Comment by bpt3
6 days ago
> Is it an "enormous amount of resources"?
Compared to the value provided, I would say so.
> How do you think it compares to the amount of resources historically put into racism, including all the waste and lost opportunity costs?
Over all of human history? Obviously less. No idea why that's relevant. Wasting resources on performative activities or worse isn't going to correct a wrong that occured 200 years ago, or 50 years ago.
> 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.
It was the entire point of his essay imo. We're being distracted from important matters and actual improvements by people who want to play oppression Olympics to the benefit of no one other than them.
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?
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.
> 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
>> 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.
4 replies →
> 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.
7 replies →
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.
>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?
1 reply →
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.
5 replies →