News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
[dead]
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by sctb on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @03:20PM (#16587517)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16584121 and marked it off-topic.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by aptsurdist on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:04PM (#16585734)
There was another thread commenting on the usage of the term "chick" and how it can be interpreted as derogatory. I agree that this term can be derogatory because it can be condescending. The commenter who took offense was flagged, and nested replies derided the commenter for taking offense. I am really disappointed to see the hacker news community unable to appreciate the nuance of this discussion. I know this term was not meant to be offensive, but that is not the point. It's important to challenge ourselves to think about these subtle issues. Our prejudices affect our language, and our prejudices are perpetuated by our language. Let's not flag and ban this discussion when it arises.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mercer on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:47PM (#16586737)
I think for many (myself included) it's not about being unable to appreciate the nuance. It's rather that it gets extremely tiresome to read a comment that 1) seems tonally out of proportion, and 2) comes across as 'white-knighting', as in, policing others on behalf of (hypothetical) others.

While I try not to react too strongly to this behavior (and instead see the intention behind it, which I'd say is commendable), I've become rather allergic to this kind of policing. If you're not personally affected, there's no reason for 1 and not always good reason for 2. If you are personally affected, then it would still be preferable to avoid 1, but I can at least understand.

I suspect a good proportion of downvoters/flaggers feel this way, and would otherwise happily avoid the term 'chick' if it causes offense.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by CodeMage on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:50PM (#16587264)
I was really glad to see that Hacker News community was able to recognize white knighting and deal with it decisively. While it's indisputable that "chick" can be interpreted as derogatory, context is even more important than knee-jerk hair-trigger sensitivity.
[dead]
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by s73v3r_ on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:43PM (#16586696)
Then flag and rate limit all the people who responded, too.

That said, I don't see that asking someone to express decency and respect when commenting is ever off topic, and should never be flagged.

[dead]
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by s73v3r_ on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:17PM (#16587008)
You say "tone policing", I say being respectful.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by malvosenior on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:35PM (#16587161)
It’s very much with the tone that Sarah herself uses. The tweet in question says:

> All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!

She’s obviously using a light tone and so is the OP here.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by DyslexicAtheist on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:06PM (#16585756)
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by chx on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:04AM (#16584463)
> this chick

I can't, just can't, not in 2018, leave "this chick" without a remark: it sounds rather derogatory. Please be more respectful.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by purple-again on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:24AM (#16584563)
I apologize if the word offends you. It was both intentioned to be non offensive (which should be apparent from my admiration for her WORK while giving no fucks about her as a person) and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory.

Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'.

Now does anyone know where I can find that write up, because I'm still really interested?

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by levesque on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:00PM (#16585695)
Tongue in cheek reaction to your calling her "this chick": https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/973951162536706049

I am not "this chick," I have never been "this chick," the correct label is "yonder youthful poultry"

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by albedoa on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:42AM (#16584652)
I believe this tweet implies that she still (as of that thread) had not written it up: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953713207205441536
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by s73v3r_ on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:46PM (#16586718)
"and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory."

Not really. It's always been somewhat condescending.

"Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'."

Dude, and in fact many euphemisms for men, don't carry the same connotations as the ones for women.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by 9889095r3jh on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:18PM (#16587023)
If I made a name for myself in journalism with honest indepth reporting that didn't skimp on the technical details, and someone said "that dudes awesome," I'd feel a little pissed.

If you saw me at a bar, forgot my name, and said "hey you're that dude from the other day" I wouldn't mind.

All about context. She's a professional and this is a professional context. "Chick" isn't a huge deal, and I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive. But it reflects a level of informality that isn't appropriate for the situation.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by johnchristopher on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:21PM (#16585861)
> I am not "this chick," I have never been "this chick," the correct label is "yonder youthful poultry" https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/973951162536706049
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by dwighttk on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:41PM (#16586016)
Now, "Dude" - that's a name no one would self-apply where I come from.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by markcerqueira on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:18PM (#16585833)
Do you normally apologize for people feeling offended about what you said instead of just apologizing?
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by johnchristopher on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:28PM (#16585911)
This is a major pet peeve of mine. In politicians's mouth it seems so offending, condescending and passive-agressive: "If my words have offended you I give you my apologies". They rarely take responsibility for themselves, offloading it on their « words » and « if » or « may have offended ». Like "I am sorry if you are too emotive to hear my words". Gah.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by gkilmain on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:35PM (#16585965)
Are you genuinely curious or just piling on?
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by Raphmedia on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:23PM (#16586492)
> Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'.

Dude is gender neutral.

Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea.

By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea".

There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt.

Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individual. Calling a woman a "chick" is using her physical appearance to describe her, disregarding her actual skills and achievements.

