Comment by scubbo
5 years ago
> someone saying that describing software as "sexy" is sexist and contributes to women not wanting to work in tech jobs. I think you're painting a rosy picture where people are only upset at actual hate groups, and not using whatever benign words the "allies" have decided are unacceptable.
And I think _you're_ painting a picture wherein "people who are amplifying minority perspectives in order to help society be more inclusive" are in fact nefariously scheming to control a cultural narrative for...reasons?
There is certainly a line beyond which "Excessive Political Correctness" is unreasonable, unhelpful, unproductive, and disconnected from actual people's experiences. But the latter of these examples, at least, strikes me as a perfectly reasonable piece of feedback. I don't personally find the former to be offensive, but at the same time - I have no reason to disagree with the person making that claim. If they're offended by it, that is a _fact_. It's up to me whether I choose to act on that fact. Personally, I don't consider the words "idiot" or "sexy" to be important enough to insist upon using them, when others have told me that the usage hurts them.
Say that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the situation, and is trying to pressure you into stopping using a particular word even though no-one is truly hurt or impacted by it. What's the failure case if you listen to them? You stop using a word. Big whoop. What's the failure case if you _don't_ listen to them? You continue to hurt and offend people. This seems both more likely and more impactful than the other failure case - so, to me, the choice is clear.
Your last paragraph is addressed in full by the OPs link. Social interactions become more and more meek and stilted because the risk of "offending someone" is always there (and I'd argue, approaches 1 over time). What's driving it is different - social pressure rather than megacorp data mining, but the effect and implications are identical and no less pernicious.
At some point there is a line beyond which if someone is "offended", the problem is with them and them alone. I'd argue policing words like "idiot" (esp. when not directed at someone as an insult) is squarely on the wrong side.
> Social interactions become more and more meek and stilted because the risk of "offending someone" is always there.
Strong disagree. The same ideas and concepts can be discussed, the same conversations can be had - just with tweaked vocabulary.
Now, if you're talking about not expressing a particular attitude because it might offend someone, but you still stand by the position (regardless of its phrasing) - well, that's a different situation. Any sufficiently important position is going to offend someone - just make sure that you're offending the right people.
> At some point there is a line beyond which if someone is "offended", the problem is with them and them alone. I'd argue policing words like "idiot" (esp. when not directed at someone as an insult) is squarely on the wrong side.
That's fair! I disagree, but I'm not going to say that you're wrong - just that my line is drawn elsewhere. I have not found my life to be markedly impacted by consciously avoiding the twenty-or-so words/phrases that various folks have told me that they find offensive. I can still express the same ideas - I just know that I'm doing it in a way that doesn't distract from my message. If your experience is different - if you find that those words are fundamental to your message, and/or that having the freedom to use precisely the words that you want is more important to you than knowing that those words may hurt someone - that's your prerogative.
> just with tweaked vocabulary
> knowing that those words may hurt someone
Some people aren't really hurt but like to erase your message by depicting your expression as hurtful. Maybe they just don't like you, it would be another reason. Your naive line of thinking draws in people that might want to take advantage of you. I don't think it could be a universal rule for the internet.
3 replies →
It seems to me, though, that this is social cooling just as insidious. "I can't complain about the work 'sexy' on this corporate release because someone will think I'm a SJW." "I can't push back on using 'retard' here because someone will think I'm a special snowflake." It's exactly what the linked post is talking about.
Isn't the aim to have a robust and productive discourse? That means I get to say, "Hey, I don't think this is the right context for the descriptor 'sexy'" and you get to say, "Well, I think it is because (reasons)..." In some ways I sort of agree with you that "At some point there is a line beyond which if someone is "offended", the problem is with them and them alone." If you are "offended" because I say I don't like you using the word "idiot", that's your problem, is it not?
The point is to talk about whether "idiot" is accurate and well-suited to the situation, rather than shifting the conversation immediately to your hurt feelings at having your wording critiqued.
This is precisely it. An immediate shut-down of a conversation is almost always wrong, whether it's "you used a word that I don't like, and so now you don't get to talk" _or_ "you're criticizing my word-choice, so clearly you're unreasonable".
1 reply →
It’s easy for the choice to be clear when you are entirely missing the point. What are the consequences of using these newly offensive words? What if you used the word but had no idea it was offensive? And how do we police that in a world where more and more things are offensive?
> What are the consequences of using these newly offensive words?
Well, loosely speaking - if it's a truly "newly offensive word", then the general consequence is that someone will politely take you aside and explain that the reasons why so-and-so a word is not great to use in public, explain the reasons why, and suggest alternatives. If you continue to use it regardless, then you are intentionally signalling that your freedom of vocabulary is more important than showing respect to others - which is a position you are entitled to take, and others are entitled to judge accordingly.
"Public dunks" and vicious whispering (without an attempt to actually educate) don't tend to happen (in my, admittedly anecdotal, experience) for truly "newly offensive words", but rather for those that have already spread far and wide enough that there's truly no excuse for ignorance.
> What if you used the word but had no idea it was offensive?
See above. If you find yourself moving in circles where you fear that you'll be judged and condemned rather than advised, I suggest you re-evaluate whether those circles are truly worth it.
> And how do we police that in a world where more and more things are offensive?
Not sure what you're referring to "policing" (the usage itself, or the consequences _of_ the usage), so this may be inaccurate, but - the former happens naturally through social dynamics, and I don't see why the latter needs policing at all? If people are taking disproportionate damaging action based on speech that is perceived to be offensive, that's an offence like any other. If the consequences are "people thinking that you're a bit of a racist/sexist/whatever", then...why does that need policing.
---
I suspect I come across as naïve for believing that "the Social Justice crowd" are well-intentioned, and that slip-ups will be gently corrected rather than leading to immediate castigation and ostracism. Conversely, to me, the concern that "if I don't keep up with the seventeen new daily offensive terms, I will be shunned forever!" seems like an over-reaction when most "SJWs" treat not-obviously-deliberate-offensive speech as an opportunity to educate, not attack. I suspect, as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Our outlooks are products of our environments and experiences - and I've been lucky enough to be surrounded by folks who communicate.