I was thinking about the Inclusive Coding Bot that made the rounds a while back. For the unaware (or those too lazy to open the repo) it was a bot that would automatically scan codebases for language not deemed "gender inclusive" and change it to "inclusive" terms (i.e he and she to they). It was pretty infamous for being a barely functioning baby's first RegEx project that would frequently snag on incorrect words and spam repositories with garbage PRs even after getting previous ones closed. It made the rounds on the farms in the OSS community thread.
Context aside--I've been seeing stuff like this more and more in places like academia and news publications, where someone will make a big deal out of using "more inclusive language." My question; who exactly does this help? Do people think women are so fragile that they'll interpret "he should see" in a code comment as a microaggression, or seeing a ship referred to as "she" as problematic? I seriously don't get how pronoun replacement will help anyone.
it's not intended to "help" anybody. the intention behind it follows the assumption that language shapes thought, so controlling peoples language is the first step towards controlling their thoughts.
It's like the shifting of definitions; i.e. it's a psychological attack whose purpose is to get you to doubt yourself and keep your mind focused on inane things rather than to think critically about actual problems you have and want to solve. Who it helps are the people who propose this stuff, because subconsciously they know they have nothing to contribute in the circles they are members of.
It depends on how it's implemented. Now I'm talking in more general about being choosy of your wording. There are people who you can never please but it goes beyond that. All people judge your wording to a degree and word choices can make a big difference especially when talking with strangers.
Usually most formal public communication does benefit from editors. Most people don't write stuff like that often, they aren't super familiar with the audience expectations and easily choose words that cause unintentional missunderstandings or offence. So someone going over and pointing out what words you might want to reconsider can valuable so that you don't miss communicate and fail to achieve what you. Even if those word choices are meaningless to you, you should be using words that are more polite, acceptable and just sound better to them. That's just being effective commutator.
Otherhand, there are plenty of things that will never ever sound good because regardless of words the concept is by itself unpleasant and a bad thing. Retarded, neuro diversity or special needs, none of those word choices will ever really be neutral or positive because brains not working right isn't good. So you need to also accept that talk about somethings will be offensive and be willing to take that on.
It depends on how it's implemented. Now I'm talking in more general about being choosy of your wording. There are people who you can never please but it goes beyond that. All people judge your wording to a degree and word choices can make a big difference especially when talking with strangers.
Usually most formal public communication does benefit from editors. Most people don't write stuff like that often, they aren't super familiar with the audience expectations and easily choose words that cause unintentional missunderstandings or offence. So someone going over and pointing out what words you might want to reconsider can valuable so that you don't miss communicate and fail to achieve what you. Even if those word choices are meaningless to you, you should be using words that are more polite, acceptable and just sound better to them. That's just being effective commutator.
Otherhand, there are plenty of things that will never ever sound good because regardless of words the concept is by itself unpleasant and a bad thing. Retarded, neuro diversity or special needs, none of those word choices will ever really be neutral or positive because brains not working right isn't good. So you need to also accept that talk about somethings will be offensive and be willing to take that on.
That kind of highlights a problem though, which is "inclusive language" is vague to the point of meaninglessness. I'm using inclusive language right now by typing in english and using certain word choice, not to spare people's feelings but just because you wouldn't have any chance of understanding otherwise. Although you might due to context.
This is an issue of writing and impersonal communication, which is an awful, garbage means of interacting with people beyond an artistic level. I agree with guys like Plato who said informational writing sucks shit. Paraphrased.
Words like retarded can be positive for sure. I've called other guys homos and retards and everything else, and they've done the same to me, that's just how friends interact. Without that personal, cultural, non-verbal context, a person has to revert to clinical, dictionary-definition level communication.
Words can mean literally anything. They're one of a huge number of mechanics that facilitate psychological exchange. As those other mechanics become nullified by communicating in an increasingly transhumanist environment, the need for clinical language increases as well to compensate.
Although that said, using the context here, I can say no, the inclusive language OP is talking about doesn't help any of us at least because it's usually used to enforce social conformity. It helps elitists and the welfare class, that's it.
Words like retarded can be positive for sure. I've called other guys homos and retards and everything else, and they've done the same to me, that's just how friends interact. Without that personal, cultural, non-verbal context, a person has to revert to clinical, dictionary-definition level communication.
I didn't mean that the words themselves can't be used neutral or positive manner but that the things these words are about aren't good things and never will be. That's why your friends use those words as friendship establishment gesture. You both know that these words hold negative connotations but it doesn't ably because you're friends, that overrides the insult.