By calling a woman a chick, you are either:

A) Calling her a young girl (women are not children)

B) Calling her a young bird (women are not prey)

C) Calling her a young plant (women are more than brainless beautiful things)

All of those can offend.

The equivalent would be calling a men "boy toy" or some such slang. Not something you can do without earning a punch in the face.

Derogate: –verb (used with object) 3. to disparage or belittle.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mercer on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:40PM (#16586665)
While I'm all for avoiding 'chick' if it offends people, your comment completely sidesteps the fact that the meaning of words change. I don't think you're doing whatever cause you're fighting any good by this kind of pedantry.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by Raphmedia on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:02PM (#16586862)
I did comment on that fact:

> Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individual. Calling a woman a "chick" is using her physical appearance to describe her, disregarding her actual skills and achievements.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mercer on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:55PM (#16587300)
I'd say that's another issue, namely that most words don't have one single, clear meaning, as is evident from a bunch of other comments. It's equally pedantic and cause-harming to pretend that this is not the case.

I can definitely accept that in many circles 'chick' has this connotation, and, again, I'm happy to be cautious in my use of the word if I don't know for certain whether this is the case or not.

That said, most circles I've been part of would most definitely not agree with your rather narrow and negative interpretation of the word, and its use is perfectly okay and similar to 'dude'.

Again, I don't see what you're trying to achieve with this kind of pedantry. If you actually care about these I do hope you find a better way to communicate about it.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by Raphmedia on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @03:03PM (#16587363)
> Again, I don't see what you're trying to achieve with this kind of pedantry. If you actually care about these I do hope you find a better way to communicate about it.

We are arguing under a [flagged] [dead] comment, so there's not much to achieve here.

My last opinion on the subject has been said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587100

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mercer on Thursday March 15, 2018 @06:44AM (#16591679)
Fair enough.

FWIW my apologies for being a bit too antagonistic. Personal frustrations getting the best of me. I do generally avoid using 'chick' unless I know it's okay, and I do think that's a sensible approach. And in hindsight I wish I hadn't gotten into a discussion about it.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by root_axis on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:01PM (#16586861)
I think your analysis is a bit heavy-handed. Most people have a common understanding of this word. Referring to a woman as "this chick" is obviously a tone that lacks respect and most American males understand the subtle differences in connotation between "chick" and "dude". Yes, they are mostly interchangeable but in certain contexts the word "chick" can carry a somewhat dismissive tone with a little more intensity than the word "dude" and this is just a subtlety of the language that is not easy to articulate.

Women in positions of authority or power are generally not referred to as chicks, it's hard to come up with a universal rule, but if one considers female authority figures throughout one's life it becomes easier to see where "chick" is usually not acceptable term for a woman you respect whereas "dude" has a more neutral connotation for male authority figures, e.g. in reference to a strict male authority figure "that dude is a hardass" or "that dude will knock you out".

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by Raphmedia on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:27PM (#16587100)
It is not about respecting authority. It is about respecting strangers and using the proper words to describe them.

Since that person is not present, it is best to be as formal as possible.

Call men "a man", call women "a woman", boys "a boy" and girls "a girl". Using words like "babe", "chick", "kiddo" for people you don't know is a blatant lack of respect.

Using "a chick" in the current context is plain wrong to me. It's fine if you know her, but talking about a third-party this way is disrespectful from my point of view.

My issue with this comment has nothing to do with gender or feminism. It is all about the correct use of words when addressing strangers.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by root_axis on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @03:12PM (#16587441)
It's not "about" any one particular thing, my comments about authority were only meant as a thought experiment to suss out the difficult-to-articulate subtlety of the word's connotation. I don't have a strong opinion regarding the general use of "dude" and "chick" to refer to people one is not personally familiar with.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mgkimsal on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:40PM (#16586663)
"Dude is gender neutral."

When everyone you've ever known, and all media you've ever seen, for 30 years, has exclusively used "dude" for males only, is it really "gender neutral"?

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by Raphmedia on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:09PM (#16586927)
It is generally accepted as gender neutral. Lately, I've seen a lot of LGBT communities encouraging its use.

Googling "Is dude gender neutral?" results in a lot of sites telling you that it is.

"In the early 1960s, dude became prominent in surfer culture as a synonym of guy or fella. The female equivalent was "dudette" or "dudess," but these have both fallen into disuse, and "dude" is now also used as a unisex term." Dude - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mgkimsal on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:17PM (#16587002)
"slang for an individual, typically male" is in the first sentence. I would assume that's the more prominent intent.

Googling "Is dude gender neutral?".... why would I even have that question if my entire community has never called that in to question in the first place?

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by iamdave on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:34PM (#16587153)
why would I even have that question if my entire community has never called that in to question in the first place?

