Hacker News Reader

> 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".

> 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

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.

> [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.