Hacker News Reader

Comment by SummerlyMars | Hacker News Reader

This is something that's been on my mind for years. Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group[1]. If someone has any amount of hostility to that group, then using these terms is going to cause them to get angry/frustrated with what you have to say instead of actually listening to your argument on its own merits... or at least that's what I've noticed about myself. For a long time, certain terms or expressions would irritate me so much that I'd ignore what the person using them had to say, even though afterwards I found I usually agreed with much of it. Even knowing now that I have this response and actively trying to avoid it, it's still difficult to ignore.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

View on HN

It's also frustrating that every common term for some concept can easily acquire connotations that suggest a particular affiliation. For example, there's no easy way to refer to people who are present in a country in violation of its immigration laws without either conveying a connotation of sympathy or hostility toward them. "Undocumented immigrant" is criticized by anti-immigrant groups as (maybe intentionally) implying that someone's unauthorized immigration status is a mere bureaucratic oversight or accident, while "illegal immigrant" is criticized by pro-immigrant groups as (maybe intentionally) denying someone's personhood or inherent worth (as if there were something inherently illegal about the person).

I think I've seen someone try to use "unauthorized migrant" but there is even a prospect of getting pushback from people who hear this and assume that it must have been chosen in order to avoid showing support for their own "side".

This difficulty repeats itself a lot!

"Illegal immigrant" is quite plainly an anti-refugee phrase that was invented to criminalise people seeking refugee status. It's never been used otherwise.

"Undocumented immigrant" does technically describe a person's status but it's only used in relation to certain types of foreign visitor. Across the white English speaking world we'll almost universally use "undocumented immigrant" to refer to brown-skinned people, while we use "visa overstayers" to refer to white-skinned people.

Some guy from India comes to work for a cousin's business on a sponsored work visa and stays a week too long? Undocumented immigrant.

Some white woman from the UK comes to work for a major tech company and stays a few years too long? She just overstayed her visa.

Then to round of the discussions about words changing in meaning over time, remember when holding thumb and forefinger together in a circle was just "the game" and you'd do things to get your friends to look — at which point they'd lose "the game"? But these days, it's only a white power symbol, thanks to some anonymous idiot on 4chan.

It's a crazy world that changes so quickly. I can understand why some people want the world to stay just the same for a decade or two. But that can't be done. We have to adapt or die.

> It's never been used otherwise.

Absolutism will not get you anywhere. You're not omniscient, and do not know the minds of (literally) millions of people who use the phrase.

> “is quite plainly an anti-refugee phrase”

legally speaking a refugee is not illegal, “illegal immigrant” is just a term for a person who enters through the border illegally in a country where there are both lawful and unlawful methods of entry, refugees are accepted by law also, and if accepted through the defined process of law are not “illegal”

But we're talking about vernacular usage, not legal.

Although I think there’s some merit to your comment, I don’t think it’s racial, I think it’s cultural or classist.

A black English actor (like Idris Elba) would be “overstaying his visa” as would a wealthy Indian tech CEO.

People coming from another country in the anglosphere are viewed differently because there is a shared culture. There’s a huge venn overlap in race between these countries but that’s because they were English colonies.

All-in-all your comment seems a little hostile. We’re all learning. Even you don’t have all the answers, surely.

I think class is part of it, or it makes us assume motivations, but I think the differences in terms actually describe what's being done. If you move to a country to live there from now on, in violation of the law, you're an illegal immigrant. If you visit temporarily with a visa, but overstay or violate the terms, without intending to become a permanent resident, then you are overstaying your visa.

We probably assume something about the rich actor versus the poor janitor, but if we knew their intentions I think we could describe them accurately.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with the term "illegal immigrant". We have terms for crimes that are frequent or frequently talked about, e.g. drunk driver, deadbeat dad, arsonist, whatever. Immigrating, in violation of the law, is illegal and the people who do it are fairly called illegal immigrants to differentiate them from those that don't violate the law. I think insistence on "undocumented" is more of a rhetorical use from people who think immigration should be more permissive.

The common objection to "illegal immigrant" is of course to say that "people are not illegal", and strictly speaking a more grammatically correct term would perhaps be "illegally immigrated".

But this is a mostly irrelevant objection, the same construction is used in other phrases, including "undocumented immigrant". It's not the person that is necessarily "undocumented", it's their act of immigration, and everyone understands that.

That is commonly what people say, but as you point out I don't think their objection is consistent. You might call someone who perpetrated an act of violence a "Spouse abuser" even if that person spends 99.9% of their waking hours not beating up their spouse.

Calling someone a spouse abuser, drunk, jaywalker ("Nobody actually walks jays!"), illegal immigrant, whatever doesn't at all imply that you are summing up the totality of that person as all and only that appellation. It just means you think they've committed the associated crime. It would be rude to call an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant at every opportunity, but it is just dishonest in my view to assert that they are not an illegal immigrant.

