Foreigners often struggle with most recent dialect of P.C. English. Imagine someone who learned English from 1980ties movies and Southpark, and did not updated much...
For example we could use "African-American" in non ironic way, correct word now is probably capitalised "Black", that was offensive just a few decades ago.
“People of Color” = You better use this term and you’re racist if you think this includes East Asians, who are “White Adjacent”.
I’m also glad that Google has come up with a tool to manage the language carousel — and I’m a native speaker.
Yet it is a perfectly fine, and for a lot of people proud, word in South Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds
This is also "the problem" of the internet where pretty much the US "dictates" the discourse, words that are perfectly acceptable in other countries/cultures effected by this. See also the spanish word "negro". One of the most ridiculous example was the Uruguayan soccer player Edinson Cavani who plays in the UK and used the word "negrito" in an Instagram post and had to apologize https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-england-mun-cavani...
Hope there aren't many Google Docs user in Montenegro!
Whenever you have a term for something sensitive or disadvantaged, there's a tendency to rapidly cycle terms. Attempting to "outrun" the baggage is easier than solving it.
What happens when a substantial portion of the population refuses to adopt the new meaning? It seems like the language gets forked then. This doesn't seem to do any good at all, increasing polarization and creating obstacles to clear communication.
That's just how language works.
With this perspective, it is extremely important for all users of the protocol to agree on the definitions of the primitives (words). If they don't, they're basically forking the protocol, forcing overhead to clarify terms on every interaction with people who speak a different version.
It's also not how all language works - French for instance has a prescriptive dictionary. Many useful languages do in fact.
It's literally how language works. Words are wholly invented things, whose meaning is completely derived from usage and context. We make up sequences of sounds and over time we get each other to accept what ideas those sequences of sounds represent.
Yes, the Académie Française exists, but fun fact … it's reactive to usage. And it's by no means an absolute authority on the language as it's used colloquially.
I'm not sure you should discard the perspective of language-as-protocol so readily either. Computing protocols are also languages, specified to a necessary degree of precision, and maintained by a standards body. These also evolve with usage, and there are many instances of common usage being added to the protocol specification for things like HTTP.
All I'm suggesting is that we evolve our language consciously, and all together, and not allow a fringe group to hijack the process.
How many new words are minted by a single speaker, or song, or movie, or pop culture moment? How many from a single group who merely entered the zeitgeist at the right time? How many come entirely from corporations, and advertising?
Language is always an "all together" process but it is also always a process that starts in the fringe, and spreads out.
Seems to work pretty well for programming languages and communication protocols doesn't it? Why do you think that is?
If someone were to release a runtime that could reliably do "what a programmer means" instead of "what the programmer types" that runtime would be heralded as one of the greatest advancements in computer science in history.
Thankfully, the human mind is not as limited in its ability to parse context.
Ah yes, but how do you interpret "what the programmer means" besides "what he types"? If what he types is open to various interpretations, it becomes impossible to divine what he means without asking him for clarification. This is the case with spoken language, especially to audiences with differing contexts. That's exactly why having a maximally simple and clear reference to the meanings of words is important. It's in order to avoid having to clarify what you mean when you say "women's swimming competition", for instance.
The compiler determines what the programmer means through the context of its usage.
Prescriptivism is nonsense.
>That's just how language works.
I'd call language a social construct. Whereas Using language is an action.
The former is a noun (person, place or thing -- in this case, a conceptual thing) and the latter is a verb (word describing an action) phrase relating to that thing.
And except for group chants (e.g., "Let's Go Mets!"), choirs, etc., using language is definitely an individual not collective action
That said, as a social construct, languages change all the time, exactly as you pointed out, based on usage.
You'll never catch me calling an SO (significant other -- which is a decades-old attempt to be more inclusive -- and private) 'bae', nor will you hear me say 'very unique', no matter how many other people use those terms.
Am I a bad, evil human being because I won't use various terms that are in broad use? I say 'no'.
Why? Because I (my brain/consciousness) control my communication systems, not popular usage.
I do my best to be kind and empathetic to those around me, not because I'm being forced to do so, but because I believe that doing so is a trait common to decent human beings, one of whom I aspire (and usually succeed) to be.
I'll go even further and say that context matters. There are many things I might say while down the pub with friends that I'd never say in a professional context or among strangers.
There's actually a term for that. It's called "code switching"[0].
And that brings up an odd, but widespread, change in our social discourse.
