Comment by kepler1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kepler1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I mean, if you ever wanted to get on the bandwagon of why we have so many college administrators responsible for raising the cost of college and creating work for themselves by stoking culture wars, just read through the list on that page.

-------

">Instead of: Philippine Islands

>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines

>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."

---------

">Instead of: "preferred" pronouns

>Consider using: pronouns

>Context: The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference."

---------

">Instead of: Karen

>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman

>Context: This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."

(Have we landed in backwards land? So "white" is ok to use here?)

---------

">Instead of: blackbox

>Consider using: hidden, mystery box, opaque box, flight recorder

>Context: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term."

---------

">Instead of: red team

>Consider using: cyber offense team

>Context: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups."

---------

">Instead of: war room

>Consider using: situation room

>Context: Unneccesary use of violent language."

----------

">Instead of: Philippine Islands

>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines

>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."

First of all, they're using "denotes" to mean "connotes", so we shouldn't expect a subtle understanding of English.

But second, what "Philippine Islands" does is center geography instead of nationhood or identity. What it connotes is that political boundaries are historically-contingent. Similarly, the "British isles" will always be there, barring geological catastrophe, regardless of whether the United Kingdom ceases to exist, say because Scotland and Wales secede.

If you want to work hard at it, you could make an argument that geography-centering language is "colonialist", because, precisely by revealing that borders are contingent, it might suggest that some more powerful actor, an Empire, might reshape them arbitrarily. However, it also undermines nationalism, and many people would consider that to be a good thing. For example, it's a key sentiment behind liberal immigration policies.

You might want to talk to the Republic of Ireland about that British Isles bit

That's a good example. Ireland is part of the British Isles without being "Britain". And now Britain is part of Europe without being "Europe". (Canada has always been part of America without being "America".)

>red team

Baffled by this inclusion, never in my life have I made that association. I'm also hugely against sports teams naming themselves after Native American stereotypes, but here it's literally just a color.

>Karen

Totally agree with your points, in what world is white okay to use there when they're arguing against "blackbox". Also, Karen has a lot more connotations beyond just race, there's a class/aspirational class connotation. There's a reason it's not "Madelynn". Not saying it's okay, but it's part of a trend in this list of not understanding connotation and context, and a general lack of thought in their alternatives.

>>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman

It's insane that this is one of the most explicitly racist examples and it's in the "Consider using" column...

Right, so instead of this: Bob used to think of neural networks as black boxes, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work.

We should say: Bob used to think of neural networks as flight recorders, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work.

That obviously has the exact same meaning /s

This is a good example of how those in the commanding heights can order changes to a society or economy, but fail to fathom all of the cascading ramifications of their decision.

Wow, when I saw this list, I thought it's a parody post. Then I went away and read the suggestions...

The black and red examples are silly. I’m white so I get that I’ve not had the lived experience but we might as well make the color itself unusable. I have no evidence but I think that this is some white person’s idea of what is offensive, infantilizing everyone involved. But I guess that in lieu of actual policy that will help people this will do….(that last line is sarcasm)

Hi. I'm nonbinary. I do, in fact, honestly and genuinely think that Newspeaking the rest of you into believing that I'm not someone with some kind of horrible mental illness or whatever it is you want to believe these days is a Good Thing. And it's fewer words. So please stop saying "preferred pronouns." I've also heard people say "PGPs," meaning "preferred gender pronouns," which is silly and makes me think you're talking about encryption. Please also stop saying "identifies as." I don't identify as a damn thing, I am who I am.

You have no chance to survive, make your time, ha ha ha ha...

"Preferred pronouns" is a friendly request, "pronouns" is a rhetorical strong-arm.

I appreciate that you want certain pronouns to be used. But why does your preference trump mine? I.e., why must I submit to you?

Edit: I realized my comment's tone seems a bit harsh. Just to clarify, my intention is to debate your proposal, not bash on you as a person.

I don't want certain pronouns to be used, I am demanding their usage. I have a right to do this because those pronouns address me. This is the same as any other boundary set by anyone. You can call me by the wrong pronouns if you wish, in which case I will stop talking to you.

If you think this is militant behavior, it is, but I submit that you do the same thing and don't realize it. Consider how you would behave if the shoes were on the other feet.

> I have a right to do this because those pronouns address me.

Actually they don't address you. They refer to you. A term of address is "you". Pronouns are terms of reference.

This is one of the things that people misunderstand about pronouns like him/her. If I'm talking about someone, I get to choose how to do it. I can refer to someone as a fool, as "that tall blonde girl", or as "the guy with the huge beard from the grocery store". None of these people get to police my speech about them.

Things are somewhat different if I am referring to someone and am in their presence. In that case I would just use the person's first or last name. But some people are now taking issue with talking around preferred pronouns by using a person's name. For me, that is a bridge too far.

> If I'm talking about someone, I get to choose how to do it. I can refer to someone as a fool, as "that tall blonde girl", or as "the guy with the huge beard from the grocery store". None of these people get to police my speech about them.

I was curious about the legal situation w.r.t. forcing use of preferred pronouns. Apparently the U.S. government currently cannot do that [0], but Ireland is the opposite [1].

I'm unclear what the current situation is regarding employer-enforced pronoun usage, particularly in at-will-employment states. IIUC (and that's a big "if"), it's a messy legal topic because of competing protected classes.

[0] https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/the-6th-circuit-r...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-ireland-teacher/fa...

Semantics aside, if you don't want to refer to someone the way they want to be referred to, then kindly consider not speaking to them.

You missed the point, which is that these pronouns are explicitly never used when speaking to you. They are not used for addressing you. They are in reference to you, so they will only occur when other people are speaking to one other.

True. I have in mind situations in which I am physically there. I should have said, "If you don't want to refer to someone properly, then don't refer to them at all."

> I don't want certain pronouns to be used, I am demanding their usage.

Thank you for stating this plainly!

I think that, very often, debates on these topics are hamstrung by one/both sides assuming that the other is being disingenuous.

I think our best hope of making progress on these things is to have an honest, shared understanding of everyone's positions and goals. I'm so grateful that you were willing to do that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com