5 ms·

Is it an "enormous amount of resources"? How do you think it compares to the amount of resources historically put into racism, including all the waste and lost

Is it an "enormous amount of resources"? How do you think it compares to the amount of resources historically put into racism, including all the waste and lost opportunity costs? In my experience, most people complaining about wokism are projecting their own annoyance at language policing into some kind of massive social problem. But I'm open-minded, and if you have a good argument that the resources put into wokism far outweigh the losses from racism, I'm happy to listen. PG's essay makes no effort to present that argument.

bpt3 2y ago
[flagged]
- vannevar 2y ago
  So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value. But what if it does? What if the way people talk publicly about other people does impact behavior? Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? What about slurs against gays, or Jews? Maybe there is some value in policing language after all?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Language policing costs a lot, but its invisible since its the cost of everyone updating themselves and spending time rethinking what to say. That is worth many billions of dollars in lost time, and since its a moving target like we see with other words constantly getting updated it will never stop, its an ongoing cost we constantly pay for this.
    - vannevar 2y ago
      >Language policing costs a lot, but its invisible since its the cost of everyone updating themselves and spending time rethinking what to say. How often do you think the average person actually has to change their language? It seems like it would be a pretty tiny fraction for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of circumstances. On the other hand, if you're a professor of history or a public official, it probably does cost some of your time. But in those cases, doesn't it also provide value?
      - ctoth 2y ago
        Not sure how frequently you create a new Git repo but every time I do I am given some weird moralizing thing about the branch name.
    - Earw0rm 2y ago
      Is the same true of other forms of manners, table behaviour say, or are they actually encoding something useful and pro-social? My guess is, if I'd had to learn to use a knife and fork and typical Western table manners at 35, it'd remain a small stone in my shoe for life. Which is to say, not using certain language might always grind our gears a little. I notice it, certainly don't always use the words my brain first reaches for, but not so much as to bug me. There's so much other self-censorship that we automate subconsciously or almost, it's not a big deal. For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur.
      - bpt3 2y ago
        > For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur. That's because they replaced the r word with autistic, which I presume will be the a word in about 20 years and some other term will be used to describe autism.
        Earw0rm 2y ago
        They describe quite different phenomena, both in terms of the actual state of being and how they're deployed as a slur? "autistic" seems to be more like "nerd" used to be a slur (but also sometime identity badge) before the rise of SV billionaires. I've never heard "autistic" applied to anything other than people (and possibly animals, for humour) for example, in the way the r word was used as a stronger version of "dumb". Anyway, I think people having to be a little careful with their words is a small price to pay to breaking the linguistic and stereotypical link between people with learning difficulties, Downs etc. and dumb, annoying situations. It's called spelling a word because words are spells, which is why it's ok to place some of them off-limits.
        bpt3 2y ago
        > They describe quite different phenomena, both in terms of the actual state of being and how they're deployed as a slur? "autistic" seems to be more like "nerd" used to be a slur (but also sometime identity badge) before the rise of SV billionaires. Not what I'm talking about at all. Teens in the US use autistic in the exact same way the r word was used 20 - 30 years ago. It's an insult that is a stronger version of dumb. > I've never heard "autistic" applied to anything other than people (and possibly animals, for humour) for example, in the way the r word was used as a stronger version of "dumb". You're just not exposed to it then. Which is fine, but doesn't mean it isn't commonplace. I am guessing you don't live in the US based on your spelling of humour, which would be one explanation of why you aren't tuned into this. > Anyway, I think people having to be a little careful with their words is a small price to pay to breaking the linguistic and stereotypical link between people with learning difficulties, Downs etc. and dumb, annoying situations. People being considerate is good. But banning specific words doesn't accomplish what most of the word police claims it will. > It's called spelling a word because words are spells, which is why it's ok to place some of them off-limits. Very cute; not very persuasive.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    > So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value. That's not my point. I think they're both true. > But what if it does? Why are corporations dropping it as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so if it is providing value to them? What value is yelling at people who don't include their pronouns in their bio providing to society? What about education consultants who have a stated goal of assuring equal outcomes for all students (this happened in my very large, progressive district and parents lost their minds)? > What if the way people talk publicly about other people does impact behavior? There are much more effective and efficient ways to accomplish this than what the people in question are doing if that's the case. > Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? Not particularly > What about slurs against gays, or Jews? Not particularly > Maybe there is some value in policing language after all? Feel free to share any evidence you have, I'm open to hearing about it
    - vannevar 2y ago
      >> Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? >Not particularly >> What about slurs against gays, or Jews? >Not particularly Honestly, if you're having a hard time seeing the harm that ethnic and racial slurs do, particularly from public officials or community leaders, you're not going to understand any of this.
      - bpt3 2y ago
        This is the second time you've reframed a question you asked to present my response in an inaccurate light, presumably because you weren't able to move to your next talking point from my actual response. This might work on people who don't notice it, but it's extremely dishonest and unproductive. Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful. Adding social stigma to specific words just causes the people who would use them to use different terms if they care about the stigma, and the change does very little to contribute to equal rights.
        2y ago
  - tekknik 2y ago
    Language policing is a form of control used by totalitarian regimes. If you are seeing changes they will be short lived after the controlled gets tired of the controllers forcing a particular outcome. It happens time and time again. It’s like we don’t even learn from history anymore.
raxxor 2y ago
[flagged]