To understand and see how communities that aren't yours act, and interact with vernacular versus shuttering one's self behind the assumption that because your group sees x in a certain way, other groups must by default see it similarly.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by iamdave on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:42PM (#16586690)
I promise I'm not being antagonistic just because I disagree with you (a qualifier that shouldn't even be necessary but eggshells are abundant in this thread right now), it's weird to me to hear this because I grew up in a time in a culture where dude 100% was gender neutral and it was celebrated[1] as such

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMODweN8lQ

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mgkimsal on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:18PM (#16587015)
"just because I disagree with you"

I asked a question. I'm not sure what there is to disagree about.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by AlexB138 on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:39AM (#16584640)
Attempting to dictate other people's language usage, especially over such innocuous terms, is extremely condescending moralizing. You ought to consider being more respectful yourself.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by clu3l355 on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:27AM (#16584577)
Is it not the female equivalent of "this dude"?

edit: seems that's how the author intended it

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by nkrisc on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:57AM (#16584754)
Unless used in an obviously derogatory context, all modern usage of "chick" that I've heard (American English) has basically been equivalent to "dude" for men. Most people I hang out with (men and women) toss around "chick" and "dude" equally as a friendly and casual way to refer to an unnamed individual.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by UncleMeat on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:48PM (#16586093)
Yes, but the social context of men and women in professional environments is different. Causal terms like this carry a lot more baggage for women, who have had to fight for decades to be taken seriously in the workplace. "Chick" is more likely to remind somebody of all the times they have been talked down to than "dude" is.

Obviously not everybody responds this way but we should be aware of the context.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by nkrisc on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:12PM (#16586374)
Sure, in a professional environment both are inappropriate, perhaps "chick" even more so given the historic inequality in the workplace between sexes.

That said, I'm curious what is at all "professional" about the greater context that spawned this particular discussion in the first place.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by pulisse on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:01PM (#16585699)
S. Jeong herself seems not to be too worked up about it: I am not "this chick," I have never been "this chick," the correct label is "yonder youthful poultry".[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/973951162536706049

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by DanBC on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:47AM (#16584679)
HN has an international audience, and cultural norms are different in different regions.

Very roughly in English workplaces you should avoid calling any of the women "chick" because you'll cause grave offence.

There are very narrow exceptions to this. In places like Stoke on Trent you might find people calling each other "my duck" (but this isn't just women; men call each other "me duck" too.) But even there you need to know the person and know it's ok.

In this particular example: I'm uncomfortable with the use of "chick" and it makes me think less of the writer, even after the explanation that it was an alternate to "dude". People can use whatever language they like, but they should be aware of the effect of the language they chose on other people so they make an informed choice.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by reaperducer on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:51AM (#16585627)
> HN has an international audience

Translation: Go for the least common denominator. Try to be as bland as possible in your writing.

> avoid calling any of the women "chick" because you'll cause grave offence

If that's what you consider "grave," there's a whole internet full of words that will make you pass out.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by organsnyder on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @03:24PM (#16587543)
> Translation: Go for the least common denominator. Try to be as bland as possible in your writing.

Translation: Be a professional.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by Kluny on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:57AM (#16585675)
On the equivalence of "chick" and "dude" - I would say they are equivalent terms, and both inappropriate in the workplace. It's just easy to cause offence by using dude in the wrong context. This usage of chick triggered a red flag for me as well, but rereading his comment I could see that the context was respectful. Since this isn't a workplace, I think it's fine.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by JFFalcon on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @10:07AM (#16584812)
Agreed. I'm amazed the comment got such a negative reaction. I can't think of anyone I know who would be happy about being called a chick, however casually.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by purple-again on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @10:24AM (#16584935)
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by tropdrop on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:31PM (#16587132)
You have to remember that a minority group will often attempt to reclaim a derogatory term as their own to take the bite out of it. A great example is the term "Yankee" back during the American revolution, but I am sure you can think of a more recent term this has happened to.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by sli on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @10:49AM (#16585100)
Nostalgia Chick is another one, though I don't think she does that actual show anymore.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by gaius on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:49AM (#16585599)
There used to be unixchix.com too, but I think it’s defunct
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by bunderbunder on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:38AM (#16585506)
There can be some subtlety there, though.

Where I come from (central US), "chick" is similar to "dork" in that it can, but doesn't necessarily, have derogatory connotations. It depends a lot on context. It's perfectly acceptable (though slightly cheeky) to call oneself a dork in public, but you typically wouldn't call someone else a dork unless you were already on very familiar terms with that person. And you would only do it in familiar circumstances. Doing it with someone you don't know very well, or doing it in public, would be considered offensive. Doubly so if you don't know them and it's in public.

Chick operates the same way, only it's got even more cultural baggage because it features in a lot of memes that are associated with sexism (e.g., the phrase "cruising for chicks").