I was thinking about the Inclusive Coding Bot that made the rounds a while back. For the unaware (or those too lazy to open the repo) it was a bot that would automatically scan codebases for language not deemed "gender inclusive" and change it to "inclusive" terms (i.e he and she to they). It was pretty infamous for being a barely functioning baby's first RegEx project that would frequently snag on incorrect words and spam repositories with garbage PRs even after getting previous ones closed. It made the rounds on the farms in the OSS community thread.
And here, for a brief second, I was hoping to read about schemes that organise free in-person coding classes for disadvantaged youth or the unemployed. I need to update my mindset to the 'current year', huh
it's not intended to "help" anybody. the intention behind it follows the assumption that language shapes thought, so controlling peoples language is the first step towards controlling their thoughts.
There are languages that have absolutely no future tense?
I've heard that there are a couple languages that actually don't have a future tense (some civililations in Africa, I think...). They say that the language you speak dictates how you think. If this is so, can these people really not think of things in the future? Can they not plan things out?
The theory exists on both sides of the political aisle, for racism and for woke, as a descriptor and a motivater.
If you actually read the reddit thread (and Wade through the autism about a tense vs a marker) they try to call it bunk, but other linguistic lessons do give it some credence. Can't remember what it's called, but I remember there was a story of some deaf kids who were put together and they ended up creating their own sign language. It was really basic, but then the second generation speakers (signers?) of the language added more complex structures to the language and were also more smart somehow. It's not necessarily that the first generation speakers were dumb or couldn't understand the things that weren't a part of their own language, but it required more mental calculations for them to process. I guess if say it's like how a person can see and appreciate the color Chartreuse without being able to name it? (Did you know there are languages that don't have a word for the color "Blue"?)
There's also cases of linguists romanticizing the phenomena, e.g. Indians and their dozens of words to describe snow, or medicine men and their ability to pass down their knowledge through the generations through spoken language alone (no written language). I don't really understand the medicine man thing but I figure it's like a more useful version of the language of flowers? And there was something about how instead of looking things up in a dictionary, they dream of their ancestors sending them messages.
So! Some of the idea is looney mumbo jumbo, some of it looks like there's evidence behind it. The idea is not affiliated with a political affiliation, it is both touted and decried by both sides depending on who you're trying to apply the theory to and if you're saying they have secret wisdom or are retards.
Now, look at the alleged intellect gaps embedded in this theory, whether it be blacks who have no sense of time/causation, or indigenous peoples who don't need no white man medical science. That is the level of intellectual separation they are trying to create between people who can use gender as a first instinct and people who have to consciously reason through it in their heads.
My favorite subset of this theory: words that only exist in one language, like schadenfreude or taharrush. Sure, we can understand the words, but they're not words that belong in our view of the world so we give up on translation and resort to loan words.
English is a living language, so I am not at all surprised it constantly evolves toward what some will consider softer language.
But never fret, always remember the Shining Beacon of the English language, the Keystone, the Central Pillar of all words: NIGGER. It will always stay the same.
Several things. It is a signal to anyone who would try to assert sanity that this is enemy territory. It allows commissars to remove people for being discriminating in unapproved ways. It enables infiltration of a project by commissars if need be, or for something to be found or planted that would call for the project to partake in a virtual struggle session, where they are inclined to prostrate themselves or reassert their loyalty to the official creed. All this is to prevent the organic organization of people who could cause trouble. Individuals are easy to control. Groups become harder and can't be left unimpeded if they do not bend to rules which make them easy to control. A group in one simple sense is people who are able to signal in a way that is better understood among their own than others. The destruction of cultural touchstones is at base to maim the utility of shared knowledge of these artifacts which by their nature resonate with certain groups more than others. None of this is restricted to the "inclusion" mantra. The mantra is chosen to direct which groups suffer and which gain.
So in short, yes, the "inclusion" mantra helps certain people. Outside of exceptional circumstances, the mantra is chosen by the group who holds disproportionate power, and Kanye is right.
trying to include everyone tends to end poorly. mainly because no matter what you do to be as inclusive as possible someone is gonna have a problem with it. its a pointless attempt at trying to make everyone feel special and in the end only results in people acting weird and entitled.
When not bantering or being silly I try to refer to groups as they want to be called as a matter of basic respect.
However, terms like LatinX, ChinX, BIPOC, POC and Native American are terms hated by the people who they apply to. Obviously progressive terms are not rooted in respect so what is the point of such terms? To create a narrative. Terms to erase gender and terms to rank race on the progressive stack.
BIPOC exists to justify discrimination against asians and arabs by black people, etc.
