News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The moral case against equity language by phlakaton on Thursday March 02, 2023 @04:19PM (#35002233)
This is great advice for one-on-one groups and small discussions, but provides little help if you're writing for a broad audience and want to minimize blowback. Which is where I think that Stanford guide, and other such guides, come into play, whether I agree with them or not.
Re:The moral case against equity language by kodah on Thursday March 02, 2023 @10:09PM (#35005331)
> but provides little help if you're writing for a broad audience and want to minimize blowback

Does writing a guide or policing language that causes blowback provide help? If you're speaking to a room full of people and half favor this language and half don't then you've only shifted the grievances from one side of the room to the other.

There's no easy answers here, but I don't think writing language guides or policing peoples language actually accomplishes much.

Re:The moral case against equity language by 78124781 on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:06PM (#35005689)
All it takes is one or two very angry people to start a mob online and destroy someone's entire career. I'm not surprised that authors, especially in a field as precarious as writing, are more than willing to follow what is deemed to be "safe" language, though it's definitely a loss for society as a whole and indirectly works to undermine writing as an art.
Re:The moral case against equity language by jimbokun on Friday March 03, 2023 @01:16AM (#35006411)
I think that’s becoming less true. A lot of recent “cancellation” attempts have failed.

Of course, it’s probably much more difficult for those who aren’t already successful and famous.

Re:The moral case against equity language by phlakaton on Friday March 03, 2023 @05:05PM (#35015678)
If it's truly 50-50, then no. But I don't see any way that a whole 50% of your audience is going to freak out if you change from "homeless" to "person experiencing homelessness," for example.

The guides are probably banking on most of the changes being accepted, however grudgingly. Of course, they may be wrong, and even if there's pushback, they may be convinced enough of the righteousness of their cause to press ahead anyway.