5 ms·

>It's just such a superficial thing, almost arbitrarily deciding which words are 'sensitive' and which ones aren't This cannot be further from the truth. Words

by rtpg 11y ago

>It's just such a superficial thing, almost arbitrarily deciding which words are 'sensitive' and which ones aren't This cannot be further from the truth. Words that are deemed offensive are deemed so because of the attitude and the meaning behind using these words The reason white people get yelled at for using n (don't know if I can post it on HN) is because it represents hundreds of years of oppression by white people that has basically continued. People who were "retarded" used to be thrown into asylums or abandoned as small children because they were just a pain to deal with The thing about words is that they have context and actual loaded meanings, and trying to ignore that is to ignore how language works

aerovistae 11y ago
Good Lord, I have heard so many different takes on 'what makes something offensive.' My favorite was a teenager telling me only one person has to find something offensive before we have to all consider it as such and stop saying it. The fact that words "have context and actual loaded meanings" is besides the point. I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. I'm sure you know it was only in the past 70 years that 'gay' took on its new meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual Stop trying to lock words in place and ban them. Let people use them or avoid them as they will, and their meanings will shift, as they always have.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  > I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. If words can come INTO fashion for various reasons, then some must be allowed to LEAVE fashion for other reasons. Letting them pass out of empathy is probably one of the most noble and equitable reasons we could have to change our language. Your argument is so strange. You argue that language is fluid then get angry, confused and dismissive when people use that fact to change the world around them.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    Yes, I'm very angry and confused.
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      You certainly act like you don't understand.
- DanBC 11y ago
  The meaning of the word retard has drifted. It used to be a totally acceptable word, a polite alternative to Mongoloid, used by doctors and societies. Now outside the US it's pretty much only ever used as hate speech. The US is a bit different because the word still has some small pockets of acceptable use (although I can't see those lasting much longer).
aerovistae 11y ago
Have a nice look at this list and let me know if you'd like to ban all of these too. After all, they have context and actual loaded meanings, and in many cases represent hundreds of years of oppression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnic...
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  It's as if we as humans have some kind of context-sensitive language recognition capability, and can tell when a word is being used as a slur or if it has entirely unrelated meanings. We're slightly smarter than regular expressions. And yes, I'd fully expect Github to ban those too.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    I'm sorry, but I believe that allowing even one idea to be banned from discourse is the first step towards a system where someone like Edward Snowden has to find asylum in Russia. I don't believe in censorship or hiding away what was really said or done. If anyone has a problem with this developer's language, they can boycott his repo.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      Slurs aren't discourse, or even the start of discourse. And removing them has nothing to do with pervasive surveillance. > If anyone has a problem with this developer's language, they can boycott his repo. Github did, and they did. And then someone decided to stir up trouble by posting it as though people should be offended by what Github did, rather than applauding them. Github can do as they like on their own resources. If you don't like it, host your own, and welcome everyone who doesn't like to be decent to other people. See how it goes. No matter what you do, you'll exclude people and silence ideas. Either you exclude hateful people, or you exclude people who don't enjoy hatefulness. Pick one.
      - aerovistae 11y ago

by rtpg 11y ago

aerovistae 11y ago

Good Lord, I have heard so many different takes on 'what makes something offensive.' My favorite was a teenager telling me only one person has to find something offensive before we have to all consider it as such and stop saying it. The fact that words "have context and actual loaded meanings" is besides the point. I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. I'm sure you know it was only in the past 70 years that 'gay' took on its new meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual Stop trying to lock words in place and ban them. Let people use them or avoid them as they will, and their meanings will shift, as they always have.

KirinDave 11y ago
> I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. If words can come INTO fashion for various reasons, then some must be allowed to LEAVE fashion for other reasons. Letting them pass out of empathy is probably one of the most noble and equitable reasons we could have to change our language. Your argument is so strange. You argue that language is fluid then get angry, confused and dismissive when people use that fact to change the world around them.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Yes, I'm very angry and confused.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    You certainly act like you don't understand.
DanBC 11y ago
The meaning of the word retard has drifted. It used to be a totally acceptable word, a polite alternative to Mongoloid, used by doctors and societies. Now outside the US it's pretty much only ever used as hate speech. The US is a bit different because the word still has some small pockets of acceptable use (although I can't see those lasting much longer).

aerovistae 11y ago

Have a nice look at this list and let me know if you'd like to ban all of these too. After all, they have context and actual loaded meanings, and in many cases represent hundreds of years of oppression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnic...

JoshTriplett 11y ago
It's as if we as humans have some kind of context-sensitive language recognition capability, and can tell when a word is being used as a slur or if it has entirely unrelated meanings. We're slightly smarter than regular expressions. And yes, I'd fully expect Github to ban those too.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but I believe that allowing even one idea to be banned from discourse is the first step towards a system where someone like Edward Snowden has to find asylum in Russia. I don't believe in censorship or hiding away what was really said or done. If anyone has a problem with this developer's language, they can boycott his repo.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    Slurs aren't discourse, or even the start of discourse. And removing them has nothing to do with pervasive surveillance. > If anyone has a problem with this developer's language, they can boycott his repo. Github did, and they did. And then someone decided to stir up trouble by posting it as though people should be offended by what Github did, rather than applauding them. Github can do as they like on their own resources. If you don't like it, host your own, and welcome everyone who doesn't like to be decent to other people. See how it goes. No matter what you do, you'll exclude people and silence ideas. Either you exclude hateful people, or you exclude people who don't enjoy hatefulness. Pick one.
    - aerovistae 11y ago