That reminds me of a conversation I had nearly a decade ago with a black (African immigrant) friend. I don't remember the details, but basically he said that he was annoyed that the words "dark" and "black" had negative connotations. I knew him well enough to know that he wasn't trolling, and that this was something that had seriously taken an emotional toll on him.
Ever since then I've been thinking about this -- maybe it does bother a lot of black folks? And, think of very little whose conception of words is primitive, and how they might associate the words together.
I don't really know what I'm getting it. It's very hard to make any sort of conclusion here. I mean, what's the cure -- we make a prescriptive linguistic change that color-based words can't be used anymore? That's not happening.
> Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress.
It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
> Imagine you go to a foreign country and point at something you like. To your surprise, this is a deeply offensive gesture to the locals and they get upset. Rather than apologizing for doing something unintentionally, you take the position that you didn't know, so you can't be held accountable for it. How do you imagine they're going to respond?
Except this wasn't foreigners taking offense. It was other white Americans that took offense at its use. And it's a very inconsistent taboo, as well. The New York Times has used the word in its own pieces [1].
> And secondly, I just don't really believe you. I don't believe you would feel comfortable saying the n-word around several black people you don't know and using it generically without feel acutely aware that you've likely put yourself in a very socially uncomfortable situation.
What am I supposed to tell you other than that you're wrong? In my experience black people are fully aware of the distinction between mentioning and use of of the word, and aren't offended by the former. I'm no less comfortable than talking about the word "kike" in front of Jewish people, or "fag" in front of gay people, etc.
Notice how this kind of hysteria surrounding mentioning this slur even in reference is mostly raised by other white people, not black people. This kind of intense taboo is more than a little condescending. It seems to be implying that black people are incapable of distinguishing between use and mention of slurs, while most (all?) other groups can.
> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that?
Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true.
The people who are looking at a word like "blacklist" and thinking it in a negative racial way are the ones that are the problem. They are the ones grasping at straws trying to find things to be offended by. It's a choice people make and it's only offensive because someone chooses to be offended by the word. You have to remember when being offended by words like this it means ignoring the context.
It's just silly is what it is. Language policing is absolutely insane.
> If you're black, I think you wouldn't give a damn about using the word in a technical setting that makes sense.
Being offended by words without regard to context, meaning, or idea being communicated isn't really a race-specific thing, its a thing a certain subset of the population independent of race, gender, etc., does.
People in that group who are black or concerned with the black experience in America are likely to be offended by "slave" in any context (except, perhaps, an actual disapproving reference to the historical practice of slavery.)
People who are not in that group, even if they are black or concerned with the black experience in America, are unlikely to be concerned by the use of "slave" in this context.
(Since apparently we need to disclose this in this discussion, I am black. I am actually offended by people making a deal about things like this without reference to context and meaning, because it distracts from and trivializes actual racism, which remains a real and significant problem.)
>That's an interesting take, and not one that I think you will find in common with experts on the subject.
Many of these "experts" typically use outrage to justify their continued employment. Most of them come off as genuinely deranged to most of the people I know, so this isn't just a me thing.
>I might largely be wasting my time in attempting to educate people on the internet
You're not educating people so much as finding chances to belittle them.
>Why do you believe that uttering phrases that are fundamentally rooted and reinforce prejudice is not harmful?
You're trying to tell someone they are racist while not holding any racist opinion but for saying magic words. This is nonsensical. If black people call each other "the n word" then a word and its historical meaning and modern meanings are not necessarily linked to each other.
More empowering is, likely, accepting that a word or phrase may have had some racist element to it but removing the power of that racism (such as with black people calling each other the n word) as opposed to making it forbidden.
> I don't think there is a racial bias in associating blackness w/ evil or 'whiteness' with good, I rather think it has to do with night/darkness vs day/light. Do you think 'red' as a widely used 'warning light' somehow relates to 'native Americans'?
I think maybe I didn’t make my point clear here. I don’t think that in these particular examples there exists racial bias in the language. The language (most languages) is biased (but not racially) towards associating darkness with evil and light with good. If you personally are experiencing racial bias due to having darker skin, I think language like this can feel very different than it would otherwise, even if the language itself is not explicitly racially biased. I’m not saying we should abandon the whole light/dark evil/good dichotomy, but just pointing out that things built in to the culture that aren’t technically related to race in any way may feel very different if you’re on the “good” side than if you’re on the “bad” side.
> It's not at all difficult to assume that something is offensive to someone, but not to me. It's extremely easy that for any different person, different phrases are considered offensive. But the solution of 'let's create a world where nothing is offensive anymore' seems ludicrous.
I agree that it seems impossible to avoid offending every individual. But, when it’s so easy to avoid using language that has negative connotations for a significant portion of the population, why shouldn’t we? Why cling so tightly to not being kind, out of some kind of slippery-slope assumption that if we give ground and have empathy this once, the word will end?
It’s really odd to me how offended people get by the suggestion that there might be something offensive about the language they use. I have no ties to the words I use. If I want to be friends with someone or to include them in what I’m doing, and they have a problem with some word I use because of some context that I haven’t experienced, it does me no harm to use a different word.
