I believe another aspect of point 1 is that, they believe that whatever injustices are out there in the world, will be fixed if they just change the language to be of such a format that such injustice can no longer be described.
I can't see this as the injustice the article makes it out to be. Not standardizing on a single language would just cause more problems. If it wasn't English it would be something else.
Broadly, my objection is that these linguistic changes have had no positive impact on anything meaningful, and instead act as a corporate smoke screen for real issues.
Nothing they write is actionable, so I'm not sure how changing the language would affect anything. Imho it amounts to little else besides fear mongering, if there isn't actionable advice.
I don't really disagree, though it is a bit of a simplification. There is a lot to this argument, but without going into details (another time maybe) is it not a testament to the base of the language that they've managed to build so much crap on top of it??.
That doesn't answer the question. A language committee not implementing changes someone wants cannot be and is not the source of someone else's life-long misery.
I with the author the best in finding a more sustainable and healthy way of constructing meaning
I like how they said they'll rewrite 'in a language everybody can understand' - and then will probably rewrite changing the meaning of it, not just making it 'noob-friendly' (e.g. removing the offensive bits).
I don't see anything in your list of complaints that is about the actual language, not meekly about the culture surrounding it. The established perceptions of "best practices" are much more in need of a shakeup than the language itself. Maybe replacing the language is the only way to achieve that change, but then it would be more like a necessary sacrifice than a goal on its own.
I catch myself feeling that way, too, but it is uncharitable and inaccurate. They do work a lot of work on developing the language. The issue is that sometimes their idea of what is should be differs from the idea that most people have.
That seems like a whole different problem than the language used. Would it have been acceptable to keep using the original language and still not do anything about it? Probably not.
Trying to turn a language into a totally and completely different language is dumb. This is not complicated. Civil discourse also requires that you take the time to read and comprehend words before you reply to them with crap.
Definitely. It's an even weirder thing to grumble about here, in that the language change is the means to an end: saving lives.
If somebody were getting all riled up about tomayto versus tomahto), I'd say that a complaint about policing language was reasonable; that really is purely a language thing. But generally when I hear it somebody is actually opposed to a substantive change but won't come right out and say it.
That always seems weird to me. You'd think somebody so excited about being able to say what they want would, y'know, say what they want.
It's naive at best.
reply