Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjsman-1000 | Hacker News Reader

It is really kind of shocking, because we had this whole book called 1984 where the party insisted that members use `newspeak` which was more politically correct. People thought it was insane and we used to have people and newspapers across the spectrum decry XYZ (whatever policy under debate) as being `like 1984`. Using `Orwellian` was a negative term.

And now, here we are, where we can't have an honest discussion about terms without automatically being slapped as racist despite multiple meanings of the same word.

View on HN

And this is back to where I commented recently about the "problem with 1984";

"I don't like the terms master/slave, they make me uncomfortable with the connotations of my ancestor's slavery, can we change them?" -> "NO MORE CAN A MAN BE ENTITLED TO THE CHOICE OF ASCII CHARACTERS ONE WOULD DEMAND IN A FREE COUNTRY! THIS IS THOUGHTCRIME BY THE BACKDOOR! ORWELL! TYRANNY! HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN 1984 ALREADY?!"

> "where we can't have an honest discussion about terms without automatically being slapped as racist despite multiple meanings of the same word."

Except we can have such a discussion, without being automatically anything, and many people do have said-discussions. There is no accusation of racism in The Article against people who aren't making the change, there is only a discussion of pros and cons and reasons. Same (so far) in these comments about the article.

Newspeak was not a "more politically correct" recommendation of words to avoid offending people, Newspeak was a reworking of the English language to make it literally impossible to think certain thoughts, and a combined revision of all historical records to wipe those ideas out completely.

Asking people to change "master" to "main" like the opening tweet in the article, "I'm doing this. Join me" is not tyrannically oppressive insanity. It's not trying to wipe historical evidence of slavery. It's not trying to change what you can think about.

Sure, the article itself is not "tyrannically oppressive insanity" like you say, but when major corporations start picking up these articles because they seem en vogue, it can become a little tyrannical in the workplace.

For instance, if this became a D&I initiative, speaking out against it could be... dangerous. It can have a chilling effect on other people who would otherwise not agree.

I suppose that has a lot to do with the culture at a workplace. Given the current political climate with race relations though, it does make it a little scary to oppose measures D&I related, don't you agree? It would be nice to have an environment where you can respectfully speak your mind without getting labeled and/or canned.

This seems like a pretty disingenuous representation of the progress made under the pressure to use inclusive language.

When I was young, it was really popular to refer to things via homosexual slurs to show how cool you were. Can you imagine how much trauma such an action imparts on someone who is a part of said slurred out-group when it is widespread and socially accepted?

I think that all social change is imparted through pressure, and the pressure to use language in a fashion minimizing slurring, outcasting, and denigrating structures is important. It's true that in this instance, it may not make sense and may be an intrusion on you and what you feel - and that's okay. It's also important to put the same pressure back that says "this piece of language does not have negative connotations and taking it away is policing free speech".

Surely you see how it can be appropriate or not appropriate to push back given the subject material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com