> I always thought there was a 'common sense' approach, pruning any mention of 'slave' as terminology in programming / system administration after decades of use for me seems to be extremely far away from it.
Here I think you’re taking offense at a situation that doesn’t exist. What I’ve seen is people trying to avoid perpetuating the problem by not adding new instances of the world slave to new code/systems, or making updates to use different language when it’s convenient and someone’s already touching the code. These actions hardly seem to me to be pruning any mention of the term from decades’ worth of software.
Language, it’s important to remember, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is always changing along with society and culture. It’s therefore natural that what is considered acceptable or not is going to change over time, and we’ve always had to deal with this as a society. Look at people wanting to ban books for using words that have become offensive, as an example. The interesting thing about software, as opposed to books or words engraved in stone on monuments, is that it’s often very easy to change the words that are used, because software isn’t a historical artifact but a living thing. And as a living thing, people are going to want it to reflect their own current societal norms. So changes like this seem an inevitable part of a long-lived industry that creates such mutable products.
Regardless, it hardly seems worth getting so worked up over someone else choosing to make this decision in the codebase that they maintain. It is their right as maintainers to do so, and if you disagree so strongly with them making this small token of empathy, you can of course choose to use another filesystem.
> Some of a white friend's twitter friends (also white) saw a twitter conversation I had with him and told him to tell me they found my name offensive. Which I found to be incredibly bizarre.
I have a white friend who is extremely sensitive about the word "nigger". So much that he wouldn't join a black person's Discord server named "The Real Niggaz" and got upset that someone in a game had the name "TheNiddaSteve". That's not a typo. Nidda. He was upset about "Nidda" because he believed they really meant "nigga".
> I can sort of understand not spelling out the N word fully to not trigger aggressive filter sensors on some networks, but shit?
Hopefully this isn't why you aren't avoiding the N word. Using the N word if you aren't black yourself indicates either that you are unaware of its history, you don't care about it, or you care about it precisely because it causes offense. And being unaware usually correlates with not caring. People naturally infer from this that your attitude towards black people falls somewhere in the range from "I don't think about their interests" to "I wish them harm". It amounts to declaring one's hostility. The milder end of this range still implies contempt.
Communicating one's desire to offend is sufficient to cause offense. Everyone knows this. One can control one's own reaction to insults, but one cannot control the reactions of third parties who witness it. Everyone knows this as well. So claims that offended parties should just grow a thicker skin are disingenuous. This measure is insufficient to prevent all harm. So one should not say the N word not because of algorithms, but because you know in advance that it will cause harm.
Saying shit is different. Except in particular contexts -- a conversation in a retirement community, say, or a preschool -- its use cannot be construed as an attempt to harm particular classes of people. Outside of these contexts those who take offense are generally understood to be mistaking the intention of the speaker.
> I asked what the harm would be of you adopting the more sensitive language in your own usage.
"sensitive"
sensitive according to whom? what morals? what ideology? I'm not hurting my own feeling as a black man every time I use "blacklist" or "slave" in a specific context that is even explained in a dictionary, why are you trying to force your political beliefs (because that's what it is) on me? why are you constantly patronizing me? that I indeed find it offensive. I'm not going to change the canonical definition of the words I use to please you.
> The primary problem with this is that people don't get to make up their own definitions for words, and force those definitions on the rest of society.
Do you think that certain communities should not have their own dialect? Or do you think that if a member of such a community happens to use said dialect outside of the community and later clarified the specific definitions of the words that they used, they should not be given the benefit of the doubt?
> that it's a BS cop-out. They know what they mean when they use the word. We know what they mean when they use the word. Lying about it when they get called on exposes them as the hateful cowards that they are.
I am not black and I have been called a [censored] in the past, quite a few times in fact. It used to be quite common in multiplayer games and certain online communities around a decade ago, it still is but less so. If you know what they meant when they used that word then please do tell me, because I seriously doubt that they believed that I was an african american.
> Until it stops being a clear and present danger to people of color.
Wooo. Yeah it's so dangerous out there for black people. Poor white people are probably safe though, right? Ummmm...no.
Let's be clear though: The danger you're talking about is words on a page. That's what Twitter is protecting us from.
As if my mind were so weak that I need to be protected from words. That's the real insult here.
> Oh, the irony of making fun of people of color for feeling marginalized in a thread where white people are freaking out...
Yeah, but I'm black. So, where's your argument now? Also, I wasn't making fun - I seriously want you try cry me a river about words on Twitter. Because it's breaking my heart too. Seriously! I wish nobody would use it.
> And, I'm free to make fun of my fellow white people...
OK, but again... I'm black. So, thanks for making fun of my opinion?
"If you change words because some might feel offended, it will never stop. "
Well, since we are evolving our culture our changing of words hopefully never stops. Languge is an ongoing process and much of our language was shaped in a patriarchal, racist and sexist environment, that existed for centuries if not millenias.
Now I might say, we advanced from that, so there are necessary language changes happening.
That much energy is wasted in that regard, I very much agree. And I'd like some sanity back in the debate.