The online world, and especially social media, has (unless one takes steps to avoid doing so) comingled our personal, private and professional lives. Which is why I took/still take to heart advice I got nearly 30 years ago:
Don't put anything online that you wouldn't want
to see on the front page of your local newspaper
(back then, local newspapers were still a
thing).
That's not to say there's never any overlap, but different facets of our lives don't need to intersect. Nor, in many (most?) cases, should they.
What's more, It's my choice as to what words I choose to express. And it's absolutely the choice of other folks to call me out if they feel that those words I choose aren't appropriate.
I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable (e.g., in professional situations).
And if some folks don't appreciate me or my sense of humor and shun me as a result, that's just fine. No one is required to be subjected to me or my language.
I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those either.
I don't require anyone's approval with regard to what I say or when. But if I misjudge the context of a situation, I may find myself (and I have) facing judgement, and sometimes consequences, for my speech.
Fortunately for me, at least in the US, I can say pretty much (with certain exceptions) anything I want without legal consequences. But that doesn't stop anyone from taking issue with what I say.
I'd ask that you go back and re-read my comment (several times, if necessary) and let me know if I'm not being inclusive or empathetic. That should be amusing.
Every generation leaves behind huge numbers of individuals who do not evolve their usage of certain words. And every generation struggles with the previous' generation's collection of those people.
Fair enough. But it seems to me that as long as people can make themselves understood and aren't actively engaging in douchebaggery, why should anyone care?
While I encourage and respect others' ability to speak their mind, I'm amazed at how invested some folks (and they are of all stripes, too) are in telling other people what to say, do or think.
We used to call such folks "busybodies"[0].
And there used to be a stock phrase to use when interacting with such people:
Mind your own fucking business.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/busybody
Edit: Fixed typo (you/your).
I'm sorry. What are you trying to say? I honestly don't understand. I used the word in it's generally accepted usage (see below).
Actively (adv.):
1. in a way that involves deliberate and vigorous engagement or effort:
[Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/actively ]
How is that word doing anything other than standing in for the concept above?
A quick google search for the phrase "x is doing a lot of work there" netted just this one "relevant" result[0].
That link appears to think it's roughly similar to "that requires some unpacking."
If that's the sense in which you used that phrase, I'd be very interested to hear what, exactly you think needs to be "unpacked."
Especially since there was no hidden/obfuscated meaning in my use of "actively." In fact, I meant it exactly, no more, no less than the the definition above.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd elucidate on that. Thanks!
[0] https://nitter.1d4.us/mcmillen/status/1225100819680440322?la...
I think you're talking about me (nobody9999) not thegrimmest.[3]
With that in mind, what I said was "I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable"
Let's "unpack" that. I am "deliberately[0] inappropriate[1]" in this sense:
deliberate (adj.)
2. characterized by awareness of the consequences
inappropriate (adj.)
not appropriate
appropriate (adj.)
especially suitable
As you've implied and I agree, words have meanings. But you're ascribing a meaning to a word that isn't accurate.
Why is that? Are you unfamiliar with the word? Or are you simply making an assumption as to my motives and/or thought processes?
In either case, I'd ask that you reassess your statement.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deliberate
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inappropriate
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
[3] Perhaps thegrimmest did say something like that, but I didn't see it. If they did, my apologies.
Edit: Fixed formatting, corrected sibling's username (thegrimmest).
The rest of your comment is bad faith condensation.
You're claiming that you're deliberately inappropriate but only when it's appropriate and never when it would give offense.
OK.
Is it? I (unlike you) didn't quote me out of context.
I (unlike you, despite being asked to do so several times) responded with specific informattion to clarify my point.
I (unlike you) assumed good faith on your part and attempted to more clearly explain my thoughts. You did nothing of the sort and made a point of putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied, and don't believe.
It's unfortunate, but it seems I've been caught not taking my own advice[0]. Again. More's the pity.
>You're claiming that you're deliberately inappropriate but only when it's appropriate and never when it would give offense.
Yes. That is almost exactly what I said and definitely captures my meaning. I'm glad I could (after a fashion) get my point across to you.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30265781
Edit: Fixed typo.
Great question. I was surprised when "people of color" came into the lexicon given the history of its similar sounding term. I wonder who decides what is offensive and what isn't? Who gave "people of color" a pass while being so close to the other?
