The recent news stories about it happening in newsrooms and businesses should be no surprise when those stories were occurring with colleges for years prior. They learned they can take their heckler's veto to beyond silencing to the point of causing real damage.
People used to throw up the bogeyman of the religious right silencing the masses but instead we have the tyranny of the left to whom ideas are weapons and justification comes by laying claim that physical threat exists in mere thoughts and that justifies real punishment.
Be honest, I can guarantee many here are enjoying it to the point of glee but that is because you have been market researched manipulated by politicians into a certain pattern of thinking and reaction. Now that reaction is turning violent and it will eat both sides.
Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work, because these people have the power to have a significant negative impact on your life (get you fired, ruin your reputation etc).
Of course, black in this context refers to the transactions being performed in the shadows, and has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the participants in the market.
It’s all a bit absurd, but it’s also a trivial change to adopt.
And now I’ve offended adopties. I jest.
The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS, especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade. And what do you do when the new terms you've chosen all of a sudden become not acceptable?
If we agree that many types of non-threatening speech are no longer allowed, it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas, especially in high-stress areas like this one.
Imagine a medic who waits to treat a homeless person who has overdosed because they can't remember the politically correct way to refer to the person, and they need to radio into the command center first before they begin treatment. So the person dies because the stressed out medic couldn't remember the politically correct terminology because they were trying to work out the best course of treatment...
Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy?
There was no meeting required, the idea and action were raised and taken in the same parent post. Parent poster started with that type of thinking and avoided the halting problem.
>> The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS
Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end?
>> especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade
There's a bigger point can be made here, what if you're dealing with a topic you don't know well enough to navigate possible sources of offence? If you don't know, then your 2 choices are learn or ignore, it's possible that both of these are valid choices depending on context.
>> no longer allowed
"Allowed" is quite a vague term for the concept you raise - are we saying law against particular words or are we saying social norm and convention that can be broken in art, in protest, in challenge to the status quo? If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified.
>> Imagine
Or don't. Slippery slope fallacy is a real danger in itself to be avoided.
Is it? It doesn't seem like it is because...
> There was no meeting required
... GGP's comment started a discussion on this very matter, still ongoing, instead of merely accepting that the term "black market" isn't offensive... Which it isn't.
> Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end?
You don't find this whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine.
> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified.
Because people haven't been fired and/or had their reputations ruined even though they said perfectly legal things? The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so.
It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices.
> whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine
And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to do but it's your affair, i have no cause to dig deeper so i stop here on this particular avenue.
> The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so.
Agreed. Your argument
>>> it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas
was nullified by:
>> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words
A law doesn't make it impossible for me to use the words - i can choose to use the words but only at the cost of breaking the law. It's fair to characterise that as "almost impossible".
No construct exists with lesser severity than a law which exceeds the "almost impossible" test. QED.
Someone once said "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig likes it."
We? I’ve never. When did you fall for it and why would you?
They are after social capital so harm and belittle their social status as much as possible in return. Treat them like any other cowardly bully or predator and make yourself offically Not Worth It as a target because their capabilities will be harmed by the proverbial scratched corneas.
"Offended by the term Black Market? That is the offical term for illegal portion of the economy and this is about the ILLEGAL slave trade."
Are you saying in any context? That's not the proposal as i read it.
>> >> Could you just say
>> censoring
For censoring to be the case, it must be that you can't use particular words.
I read the case as
1. the GP's post expressing a desire to show heightened care to a reader
2. your parent posting a possible solution
They'd still not be censored though. Documents would continue to be written with the offensive terms by those who seek to offend. The words would be used in the socially unacceptable way in service of making a stronger point.
You’d have to recognise that the word wasn’t benign in that context first?
> So what should I do? Just shut my mouth and don't say anything? Then the slave trade will continue to operate freely... All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.
This especially hurts new commenters, whose credit is fragile (and who don't know the cap on down-votes). Which keeps the conversation "safe", and the lurkers quiet.
Cynical me thinks this is a reflection of a society that thinks we need to quiet (and punish) everyone who disagrees with them.
EDIT: Replaced "he" with a gender neutral term to be safe.
I don't think that's a good reason. You should downvote if you think someone is arguing disingenuously or otherwise writing nonsense that doesn't belong on HN. If you merely disagree, you should upvote instead, and articulate your disagreement in a reply.
It happens a lot here, and it doesn't reflect well on those doing it IMO.
I think it is wrong of HN to not have a disagree but great comment button, hence my complaint about it reflecting a negative aspect of society.
But, the common practice is to do as I described. Case in point, my comment was down-voted! I clearly agree with you, and am pointing out an unfortunate fact, but since someone don't like that fact, I lost a point.