Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0x008 | Hacker News Reader

If you think inclusive language is an attempt to shame people, then YOU might have to look deep at yourself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point of inclusive language is so that people who identify as female or non-binary have less reason to be offended, and can generally feel more safe in an environment because less trigger words are used.

edit: I would also appreciate that the people downvoting me would comment as to why they think my post does not contribute to the discussion in a respectful manner?

View on HN

Saying "guys" in no way affects someone's safety. It's potentially rude maybe if someone showed displeasure with the phrase yet you persist, but no threat of harm comes from it.

Well that's easy for you to say. The whole point of political correctness is not to assume that no one can get offended, but to avoid certain types of speech which have either been proven to be offensive or where society has agreed upon that they might be offensive in some circumstances.

The political correctness debate reminds me of the 'Covid etiquette' debate happening around the world now.

I guess it's possible for both sides to be at fault - one side should be sensitive to others' preferences and proceed carefully perhaps by wearing a mask when they know it isn't required, perhaps by using pronouns carefully even when they don't know which are preferred. The other side needs to recognize that their preferences are not universal. People tend to want to bend all others to their particular risk assessment, and bend everyone to their usage of English to differentiate human beings from each other. Do they have a point? Sure. Is it worth the relational damage to impose this viewpoint on everyone? Maybe? Maybe not.

Define “society”. And define “offensive”, in particular to whom is it offensive and how offended are they. And who makes these definitions and why should we trust them to do it properly, e.g. scientifically? Without these definitions and clarifications, your statement lacks persuasive power.

And PC can backfire. Making a point of not using a PC-speak word, when the PC word is clumsy or silly, makes the not-PC-speak word a very effective cultural code word to those who want to reinforce the very things the PC police are trying to change.

And arguing over words has almost zero possibility of any positive impact. There have been a few exceptions (say, for example, the N-word [no, no, don’t say the N-word]).

> Define “society”. And define “offensive”

I will refer you to the wikipedia articles about political correctness and gender-neutral language as they probably do a much better job of defining the matter than I would.

I understand that you feel like "someone" making these definitions should have some kind of authority to be trustworthy. However, what happens is that someone makes a claim and then a large portion of society agrees. This is what gives them authority. And that is just how change is done usually in the democratic process. For example, at some point someone decided that women should vote and large portion of society agreed. And now, a few years later, we live in a society were women voters are the most normal thing you can think of.

> And arguing over words has almost zero possibility of any positive impact.

You just say that but you don't cite any scientific sources?

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I tend to find those who feel the need to "fight against this" are the ones who are not on the receiving end.

Sure, there are plenty of radicalized people who take this as an opportunity to shame, but I do not see the harm or difficulty in changing "guys" to "folks" or "team" if it makes someone feel more inclusive.

I've hired and work with a number of trans and marginalized people, it was extremely simple for me to start saying "hey folks" without the need to throw a tantrum over it.

"I tend to find those who feel the need to "fight against this" are the ones who are not on the receiving end."

i'm constantly mistaken for a white male. i'm on the receiving end more often than you think.

> If you think inclusive language is an attempt to shame people

It's not an attempt - it's used that way all the time, and the demonized are generally the ones who haven't had the privilege of attending college.

It's a great way to other-ize all the "uneducated" among us. The ones who don't live a comfortable sophisticated city existence with a service-sector job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com