I am also not sure about the black/white thing.
(ah btw. some racist indeed favor the blond over black haired people, which gave ways to a antinazi joke:
The Arier: Blond like Hitler, thin like Göring and tall like Himmler.)
But I am "white", so I am not sure if I can judge about about a black skinned persons feelings about the matter or just ignore them.
But that the very color linked to race scheme is stupid in the first place and that this should be the thing fighting against, I would agree.
There was a south park episode about that, Cartman hit the black kid (just out of being an asshole with anger problems). And the school was about to punish him as usual, but no, because he was black it was a hate crime and the higher institutions got involved, with big fuss and lots of saying black.
So I think Stan in the end said: if you treat people different because of their skin color, it means they are different. So it reinforces the race thinking.
So I do agree: when I see a blacklist, I never would associate that with a person.
I just try to be a bit sensitive of people who do. Which yes, it is hard to draw the line.
> What is it that offends you about the terms, and why?
Sorry for being unclear. I'm not offended, either. But (see my reply to sibling comment) I find the arguments that the term can be seen as offensive, and that it perpetuates a (small! subtle! but real!) form of systemic racism, essentially plausible, and I'm sympathetic to them.
>assume people can't not form racist views because they can't figure out the context when someone uses the name of a color.
The parent did not do this. It sounds like you've constructed an exaggerated version of a potential assumption somebody other than the parent could make: That a particular person may be feigning "not knowing" what the terms means, which frankly is not surprising, considering how incredibly bitter some people feel about these terms, but of course neither is it surprising to sincerely not know what they mean, since they are new terms, regardless of how explicit they are (you need at least a modicum of context if you've never heard them before). So the person you're attacking surely exists (a person who would make this accusation in every case, with no benefit of the doubt ever given), but that person is not here, nor could we know if they are here given the limited sample size of chances they have in this thread to express such an uncharity.
As for your frostbite example, obviously nobody seeks to control the reality of what color frostbite is. I feel like you may have jumped the gun on that analogy.
> Yes. If someone uses a racial slur against a white person, it has a much weaker effect.
And you feel confident saying this in general, because...?
> Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people.
Human beings aren't computers. They don't do logical things. You are (probably) an engineering-type trying to apply logic & engineering concepts to the actions of people. If that worked, politics wouldn't be so disgusting.
I will offer you a piece of advice. This was hard fought for me and took a while to figure out.
All people don't act and think in the same way you do. They don't have the same motivations. They probably do not have the same values.
Your logic is "I would only use a racial slur if I were racist. They used a racial slur. Therefore, they must be racist." That's a flawed way to approach the world. You are making assumptions that don't hold. Starting with invalid assumptions is one of the best ways to fix the wrong problem.
> When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry?
allowed != condoned != legal
I would say all of them should be legal because I see that freedom of speech is an important right. We need to be extremely selective about what things we prohibit, because allowing free speech to be eroded is dangerous.
The whole PURPOSE of free speech, after all, is to protect speech that is unpopular. You don't need a law to protect popular speech.
> You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes.
Aren't I? Inciting violence is already a crime.
> If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people.
I have heard that slur thrown around probably 10000:1 by black people versus anyone else. INCLUDING as a way to be intentionally hurtful.
What's interesting is, you will write this in an online forum but I'm sure you'd never say that to a black person. There would be some mental gymnastics to make a slur acceptable in this narrow scope, establishing a double-standard that has never been set for any other slur.
We're here discussing an article about a 19 year old being jailed for a slur. I would be every penny I have that you have said something at least as stupid at that age. Perhaps not a slur, but something quite hurtful nonetheless. Why? Because WE ALL DO.
Coming to the defense of black people in 2022 doesn't take a lick of courage. Trying to understand the motivations (and cringe) of a stupid 19-year-old, and finding forgiveness for that person, does.
> Anyone who chooses to be offended by words used in a totally different context is doing exactly that - choosing to be offended
This argument seems like it could be used to absolve anyone of guilt for using racist terms. "I'm not racist, that person chose to be offended by my statement".
> No one really cares about these terms
Seemingly people do care about these terms because we're having this discussion. In our white-dominated industry I would bet many don't, but why not make an effort to make the terminology we use more inclusive.
> their opinion shouldn't outweigh the time, effort required to fix it, or the opinions of everyone else
I don't think people are expecting open source maintainers to drop everything to fix these terms. In some cases it will be unfeasible and they could just say that.
That reminds me of a conversation I had nearly a decade ago with a black (African immigrant) friend. I don't remember the details, but basically he said that he was annoyed that the words "dark" and "black" had negative connotations. I knew him well enough to know that he wasn't trolling, and that this was something that had seriously taken an emotional toll on him.
Ever since then I've been thinking about this -- maybe it does bother a lot of black folks? And, think of very little whose conception of words is primitive, and how they might associate the words together.
I don't really know what I'm getting it. It's very hard to make any sort of conclusion here. I mean, what's the cure -- we make a prescriptive linguistic change that color-based words can't be used anymore? That's not happening.
reply