There's also history in geography. What's offensive to people in one city, county, state, country, etc won't hit the same everywhere. In the UK, a fag is a cigarette, and queer was the more popular pejorative. I don't have a good view on how terms for ethnicity/race/etc evolved elsewhere, but there's probably lots of variety.
If it were just that you would see a lot more pushback against phrasing like "LGBTQ+ people", "Black people", etc.
I think it's mostly the history: this is one of many terms we have moved away from, and using an obsolete term marks you as likely having obsolete views.
It's common for similar phrasings to have very different meanings (or, in this case, connotations)
To be honest, I can see why ‘POC’ would be culturally reductionist and have been kind of surprised at the progressive adoption of it. Seems obvious that it will be deprecated.
It can't last forever, since young people always want to start new language, but the replacements like "BIPOC" aren't catching on since nobody knows what it means.
Were they thinking of "joshiryoku"? That's a Japanese word that literally means "woman-power", but it's not feminist - it doesn't refer to "girl power", it means you're good at looking pretty.
(To the extent that "female empowerment" can imply "smashing the patriarchy"/tearing down the existing order, this usually not fully achievable in a corporate context.)
Only if you [not you personally] live in a Twitter/Tumblr bubble
On similar trends, we are seeing once respected institutions, such as the ACLU, post tweets like this: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610?s=20 . It's a tweet of a quote by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But the ACLU has decided to replace the word "women" with "people". This is a short step from what Google's new politically correct auto-suggestions are conditioning us towards.
Only one group is having trouble defining women.
It is not. New words have been added to the vocabulary in order to better describe the world around us. So someone might choose to be called by one of those new words. But women are still women and people who are not women, well, they already weren't women.
Think of it like code. It used to be that the only options were ["man", "woman"]. Now new strings have been pushed to this list because people noticed that it did not cover all users.
What you are describing is the frustration that some people feel on being called by the wrong word.
But this has always been the case.
Call any human by the wrong label and frustration will be felt. That's not new.
I have clear memories from decades ago of a long haired man who I was friend with being angry at being called "woman" and one of my aunt who has a deep voiced being angry at being called "sir" over the phone.
if(user.genderIdentity !== wordUsed) { frustration++; }
That line of "code" has always been present.
- apply social ostracism
- give some combination of legal rights of men and women
- go with however the person presents (and possibly avoid talking about it/have the person avoid the risk of confrontation about the matter)
- don’t define man or woman in the law and let the judges/people figure it out if need be
Maybe the problem is that the thing that tends to matter really is the social construct and not something that can be easily measured if only you had the right instrument. And then perhaps the issue is that legal definitions tend not to be as rigid as those used in, say, mathematics.
Another fun question to try to answer is what the definition of a person’s name is or should be. In my country there isn’t really such a thing as one’s legal name and the state/courts will go for a name you use for yourself or a name people know you as. But it’s still possible in society to get someone’s name wrong or to see cruel nicknames in the playground.
The switch to "Black" is part of an update to the style guide of newspapers and magazines. They publish articles describing the change, because it matters from an institutional history perspective. Someone looking at news stories before and after 2020 would notice that, so it merits explanation.
That being said, it's a style guide change. It's not a law. You won't be cancelled for not using a capital B.
Genuinely asking: is that correct? I had thought the "correct" way was something between Afro-American and Person of Colour/PoC, apparently I was living in the past. I'm asking because I'm not from the States.
I could consider that a substantial improvement, to be honest. I actually knew a real African American, but almost everyone I've met who is called African American seems to in fact just be American. I wouldn't want to be called European American, myself, so I have always thought 'black' and 'white' where sufficient when a racial descriptor needs to be used for whatever reason.
Oh? And why would that be?
That's the very issue people who refuse to define women have: it's very difficult to define "women" if it has to include some men.
Otherwise it's very simple to define.
US went through Cultural Revolution, deal with it!
Perhaps some did, certainly some more than others, but the pendulum always swings.
Depends on whether you think that word define objective individual traits and sexual characteristics or it is purely subjective. That's the true debate. It cannot be both.
All I know is that 5/10 years ago everybody knew what that word meant...
People who assert that the definition of "woman" isn't really in dispute usually say that women are "Adult Human Females." Others say this definition is exclusionary to some women, and therefore bigoted, and therefore an act of violence.
Only for those who have an interest in placating the emotionally handicapped. The beauty of speaking freely, clearly and without censoring yourself out of regard to those with childlike sensibilities is that the only people you end up offending are those who deserve to be offended.