Hacker News Reader

Comment by mhurron | Hacker News Reader

> but not where the general public is likely to see it and misunderstand it.

So nowhere. It's on the public internet which is where 'the general public' is likely to see it so suggesting that you don't use some phrase where 'the public' can't see it in practically means you can't use it anywhere.

I know the last thing I want to do is self censor myself everywhere because someone somewhere might get offended.

View on HN

It's not "self-censorship," it's understanding that the generally-accepted definition of a word is different from it's obscure jargon meaning. The word "hacker" has meant "someone who maliciously breaks into computer systems" since at least the 1980's (thirty years ago, before some HN readers were even born). Languages are fluid.

Yes languages are fluid but words also have various meanings. If we have to prevent ourselves from using some word because others may find it offensive, that is self-censoring.

OP tried to get around that by trying to say that when you could be heard by 'them' you shouldn't use those words, but this is the public internet. You are always communicating in the presence of those that will be offended.

This isn't a matter of anyone being "offended," though. No one finds the word "hacker" offensive, they just might have a completely different definition of it depending on what their experiences are. You might as well use a word that's unambiguous.

Likewise, editing a paper to remove grammatical errors is also not "self-censorship." It's improving the clarity of your message.

What word or words do you suggest that are fully, completely, 100% unambiguous identifiers in this instance?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com