> It's also frustrating that every common term for some concept can easily acquire connotations that suggest a particular affiliation.

Upvoted, but for sake of example I'll mention that your use of "anti-immigrant groups" can be one of those loaded terms. While there likely are some people who are actually against all immigrants, the more common position is to support legal immigration (with differing opinions on how restricted this should be) while being against illegal immigration (with differing opinions on how those who break these laws should be treated).

Since there aren't mainstream groups who think of themselves as universally "anti-immigrant", it tends to be used only as a pejorative. I think a reasonable general principle is to try to use terms that people choose to apply to themselves. On the other hand, I don't know that there is an equivalent descriptor that everyone would consider fair. Language is hard!

Yes, I realized that this was also a problem but couldn't think of a better way to refer concisely to people who favor more enforcement of immigration laws! I understand that many people favor immigration but also want laws that restrict it to be enforced.

I was thinking of giving an example about abortion and realized that even talking about "pro-abortion people usually call themselves 'pro-choice' and anti-abortion people usually call themselves 'pro-life'" would also have the same problem, because some people who favor legalized abortion also want to discourage abortion or reduce the number of abortions that occur, so they don't agree that they are "pro-abortion".

In college I strongly favored drug legalization while also strongly opposing drug use, which makes it unclear to what extent it would have been appropriate to call me "pro-drug" or "anti-drug".

> I understand that many people favor immigration but also want laws that restrict it to be enforced.

Too often the xenophilic restrictionists are left out of the conversation of immigration and coerced into one camp or the other.

The suggestion made in the article is to ditch the bid for brevity and just use the more verbose forms, i.e. “people who favor more enforcement of immigration laws” or “people who are present in a country in violation of its immigration laws.”

The idea would seem to have merit as you ended up needing those anyway when the more concise forms were inadequate.

> While there likely are some people who are actually against all immigrants, the more common position is to support legal immigration (with differing opinions on how restricted this should be) while being against illegal immigration (with differing opinions on how those who break these laws should be treated).

Isn't this a bit like saying "I'm for medical marijuana being legalized, but meanwhile I support any and all enforcement of marijuana prohibition and I don't want anyone to receive medical marijuana"? I would describe such a person as being opposed to medical marijuana.

> Isn't this a bit like saying "I'm for medical marijuana being legalized, but meanwhile I support any and all enforcement of marijuana prohibition and I don't want anyone to receive medical marijuana"? I would describe such a person as being opposed to medical marijuana.

No, it's really not like saying that at all. Acquiring marijuana is something fundamentally different from immigrating to a country. Assuming your argument is actually in good faith, I'll explain how someone can be anti-illegal immigration but not against immigration per se.

A lot of people work very hard to immigrate to the United States using the legal channels. They pursue rigorous education, become proficient in English, and develop in-demand skills in order to find a US-employer. It doesn't really seem fair to these people if illegal immigration is allowed to run rampant.

If we have to use a medical marijuana example, then let's say medical marijuana is legal but somewhat limited in supply. For that reason, medical marijuana users must have a valid medical condition to acquire a medical marijuana card. However a large number of people without medical conditions make fake medical marijuana cards and buy from dispensaries for recreational use, thereby reducing how much medical marijuana is left over for legitimate medical marijuana users. It's not a great analogy, no, (since the type of jobs, residences, etc. occupied by legal vs illegal immigrants often differs) but again that's because immigration and marijuana are two very different things.

> I'll explain how someone can be anti-illegal immigration but not against immigration per se.

When I say “anti-illegal immigration” I mean “in opposition to immigration which is currently illegal,” not “in opposition to immigration that would be illegal if the laws were exactly how I think they should be.” That last one is essentially tautological, but seems phrased to deliberately obscure intent. It would be like saying “I’m against illegal homosexuality” but then adding “oh but I think homosexuality should be legal.”

I completely agree with the appropriateness of your analogy, but I remain consistent: I disagree with the people who oppose breaking the law to get medicine, and I instead oppose those who create and enforce the laws restricting access to medicine.

> Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group

Sometimes readers jump to that conclusion, but it's frequently or even usually untrue, while a shibboleth conceptually is something that can only be done by a member of a certain group. Contrariwise, for example, both feminists and anti-feminists could use such "group identifier" terms as cited in the article ("patriarchy", "emotional labor", et c). Using those terms absolutely does not denote to anyone which group you are in, and people who continue as if it does are clearly making an error.

I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group, to get readers to question the usefulness or applicability of their stereotypes. I have no idea if I achieve my goal or if I just confuse people. Having read your comment, a lot of my writing exists to trigger[1] people who take your view (in addition to conveying useful information for the people who don't fall for the stereotype trap).

I reject the entire idea of the concept that using a word makes you a member of some group and thus permits a word-reader to infer some information about you. That's just bias, something we should all be looking out for and frustrating when possible.

