Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Legitimate-Record951 t1_jatl0tm wrote

So, someone talking about which words they prefer to use now equals "BANNING WORDS"?

−4

lt_dan_zsu t1_jattazt wrote

That's what I can't get over with these types of articles. Conservative media got worked up over some internal use words to avoid list for use by Stanford's IT department a couple months ago as if it was some banned word list at the college. Just like this guide here. Is this a banned words list? Not really. Some nonprofit put out an internal use language guide for official communications. Do I think some of their recommendations are goofy? Yeah, but I don't know why I should care. This guide has no material effect on my life and no words are "being banned." I would agree with the thesis of article on the Atlantic if you they were criticizing something that was actually happening, but it isn't. It's just another trite "free speech" that seems more in line with the standards of the New York post.

7

sje46 t1_jau4tmc wrote

No, but plenty of organizations (which can be anything from a school or business to a subreddit) forbid people from using certain words^1 in either official or internal communication and you will receive significant social censure if you are in certain fields to the point where you will have projects canceled.

Perhaps the latter can't be called banning even though this sort of chilling effect has the same consequences of it, but the former definitely is.

Thankfully there isn't a serious movement to ban words legally by my federal government, despite the shocking amount of support I see for this on reddit.

^1 I dont' mean slurs and sexual slang but a significant increase of words that were very recently not considered offensive, such as the word "lame" to refer to something not being entertaining.

6

davowankenobi t1_jau5ek6 wrote

Give an example of a social org forbidding words

−4

sje46 t1_jau7dda wrote

Do you want me to link discord servers....?

There are plenty of social-justice oriented subreddits which ban specific words...hell, reddit as a whole I'm pretty sure has banned the N word at a minimum.

1

FKAFigs t1_jaw2y5u wrote

You also can’t say “fuck” while working in a church without being fired. No accusations of Orwell there though. People seem to understand that different places have different standards of acceptable speech when it comes to protecting their own traditions, yet when it comes to the new standards inevitably rising up as society values inclusion more, they balk. Recent generations are more offended by racial slurs than words like “fuck,” and I think that’s a positive thing. They find dehumanization of marginalized people more offensive than slang for sex. I agree with them.

I’m not saying every rewording is helpful or has to be adhered to or you go to social jail, but I understand the (sometimes clumsy) attempts to make people think about the impact of their speech and how to speak about difficult subjects with respect and professionalism. Will there be missteps, especially in media and corporations, as they consider these issues? Sure. But I appreciate the thoughtfulness of working towards rethinking language that reinforces harmful biases for marginalized groups.

1

sje46 t1_jaw5bp0 wrote

> You also can’t say “fuck” while working in a church without being fired. No accusations of Orwell there though. People seem to understand that different places have different standards of acceptable speech when it comes to protecting their own traditions, yet when it comes to the new standards inevitably rising up as society values inclusion more, they balk. Recent generations are more offended by racial slurs than words like “fuck,” and I think that’s a positive thing. They find dehumanization of marginalized people more offensive than slang for sex. I agree with them.

I agree with literally every single word you said here. The problem is that you think someone saying "Sometimes words are banned sometimes" means they are over-the-top assholes who just want to shout out racial slurs whenever they feel like it.

It doesn't really make any sense. Indicates that people are itching for a fight that isn't there. Sometimes words are banned. Depending on the context, that's usually good. But it's just plain wrong to say that words aren't ever banned. That's all I was saying.

1

FKAFigs t1_jaw6cd5 wrote

I actually don’t think that. I think that most people who bristle at style guides that suggest inclusive language are genuinely buying into a slippery slope fallacy: they think that making strong language suggestions in a professional setting will eventually lead to a complete loss of free speech. I’m disagreeing.

There’s always been expectations for language in organized settings, and those expectations have always changed as society has new values. We didn’t notice the ones we grew up with because, well, they were “normal” to us. But they started somewhere. So yeah, I don’t think style guides suggesting inclusive language is a sign of societal decline. I think it’s just another new way of thinking about how we speak.

1

sje46 t1_jawbd95 wrote

> I think that most people

"most people". Not all people. So why are you responding to me as if I'm definitely one of those people, with no charity? I highly, highly doubt that banning words in, say, college classrooms will result in universal banning of entire topics or words etc. The first amendment in the US is pretty strong.

>are genuinely buying into a slippery slope fallacy

...the slippery slope isn't a fallacy, you know. It's either an effect which is happening, or isn't happening, in given societal context. I could very well envision a place in which a particular society becomes very repressive in speech because hte taboo against restricting speech has been slowly eroded. This is not saying that I believe this same thing will happen where I live, or where you live.

It does happen in places like certain "loony" liberal social organizations, but isn't likely to happen society wide in the US (where I live) just let, because there are very good constitutional lawyers to protect against things like that, and the people are generally for the first amendment (besides on reddit for some insane reason). I am a bit concerned about some restrictions on speech I've seen coming out of Germany and the UK and Canada, not because I disagree that the things they're restricting are indeed shitty (you're a huge fucking asshole if you deny the holocaust, for example), but because I'm worried that conservatives will take this weakening of standards to make it illegal to be openly, say, socialist.

This was a pretty generic leftist (not lib, leftist) take only ten years ago but now people are so uncharitable that they assume anyone arguing in defense of the first amendment defending even shitty speech means they must support the shitty speech as well, when it's usually hte opposite. It's why the ACLU has supported (legally) the KKK in the past. The hyperpoliticialization of our times.

In regards to these silly radlib groups who try to shame people for using the word "lame" or whatever...that shit is probably cyclical, and hopefully they'll realize that they're being counterproductive to their own causes soon enough.

1

davowankenobi t1_jauf9r0 wrote

You said orgs, I asked orgs. You said Reddit.

You are complaining that subreddits that have moderation ban certain words. Subs have mods who moderate/create/curate a sub which you accept to follow when you join. If you wanna say the N word so badly and not be censored, go to 4chan or something

−3

lingonn t1_jav751y wrote

Took one post to go from "it doesn't exist" to "yeah it does exist and it's good".

2

sje46 t1_javreaw wrote

>You are complaining that subreddits that have moderation ban certain words

I am not complaining. It's easier to win arguments when you make up what the other person's point of view is, right?

1

davowankenobi t1_javt1os wrote

I’m just following you’re logic after I asked a question that was not related to Reddit, and you brought up Reddit. You even brought up the N word shrugs

−1