terms which result in flamewars due to confusion and misunderstanding (and no small amount of connotations and signalling). Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war. Tabooing the term and replacing it with one's intended meaning can really clear things up and prevent getting people's backs up. E.g. rather than "woke" one might use "race aware" or "tribalistic" or "injustice aware" or whatever specific meaning one intends to convey. That way you can actually be understood rather than offending people because they identify as "woke" but consider it to mean "injustice aware" rather than some negative meaning. Tl;dr: words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding of
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc. Thoughtful and curious debate should be encouraged. If a word triggers behavior that is unpleasant or counter productive, we should reprimand the individuals doing so not assume nobody can use the word in a civil discussion and I for one feel I learn different perspectives that I hope make me a better person. > words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding o That’s a very narrow perspective. Not only is it not achievable in principle (meanings of words shift over time and have cultural and personal context), but the point of communication is often to build shared understanding. I do, however, it is a valid decision to want to make certain topics off limits, because they tend to devolve into chaos and a broken community, but I would argue against a blacklist of words. We should be able to discuss porn but not share porn in this site. We should be able to debate each other on wokeness (the word and our differing perspectives) without getting disrespectful or assuming bad intent or overlooking abuse. Maybe I’m too idealistic and you have the more practical position… so I want to be open to that possibility.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    I don't think I particularly disagree. > Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc. I want to warn you that that does not apply to all words. I was informed by moderation that the following is not acceptable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680523 I'm pretty curious if you agree with them there (I've actually been meaning to get around to asking someone else for their opinion but it's still emotionally a bit difficult). (I think this subthread is dead enough that no one but you will read this)
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > that the following is not acceptable I read it. What specifically did you hear was unacceptable - there’s no moderator comment attached to your writing so I cannot tell what they told you is unacceptable.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38680537 (I was avoiding going to that thread again because looking at it stresses me out, I took a week long break from hackernews after that)
        fragmede 3y ago
        jumping in from the new comments page because you seem so earnest. those summations on that thread you think are unfair really don't come across as unfair summations of what you're trying to say. you call them a bald faced lie, but it's a fair reading of how what you actually wrote actually lands. what you wrote comes across as those summations. therein lies the problem. your writing doesn't land how you think it lands. there's no two ways around that. you say X, people hear Y, you say but I didn't say Y, but you really are saying Y with how you're saying X. you're trying to say Y without actually saying Y and think that if you say Y absolutely precisely enough, that Y is actually okay. so you insist you're saying X when you're saying Y, and Y simply isn't okay here. really deeply consider how you're really saying Y when you think you're saying or asking X. take the word eugenics, for example. we've decided that's not okay. by asking modern questions around it, you think you can make it okay to support eugenics. but unfortunately words can have two meanings, and the word eugenics has picked up the meaning that non-blonde blue eyed white people are to be euthanized. thus, you can't use the word eugenics. you want it to mean one thing, but the rest of us have agreed it means this other thing, and you're left confused because you're saying X and everyone else is hearing Y because Y is what that word means to everyone else.