Hacker News Reader

Comment by isseu | Hacker News Reader

But this is actually a solution...

Well, yes, and the people who use "Make America Great Again" generally believe that their proposals are actually a solution to an actual problem of America being no longer great.

It seems to me that if you want to convey that you disagree with those people or their assumptions, using their snowclone to describe a tool that actually solves a problem that arose recently is counterproductive. If I wanted to convey disagreement, I might release a tool called, say, "Make HN Readable Again" that added a bunch of slow JavaScript and popups. (And if I wanted to convey neither agreement or disagreement, I'd pick a different name.)

I don't doubt that it is. Why someone would want to associate their app/tool/product with a controversial political slogan is beyond me.

Maybe remove the controvesial from your sentence? Its a nearly universally heard campaign slogan and has been riffed on all sides of the political spectrum. Including many democratic institutions trying to ride the popularity of the phrase.

Why would would someone want to censor themselves just because people they don't like want a monopoly on language? Is acting in a milquetoast manner attempting the broadest appeal more important than having common sense and integrity?

> Why would would someone want to censor themselves just because people they don't like want a monopoly on language?

All effective communication is "censoring yourself". When I say that I'm a software engineer, I'm refusing to say that I'm a kazoo player, because I intend to convey the idea that people get when they hear "I'm a software engineer" and not the idea that people get when they hear "I'm a kazoo player." No matter how much I dislike (or like) kazoo players, I'm not going to attempt to reclaim the term from them.

And the English language is descriptive, not prescriptive. When a phrase has a well-established meaning - whether that meaning was first by commoners 400 years ago, or commoners today, or (for some languages) a bunch of academics in an ivory tower today - people are going to think I mean that meaning when I use the phrase. If I want my communication to be effective, it's on me to pick words that I expect people will understand, not on my audience to figure out what I really meant.

When I communicate, I intend to communicate the most accurate thing I can to, yes, the broadest audience I can.

I'm not saying self-censorship is bad, I'm saying that if you do it because someone else misappropriated some language, then you're on a clear path to only saying what other people permit. And this is especially wrong when those 'other people' are actively trying to undermine your ability to communicate.

To avoid the risk of this entirely predictable meta-discussion regarding a headline format, that has little to do with the readability of Medium, but was probably chosen to try and increase clickthrough rates?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com