3 ms·

It's actually not limited to racial slurs: > Yellow-flowered shrubs called Hibbertia, after anti-abolitionist George Hibbert, are one plant group that some bot

It's actually not limited to racial slurs: > Yellow-flowered shrubs called Hibbertia, after anti-abolitionist George Hibbert, are one plant group that some botanists would like to rename. It's so easy to be against slavery when living in a society where everyone is against slavery (Edit: people aren't black and white, I think it's great that we remember the names of "imperfect" people; it shows humility, open-mindedness, tolerance of viewpoints we may not agree with, etc.). Regarding slurs: > One of the proposals aims to rename an estimated 218 species whose scientific names are based on the word caffra and various derivatives — which are ethnic slurs often used against Black people in southern Africa — and to replace it with derivatives of ‘afr’ to instead recognize Africa So, it's a very "local" slur: "caffra" sounds adorable to me. Reminiscent of the "coq"[0] story (which means "roaster" in French). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq_(software)

giraffe_lady 2y ago
That example is also a good one to rename though. Everyone is imperfect, but there's nothing sacrosanct about this naming tradition, or any particular name emerging from it. As pointed out elsewhere species names change all the time for a variety of reasons: this is just one of them. As for your personal aesthetic feelings about specific slurs I don't find them interesting, useful or compelling at all. I frankly cannot even guess what you thought that was adding to this conversation.
- mbivert 2y ago
  > I frankly cannot even guess what you thought that was adding to this conversation. That what is a slur to some is absolutely benign to others (what else in this context). > Everyone is imperfect, but there's nothing sacrosanct about this naming tradition, or any particular name emerging from it By that logic, we could as well have left the name untouched, as the new name wouldn't be unchangeable either. I really couldn't care less either way, but spending time and money on such petty things feels like a waste of resources to me.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly. I do care about not having racist names, an apparently unpopular position on this website. But I think scientists overall are probably smart enough to handle whatever complication is added to their work by it. And again, they must already be able to account for changes for other reasons, so I trust they can make it through this one as well. It's just not a compelling technical argument.
    - mbivert 2y ago
      > It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly I'm not "in favor of racist names", that's a disgraceful shortcut. I do think that: - there are way more important issues; - "racist names" are not so trivial to identify ([0] is an amusing example) - even if we could identify and remove all racist names, it probably won't solve the actual issue (racial "hate" of various degrees). > an apparently unpopular position on this website It's important to understand that there are legitimate arguments against the removal of "racist names". The intentions behind removing them may be quite good, it doesn't mean that (1) it's a good thing ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions"); (2) and even if it's a truly good thing, it doesn't mean not doing it is necessarily bad either. Note that its work the other way as well: it's not because it's a bad thing that it's necessarily a bad thing for it to happen. And that's why, despite the fact that I think that it's an unwise choice, I still do not care about it happening: it may have a very positive role in the long-run, and I can't see that far. > It's just not a compelling technical argument. Note that it's not the argument I was making at all, as I'm not well-placed enough to have an opinion on this particular matter. It seems that we had a botanist in the thread making this argument thought. [0]: https://www.digmandarin.com/confusing-chinese-n-word.html https://www.digmandarin.com/confusing-chinese-n-word.html
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  My primary complaint is that it reduces human understanding and empathy with both the past, but other humans. I think the idea that humans are multifaceted is important, along with the idea that someone could be both racist and make scientific contributions in another. Humans and history are complex, and I think this is a coordinated effort to strip that complexity reality away.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

That example is also a good one to rename though. Everyone is imperfect, but there's nothing sacrosanct about this naming tradition, or any particular name emerging from it. As pointed out elsewhere species names change all the time for a variety of reasons: this is just one of them. As for your personal aesthetic feelings about specific slurs I don't find them interesting, useful or compelling at all. I frankly cannot even guess what you thought that was adding to this conversation.

mbivert 2y ago
> I frankly cannot even guess what you thought that was adding to this conversation. That what is a slur to some is absolutely benign to others (what else in this context). > Everyone is imperfect, but there's nothing sacrosanct about this naming tradition, or any particular name emerging from it By that logic, we could as well have left the name untouched, as the new name wouldn't be unchangeable either. I really couldn't care less either way, but spending time and money on such petty things feels like a waste of resources to me.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly. I do care about not having racist names, an apparently unpopular position on this website. But I think scientists overall are probably smart enough to handle whatever complication is added to their work by it. And again, they must already be able to account for changes for other reasons, so I trust they can make it through this one as well. It's just not a compelling technical argument.
  - mbivert 2y ago
    > It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly I'm not "in favor of racist names", that's a disgraceful shortcut. I do think that: - there are way more important issues; - "racist names" are not so trivial to identify ([0] is an amusing example) - even if we could identify and remove all racist names, it probably won't solve the actual issue (racial "hate" of various degrees). > an apparently unpopular position on this website It's important to understand that there are legitimate arguments against the removal of "racist names". The intentions behind removing them may be quite good, it doesn't mean that (1) it's a good thing ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions"); (2) and even if it's a truly good thing, it doesn't mean not doing it is necessarily bad either. Note that its work the other way as well: it's not because it's a bad thing that it's necessarily a bad thing for it to happen. And that's why, despite the fact that I think that it's an unwise choice, I still do not care about it happening: it may have a very positive role in the long-run, and I can't see that far. > It's just not a compelling technical argument. Note that it's not the argument I was making at all, as I'm not well-placed enough to have an opinion on this particular matter. It seems that we had a botanist in the thread making this argument thought. [0]: https://www.digmandarin.com/confusing-chinese-n-word.html https://www.digmandarin.com/confusing-chinese-n-word.html
s1artibartfast 2y ago
My primary complaint is that it reduces human understanding and empathy with both the past, but other humans. I think the idea that humans are multifaceted is important, along with the idea that someone could be both racist and make scientific contributions in another. Humans and history are complex, and I think this is a coordinated effort to strip that complexity reality away.