So I wouldn't even dream of presuming that it's OK for me to call someone else a chick in public, even if I knew them to be a founding member of Chicks who Code.

I realize that the original poster was probably just trying to be cute. But, as John Scalzi famously observed, "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'."

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by astura on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @10:37AM (#16585021)
There's some who self identify with it, Skepchick and The Dixie Chicks come to mind, but it can be considered somewhat derogatory, dismissive, or at least belittling in some contexts to some people.

I think context and age matters a lot here (as well as personal preference) - young women and (especially) girls may use the term amongst themselves but middle age women almost certainly wouldn't, if you called your boss "chick," it would be seen as inappropriate, belittling and disrespectful. It's in the same category (but not "severity") as other diminutives like sweetie, honey, babe, girl, girly, and doll.

It may vary by region too, I know at least certain diminutives don't have the same connotations in the American South as they do elsewhere.

In general, you should probably avoid calling an adult woman you are personally unfamiliar with "chick" in many contexts, not necessarily because "PC police," but because it's just bad for communication - its not necessary and it can be a distraction from the actual message you're conveying.

Personally, as a woman approaching 40, I can't think of any context I'd care to be called "chick" in. Not necessarily offended but it would be just icky.

EDIT:

Some discussion:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19098/how-deroga...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/30/bird-i...

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by WorldMaker on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:09AM (#16585243)
Yeah, I think the issue is a casual/familiarity vs. professional/formal situation distinction more than a politically correct one. Dude/chick make sense in casual situations where one has some familiarity relationship with the other person. They aren't often terms one would use in a formal or professional relationship.

I suppose the interesting question to ask is does HN think of itself as more of a professional/formal discussion community than one that leans towards casual/familiar?

(I'd assume that the answer is that it probably varies with comment writer and both sides of the argument are represented here and have fair points.)

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by iamdave on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:04PM (#16586273)
I suppose the interesting question to ask is does HN think of itself as more of a professional/formal discussion community than one that leans towards casual/familiar?

I don't speak for everyone, I'm merely speaking in observation: the former is the status quo, the latter I have seen completely derail threads (we're in one one of those box cars right now) and in my own opinion, which is mine and no one else's, not out of maliciousness (or at least, rarely so), but because of the clash when subscribers of the first group run into subscribers of the second group...

and neither one wants to give the other an inch.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by SlowRobotAhead on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:33AM (#16585466)
I guess I wish I had so few problems and concerns of my own that I had time to be offended for people i don’t know. Especially on something so innocent and common.

Seems like a luxury.

[dead]
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by SlowRobotAhead on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:09PM (#16586330)
> I will presume you are a white male just because of the place we are in and your tone.

Ah, the only people it's ENCOURAGED to be prejudiced against while preaching tolerance. How novel!

You have no idea what I identify as, your comments just now in assuming my identify and race are far more offensive than calling out a completely positive mention of some chick, right? I'm offended now you need to change your mind. Those are the rules as I understand them. Oh but wait, you're literally saying you are of the "privileged class" so you can do as you please... ?

I like it, the full hypocritical double-down with a side of twitter "activism" where people shut their mouth not because of fear but because it directly benefited their careers and waiting to call it out did so as well.

Yes, I agree that you need to be concerned with other people's issues, like non-gun owners should understand an attack of civil rights at the plea of emotions is not in their best interest either. However... if your bar is set to "someone said the word chick!" well, congrats on solving all serious problems already.

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by iamdave on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:05PM (#16586286)
I will presume you are a white male just because of the place we are in and your tone.

I'm a black male, I happen to be somewhat in agreement with the commenter you're replying to here-because I happen to have felt that very sensation he describes in conversations very much like this one; that of people being offended on my behalf.

Why are you weaponizing race like this?

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mercer on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @04:53PM (#16588198)
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by mulmen on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @01:04PM (#16586276)
I actually call my male and female friends "dude". I've never addressed someone to their face as "chick".
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by cup-of-tea on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:43AM (#16584654)
Please try harder to leave it without a remark next time.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by phatfish on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:19AM (#16584537)
Its not derogatory, stop stirring.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by aje403 on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @09:26AM (#16584575)
What about "those chx"?

edit: jeez, tough crowd here...

Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by nurettin on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @10:52AM (#16585118)
This is not an entertainment outlet.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by aje403 on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:52AM (#16585630)
Your majesty, it's not normandy beach for (relatively) inane gender linguistics, either. Regardless, I would not want it on my conscience to ignore the irony of someone named chx lambasting another person for using the word chicks with innocuous intent.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by _jal on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @11:07AM (#16585223)
That is exactly what this is.
Re:Google bans cryptocurrency ads by iamdave on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:02PM (#16585711)
It's not Reddit but I definitely also don't come to hackernews when I'm taking a break from work for a few moments because I'm expecting to do more work.