bpt3 2y ago

[flagged]

vannevar 2y ago
So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value. But what if it does? What if the way people talk publicly about other people does impact behavior? Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? What about slurs against gays, or Jews? Maybe there is some value in policing language after all?
- Jensson 2y ago
  Language policing costs a lot, but its invisible since its the cost of everyone updating themselves and spending time rethinking what to say. That is worth many billions of dollars in lost time, and since its a moving target like we see with other words constantly getting updated it will never stop, its an ongoing cost we constantly pay for this.
  - vannevar 2y ago
    >Language policing costs a lot, but its invisible since its the cost of everyone updating themselves and spending time rethinking what to say. How often do you think the average person actually has to change their language? It seems like it would be a pretty tiny fraction for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of circumstances. On the other hand, if you're a professor of history or a public official, it probably does cost some of your time. But in those cases, doesn't it also provide value?
    - ctoth 2y ago
      Not sure how frequently you create a new Git repo but every time I do I am given some weird moralizing thing about the branch name.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    Is the same true of other forms of manners, table behaviour say, or are they actually encoding something useful and pro-social? My guess is, if I'd had to learn to use a knife and fork and typical Western table manners at 35, it'd remain a small stone in my shoe for life. Which is to say, not using certain language might always grind our gears a little. I notice it, certainly don't always use the words my brain first reaches for, but not so much as to bug me. There's so much other self-censorship that we automate subconsciously or almost, it's not a big deal. For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur.
    - bpt3 2y ago
      > For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur. That's because they replaced the r word with autistic, which I presume will be the a word in about 20 years and some other term will be used to describe autism.
      - Earw0rm 2y ago
        They describe quite different phenomena, both in terms of the actual state of being and how they're deployed as a slur? "autistic" seems to be more like "nerd" used to be a slur (but also sometime identity badge) before the rise of SV billionaires. I've never heard "autistic" applied to anything other than people (and possibly animals, for humour) for example, in the way the r word was used as a stronger version of "dumb". Anyway, I think people having to be a little careful with their words is a small price to pay to breaking the linguistic and stereotypical link between people with learning difficulties, Downs etc. and dumb, annoying situations. It's called spelling a word because words are spells, which is why it's ok to place some of them off-limits.
        bpt3 2y ago
        > They describe quite different phenomena, both in terms of the actual state of being and how they're deployed as a slur? "autistic" seems to be more like "nerd" used to be a slur (but also sometime identity badge) before the rise of SV billionaires. Not what I'm talking about at all. Teens in the US use autistic in the exact same way the r word was used 20 - 30 years ago. It's an insult that is a stronger version of dumb. > I've never heard "autistic" applied to anything other than people (and possibly animals, for humour) for example, in the way the r word was used as a stronger version of "dumb". You're just not exposed to it then. Which is fine, but doesn't mean it isn't commonplace. I am guessing you don't live in the US based on your spelling of humour, which would be one explanation of why you aren't tuned into this. > Anyway, I think people having to be a little careful with their words is a small price to pay to breaking the linguistic and stereotypical link between people with learning difficulties, Downs etc. and dumb, annoying situations. People being considerate is good. But banning specific words doesn't accomplish what most of the word police claims it will. > It's called spelling a word because words are spells, which is why it's ok to place some of them off-limits. Very cute; not very persuasive.
- bpt3 2y ago
  > So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value. That's not my point. I think they're both true. > But what if it does? Why are corporations dropping it as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so if it is providing value to them? What value is yelling at people who don't include their pronouns in their bio providing to society? What about education consultants who have a stated goal of assuring equal outcomes for all students (this happened in my very large, progressive district and parents lost their minds)? > What if the way people talk publicly about other people does impact behavior? There are much more effective and efficient ways to accomplish this than what the people in question are doing if that's the case. > Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? Not particularly > What about slurs against gays, or Jews? Not particularly > Maybe there is some value in policing language after all? Feel free to share any evidence you have, I'm open to hearing about it
  - vannevar 2y ago
    >> Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? >Not particularly >> What about slurs against gays, or Jews? >Not particularly Honestly, if you're having a hard time seeing the harm that ethnic and racial slurs do, particularly from public officials or community leaders, you're not going to understand any of this.
    - bpt3 2y ago
      This is the second time you've reframed a question you asked to present my response in an inaccurate light, presumably because you weren't able to move to your next talking point from my actual response. This might work on people who don't notice it, but it's extremely dishonest and unproductive. Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful. Adding social stigma to specific words just causes the people who would use them to use different terms if they care about the stigma, and the change does very little to contribute to equal rights.
      - 2y ago
- tekknik 2y ago
  Language policing is a form of control used by totalitarian regimes. If you are seeing changes they will be short lived after the controlled gets tired of the controllers forcing a particular outcome. It happens time and time again. It’s like we don’t even learn from history anymore.

raxxor 2y ago

[flagged]