“The NYT ruined Wordle ” – a great case study in confirmation bias | Hacker News Reader

“The NYT ruined Wordle ” – a great case study in confirmation bias

twitter.com

4 pointsiamben13 comments

> But here's the really interesting part: even when you show these people the evidence that Wordle isn't actually harder, some of them don't believe it. Why? Because it doesn't feel true. Their feelings about Wordle are so strong that even factual evidence can't overcome them.

Seemingly didn't actually go and show people though? (semi) Confirmation bias about confirmation bias?

To be clear, the NYT did ruin Wordle, just not in the ways most people are saying. They added a bunch of tracking to it, and they redid the word list to censor anything even remotely politically incorrect.

Why is it a bad thing that they removed potential words that might be politically incorrect?

Because it reinforces the idea that being made uncomfortable over something as trivial and stupid as a word game is acceptable.

Part of life is doing hard things once in a while. If you can't handle a five letter word like "bitch" without coming unglued, how are you supposed to discuss something even remotely touchy?

Why is the small part of the population that overreacts to everything allowed to dictate what's acceptable for everyone else?

Do you think the NYT should let bitch be a word in wordle?

Yes. It's not even like it's a multiplayer game. Nobody but me has to see any word that I guess.

It's a word game. Bitch is a perfectly valid 5 letter word.

In order for a word to truly have meaning, it needs to be applied to a discoursal context.

If a word appears in a game, it's just a combination of 5 letters which follow typical spelling patterns.

Actually taking the time to blacklist words is downright pathetic, and is an attitude which is a bit of a cancer on society; being offended by individual words regardless of context, as opposed to taking the time to understand the context/nuance/arguments. The NYT should aim to inform, educate and inspire. Reinforcing such lazy attitudes doesn't achieve this.

>Why is the small part of the population that overreacts to everything allowed to dictate what's acceptable for everyone else?

As opposed to you, who is definitely not overreacting to a word game.

It's not about the word game. The word game is a symptom of a larger social problem.

edit: To expand on that, today it's a word game. Before that, it's Joe Rogan. Before that, it's Dr. Seuss books. There is ALWAYS something to be outraged about.

First they came for Joe Rogan

And I did not speak out

Because I was not Joe Rogan

Then they came for Dr. Seuss

And I did not speak out

Because I was not Dr. Seuss

Then they came for Wordle

And I did not speak out

Because I was not Wordle

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

It's even better because, Rogan and Dr Seuss are still there and nothing really bad happened to them at all. This person you're replying to is acting like they're a crusader of truth against evil when all it is is people have complained a bit about something. Who is the one over-reacting?

> nothing really bad happened to them at all.

Besides becoming blacklisted topics in a number of circles, some of which perhaps you haven't been exposed to?

> nothing really bad happened to them at all

Spotify has removed a bunch of episodes from his podcast. Some Dr. Seuss books got pulled because "racism".

Those who forget (or maybe just don't know) history are doomed to repeat it. It always starts with silencing dissenters. Just look at what happened in Canada.

But hey, I guess in stnmtn's world there is nothing worth complaining about unless people end up in the gulag. But by then it is too late.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com