4 ms·

> 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. > Bu

by 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.
  - vannevar 2y ago
    >Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful. Agreed. >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. So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows. I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through. You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful, but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power. Do you see the contradiction there? You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society. That just isn't plausible.
    - bpt3 2y ago
      > So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows. Yes, that is my "hypothesis", having a basic familiarity with history where this has happened repeatedly. It's obviously not that hard to get a word into general usage, and it's also not a mystery when someone is attempting to insult you even if you aren't familiar with the word in the moment. > I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through. You asked a question, then changed the phrasing of that question in your next question. I would say that failing to ask the question you actually meant to ask (which is a generous reading of our discussion) is indicative of failing to think things through. Again, your behavior has been consistently antagonistic and obnoxious (the comment above is another example). > You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful Yes > but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power. Never said anything close to that. > Do you see the contradiction there? I get that you'd like it if I said what you are claiming as that could be contradictory and you could expand on that while asking leading questions and contributing little else, but I didn't and frankly have no interest in continuing a conversation with an insufferable prig. > You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society. No I'm not. Go have your imaginary conversation elsewhere.
rbanffy 2y ago
> Why are corporations dropping it as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so if it is providing value to them? Goalposts are moving quite a bit here. Companies are dropping some affirmative action, but I don’t see anyone dropping things such as pronouns or unisex restrooms, vegetarian/halal/kosher meal options, and so on.
- bpt3 2y ago
  I don't think I'm moving the goalposts. Things like accessible restrooms and additional food choices are good and meaningful improvements. They aren't being dropped because they add value to people's lives for little to no cost. It seems like the pronoun push has passed (the performative part about chastising people for not wearing a pin or updating an email signature, not correctly using someone's preferred pronouns), but I'm also largely removed from the portion of society that cares a lot about at it at the moment. I believe PG's essay is intentionally trying to separate the two, and nothing you mentioned as remaining would be considered affirmative action (which largely would fall under what PG is criticizing imo).
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > the performative part about chastising people for not wearing a pin or updating an email signature I'm sorry, but I can't recall a single time it actually happened. Expressing support is important, but I never heard of it being mandatory. And since pronouns are a big part of someone's identity, I'd say one should try to get them right, especially now that most of us made it easy to do (mine are he/him, BTW).
    - bpt3 2y ago
      > I'm sorry, but I can't recall a single time it actually happened. Expressing support is important, but I never heard of it being mandatory. I'm sorry, but it does happen. I've personally experienced it and witnessed it. > And since pronouns are a big part of someone's identity, I'd say one should try to get them right, especially now that most of us made it easy to do (mine are he/him, BTW). We should absolutely get it right, but they are not a big part of everyone's identity, which is a point missed by the people who feel it is an extremely large part of theirs and want everyone to know about it.

by bpt3 2y ago

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.
- vannevar 2y ago
  >Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful. Agreed. >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. So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows. I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through. You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful, but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power. Do you see the contradiction there? You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society. That just isn't plausible.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    > So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows. Yes, that is my "hypothesis", having a basic familiarity with history where this has happened repeatedly. It's obviously not that hard to get a word into general usage, and it's also not a mystery when someone is attempting to insult you even if you aren't familiar with the word in the moment. > I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through. You asked a question, then changed the phrasing of that question in your next question. I would say that failing to ask the question you actually meant to ask (which is a generous reading of our discussion) is indicative of failing to think things through. Again, your behavior has been consistently antagonistic and obnoxious (the comment above is another example). > You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful Yes > but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power. Never said anything close to that. > Do you see the contradiction there? I get that you'd like it if I said what you are claiming as that could be contradictory and you could expand on that while asking leading questions and contributing little else, but I didn't and frankly have no interest in continuing a conversation with an insufferable prig. > You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society. No I'm not. Go have your imaginary conversation elsewhere.

rbanffy 2y ago

> Why are corporations dropping it as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so if it is providing value to them? Goalposts are moving quite a bit here. Companies are dropping some affirmative action, but I don’t see anyone dropping things such as pronouns or unisex restrooms, vegetarian/halal/kosher meal options, and so on.

bpt3 2y ago
I don't think I'm moving the goalposts. Things like accessible restrooms and additional food choices are good and meaningful improvements. They aren't being dropped because they add value to people's lives for little to no cost. It seems like the pronoun push has passed (the performative part about chastising people for not wearing a pin or updating an email signature, not correctly using someone's preferred pronouns), but I'm also largely removed from the portion of society that cares a lot about at it at the moment. I believe PG's essay is intentionally trying to separate the two, and nothing you mentioned as remaining would be considered affirmative action (which largely would fall under what PG is criticizing imo).
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > the performative part about chastising people for not wearing a pin or updating an email signature I'm sorry, but I can't recall a single time it actually happened. Expressing support is important, but I never heard of it being mandatory. And since pronouns are a big part of someone's identity, I'd say one should try to get them right, especially now that most of us made it easy to do (mine are he/him, BTW).
  - bpt3 2y ago
    > I'm sorry, but I can't recall a single time it actually happened. Expressing support is important, but I never heard of it being mandatory. I'm sorry, but it does happen. I've personally experienced it and witnessed it. > And since pronouns are a big part of someone's identity, I'd say one should try to get them right, especially now that most of us made it easy to do (mine are he/him, BTW). We should absolutely get it right, but they are not a big part of everyone's identity, which is a point missed by the people who feel it is an extremely large part of theirs and want everyone to know about it.