Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkrisc | Hacker News Reader

They're a specific sort of person in this scenario, literally someone who has a stake in the outcome of the situation I'm describing. Is it dehumanizing to call someone who writes code a "software developer" instead of a "person"?

Generally I agree with you and I hate the term "resource" as it's used, but I really don't agree that this is one of those cases. I could have said, "people" but in this instance it would make what I said less specific.

View on HN

The term resource is dehumanizing because it reduces a person to something that exists merely to extract value from. Stakeholder is just a role a person can assume and doesn't really have any negative connotations other than being a bit jargony to some.

resource is also more specific than people, that doesn't obviate it from being dehumanizing.

"Resource" being dehumanizing doesn't make "stakeholder" dehumanizing. Of course, everything depends on context. Do you think in this context I was trying to dehumanize the people I was referring to? To what end?

Resource is less specific, not more.

Haha! True

This is not true. An IT manager who says resource certainly isn't referring to the garbageman, but if he says people he may well be.

But he also might be talking about money or computers.

"Stakeholders" is (usually seen as?) a subset of "people", whereas the modifier in "human resources" is very much not redundant.

Saying 'stakeholders' in this context is like saying 'engineers' or 'doctors'. Doesn't make them less human. It's just specifying a role they are taking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com