Comment by AHappyCamper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AHappyCamper | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops, and instead of focussing on how to save slaves from a life of misery, you're instead having meetings on which words are less offensive in your posts, messages, and internal communiques.

The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS, especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade. And what do you do when the new terms you've chosen all of a sudden become not acceptable?

If we agree that many types of non-threatening speech are no longer allowed, it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas, especially in high-stress areas like this one.

Imagine a medic who waits to treat a homeless person who has overdosed because they can't remember the politically correct way to refer to the person, and they need to radio into the command center first before they begin treatment. So the person dies because the stressed out medic couldn't remember the politically correct terminology because they were trying to work out the best course of treatment...

>> Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops ... you're instead having meetings

Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy?

There was no meeting required, the idea and action were raised and taken in the same parent post. Parent poster started with that type of thinking and avoided the halting problem.

>> The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS

Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end?

>> especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade

There's a bigger point can be made here, what if you're dealing with a topic you don't know well enough to navigate possible sources of offence? If you don't know, then your 2 choices are learn or ignore, it's possible that both of these are valid choices depending on context.

>> no longer allowed

"Allowed" is quite a vague term for the concept you raise - are we saying law against particular words or are we saying social norm and convention that can be broken in art, in protest, in challenge to the status quo? If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified.

>> Imagine

Or don't. Slippery slope fallacy is a real danger in itself to be avoided.

> Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy?

Is it? It doesn't seem like it is because...

> There was no meeting required

... GGP's comment started a discussion on this very matter, still ongoing, instead of merely accepting that the term "black market" isn't offensive... Which it isn't.

> Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end?

You don't find this whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine.

> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified.

Because people haven't been fired and/or had their reputations ruined even though they said perfectly legal things? The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so.

> still ongoing

It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices.

> whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine

And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to do but it's your affair, i have no cause to dig deeper so i stop here on this particular avenue.

> The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so.

Agreed. Your argument

>>> it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas

was nullified by:

>> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words

A law doesn't make it impossible for me to use the words - i can choose to use the words but only at the cost of breaking the law. It's fair to characterise that as "almost impossible".

No construct exists with lesser severity than a law which exceeds the "almost impossible" test. QED.

Someone once said "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig likes it."

It's not a slippery slope fallacy because it actually happens. We get offended by some phrase, so we invent a euphemism for it. Then a few years later, we get offended by that euphemism, so we invent a more vague euphemism. And on and on. Go to YouTube and look up George Carlin's bit on "Shell Shock".

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

> It's not a slippery slope fallacy because it actually happens. We

We? I’ve never. When did you fall for it and why would you?

The proper course of action I find to bad faith is scorn and ridicule until they either look like absolute tools or flee.

They are after social capital so harm and belittle their social status as much as possible in return. Treat them like any other cowardly bully or predator and make yourself offically Not Worth It as a target because their capabilities will be harmed by the proverbial scratched corneas.

"Offended by the term Black Market? That is the offical term for illegal portion of the economy and this is about the ILLEGAL slave trade."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com