4 ms·

Fixed. My mistake.

by hjay 14y ago

Fixed. My mistake.

steveklabnik 14y ago
Thank you. This confusion is really terrible, and I see it happening quite often around here.
- rjknight 14y ago
  And not just here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism?s=t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism I think it's worth pointing out that the definitions you're using are relatively uncommon. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean that they're probably not the definitions that any of us learned in school, or the definitions that are mostly widely known and used. I'm all in favour of the idea that the meaning of words can change, but that normally goes alongside the idea that the meaning of a word is determined by its popular usage. Personally, I think your usage is fine, and I think it represents a more precise concept, but I'm not surprised that it causes confusion and I'm not sure it's fair to blame everyone else for that.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Right! That's why I wrote the comment: people who haven't needed to care about this (coughmencough) generally... haven't needed to care. Dictionaries are really bad at terms of art: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object 2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thread http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thread etc. Both of these terms (and many more) have special meanings within computing that aren't in the dictionary. (This one has a reference to the 'computing dictionary' at the bottom.) Likewise, social scientists have terms of art. > I'm not sure it's fair to blame everyone else for that. Who am I blaming? I just mentioned that a term was being mis-used. No blame here. I expect people who've never been forced to confront their privilege to not have any understanding of the topic, by definition.
    - rjknight 14y ago
      Well, yes, but terms of art are generally reserved for discussions among specialists. If I started using words like 'class' or 'object', I can be reasonably expected to be talking about OOP. Unless, that is, I'm attending a conference on Marxism, in which case nobody will assume that; they'll assume that I'm talking about sociological class and objectification. If I talk about 'master-slave hierarchies' on HN, I'm probably talking about database replication. In a race studies class, I'm talking about something entirely different. I don't think it's entirely reasonable to say that people are 'mis-using' a word by adopting its most popular usage in a discussion between non-specialists, and I think it's doubly unreasonable to complain about the confusion being caused when you try to use the specialist definition. If you're as aware of social science as you sound, then you'll be well-aware of the power of words, and the power of defining what a word means. By seeking to define a word, and implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege") and by insisting that it is they who need to change their vocabulary and not you who need to be more precise, you're behaving quite arrogantly; in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak.
      - steveklabnik 14y ago
        When we're discussing the social implications of women in technology, it doesn't seem un-reasonable to me to use terms of art from social science. Maybe it does to you? > implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege") The point of privilege is that you don't notice it. I think the disconnect here is that you assume that I'm making some kind of judgement about ignorance. I don't think people who are ignorant are 'bad.' Everyone needs to learn these things sometime. > in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak. The thing is that in this case, it's (to switch back to CS ;) ) a leaky abstraction. If someone thinks "I get discriminated against too, as a man, so I've experienced sexism" they're totally talking past people who are discussing what it is for women to experience sexism, since they (the man) are only experiencing sexual discrimination. The 'pervasive' part is significant. It's not about policing words: it's about getting men to understand that they have not and will not be able to experience sexism in the way a woman does, even if they are, at times, discriminated against based on their gender. You're absolutely right that words have power: that's why we shouldn't let people use the wrong ones.

Fixed. My mistake.

by hjay 14y ago

Fixed. My mistake.

steveklabnik 14y ago

Thank you. This confusion is really terrible, and I see it happening quite often around here.

rjknight 14y ago
And not just here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism?s=t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism I think it's worth pointing out that the definitions you're using are relatively uncommon. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean that they're probably not the definitions that any of us learned in school, or the definitions that are mostly widely known and used. I'm all in favour of the idea that the meaning of words can change, but that normally goes alongside the idea that the meaning of a word is determined by its popular usage. Personally, I think your usage is fine, and I think it represents a more precise concept, but I'm not surprised that it causes confusion and I'm not sure it's fair to blame everyone else for that.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Right! That's why I wrote the comment: people who haven't needed to care about this (coughmencough) generally... haven't needed to care. Dictionaries are really bad at terms of art: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object 2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thread http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thread etc. Both of these terms (and many more) have special meanings within computing that aren't in the dictionary. (This one has a reference to the 'computing dictionary' at the bottom.) Likewise, social scientists have terms of art. > I'm not sure it's fair to blame everyone else for that. Who am I blaming? I just mentioned that a term was being mis-used. No blame here. I expect people who've never been forced to confront their privilege to not have any understanding of the topic, by definition.
  - rjknight 14y ago
    Well, yes, but terms of art are generally reserved for discussions among specialists. If I started using words like 'class' or 'object', I can be reasonably expected to be talking about OOP. Unless, that is, I'm attending a conference on Marxism, in which case nobody will assume that; they'll assume that I'm talking about sociological class and objectification. If I talk about 'master-slave hierarchies' on HN, I'm probably talking about database replication. In a race studies class, I'm talking about something entirely different. I don't think it's entirely reasonable to say that people are 'mis-using' a word by adopting its most popular usage in a discussion between non-specialists, and I think it's doubly unreasonable to complain about the confusion being caused when you try to use the specialist definition. If you're as aware of social science as you sound, then you'll be well-aware of the power of words, and the power of defining what a word means. By seeking to define a word, and implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege") and by insisting that it is they who need to change their vocabulary and not you who need to be more precise, you're behaving quite arrogantly; in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak.
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      When we're discussing the social implications of women in technology, it doesn't seem un-reasonable to me to use terms of art from social science. Maybe it does to you? > implying that those who don't accept your definition as ignorant ("people who've never been forced to confront their privilege") The point of privilege is that you don't notice it. I think the disconnect here is that you assume that I'm making some kind of judgement about ignorance. I don't think people who are ignorant are 'bad.' Everyone needs to learn these things sometime. > in the manner, if I might mischievously suggest, of a person who believes in the privileged position of their knowledge on the subject and their right to tell others how to speak. The thing is that in this case, it's (to switch back to CS ;) ) a leaky abstraction. If someone thinks "I get discriminated against too, as a man, so I've experienced sexism" they're totally talking past people who are discussing what it is for women to experience sexism, since they (the man) are only experiencing sexual discrimination. The 'pervasive' part is significant. It's not about policing words: it's about getting men to understand that they have not and will not be able to experience sexism in the way a woman does, even if they are, at times, discriminated against based on their gender. You're absolutely right that words have power: that's why we shouldn't let people use the wrong ones.