[1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless.

> [1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless.

Can you explain the joke for me? I’m not sure I get it.

Edit: To be clear, I understand what the word “trigger” means and its connotations.

"triggered" is one such potentially-but-not-really "group identifier" loaded term used in the ongoing American culture war between the vaguely-political-party-aligned opposing teams.

Not belonging to either of those groups, nor being interested in that culture war very much, my use of such terms is occasionally fraught because of the likelihood of culture war brawlers to, well, brawl.

I understand that part, but not the joke. Could you explain the joke?

I accidentally used a contentious word in an explanation about how I intentionally use contentious words. Trolling whilst not trolling explaining my trolling.

> Trolling whilst not trolling explaining my trolling.

The elusive meta troll.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that it’s funny to use contentious words?

Are you familiar with the term sealioning?

Because sneak sometimes consciously uses loaded or contentious terms in order to make people rethink their associations, but here accidentally used the word "triggered", not for that reason.

Because "trigger" itself also has a meaning referring to "being triggered" or requiring "trigger warnings", which is itself mostly a concern that's expressed using those terms by a particular group or subculture.

If done well it can induce some cognitive dissonance in the reader and really make them question their positions. It's also a good way to weed out people who you couldn't have a conversation with in the first place. IE: if someone will reject your entire point because you use the phrase 'intersectional' while making an argument, then chances are they're more emotionally invested than intellectually invested in the ideas. At which point you're working with an ideologically driven reader. They tend to be more unwilling to reconsider positions.

Precisely. I'd prefer that those who can't appreciate nuance just get annoyed or confused and go watch TV or something instead of trying to engage with me or my ideas.

Not every position needs to be reconsidered. There are positions that stand up to scrutiny and there those that don't. At some point, one reaches a conclusion. The goal of debate shouldn't be endless conversation. It's to arrive at a common understanding (ideally, a truthful one). That necessitates convincing.

While I agree that immediate rejection on the grounds of one word is a fallacy, many arguments fold like paper mâche because the one word/concept that ostensibly justifies the argument is based on a false/ill-defined/hidden premise. That premise, once rebutted/revealed, could no longer be defended without engaging in cognitive dissonance or defending the indefensible. After that, the rest of the argument comes crashing down.

Ideology isn't the only - or even major - motivating factor for sticking to one's positions. In a proper debate, the burden of proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim. More often than not, the claimant fail to clear the bar of proving their point.

Reconsideration isn't a concession prize. It's won or not at all.

> I reject the entire idea of the concept that using a word makes you a member of some group and thus permits a word-reader to infer some information about you. That's just bias, something we should all be looking out for and frustrating when possible.

I agree, and I should've made that clear in my comment. Word usage doesn't guarantee group membership, but they can still lead to someone assuming you are a member of this group. I don't believe it makes a difference to what I'm saying if a stereotype is accurate or not, but rather whether your conversation partner thinks it's accurate. Should people do this? No, probably not. Do they? I believe so.

To abstract my argument further, when we converse, we speak words which convey information. Some of that information is intentional on our parts (we choose words to make our point), and some is unintentional (others interpret words counter to how we meant them). It's probably impossible to avoid transmitting unintentional information completely, but attempting to minimize it seems like a useful goal, especially when we think our information is important enough to spread to others.

> I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group, to get readers to question the usefulness or applicability of their stereotypes. I have no idea if I achieve my goal or if I just confuse people.

I don't know either, but I think this approach has value.

I think that's one of the main points of the article. And arguably, a point that perhaps every reader should take with them after reading it.

Not that "using some words give the listener implicit information about you", but that if some words activate some bias in the listener, than perhaps is better to avoid them, only for a while. Maybe wait until a common set of understanding has taken root before taking out the lingo.

This is only relevant if your intent is to actually reach across the aisle and understand where the ignorance/hate/whatever comes from; in essence to engage meaningfully for both parties, not necessarily convince.

If that's not your intention, then probably you'll feel offended at the discouragement of using some words. I'd say bias is the ultimate enemy here, and unfortunately, it's very hard to defeat bias head on, it's easier to lay a trap for it and slowly chip it away. I wouldn't say "patience" is a quality of any kind of discourse nowadays, from any "side".

The media's helped with that, and the meme-ifcation and the 'mic drop' one-liner culture of social media. If someone's trying to lay out a nuanced argument, or even discussion point (even if they show no preference towards one side), a magic word will cause many readers to make drastic assumptions about the speaker/writer's state of mind and intentions.

There's this embedded pseudo-psychoanalytic aspect in people I never saw before the last few years. We know it well with people we KNOW, our family or friends, and in arguments, but the fact that it happens with complete strangers is ..really weird!

Then add partisan politics and it's a giant weird nightmare to have conversations with people who are over-excited with lower attention spans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com