Disrespectful “dummy” not allowed in gRPC codebase(github.com)
github.com
Disrespectful “dummy” not allowed in gRPC codebase
https://github.com/grpc/grpc/commit/f4e55b85bca4f9fddab866f920c71c4c0a39a6be
6 comments
What a doubleplusgood idea!
Full regex of disallowed terms
https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/tools/run_tests/san...
https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/tools/run_tests/san...
Is this a slippery slope? I think it is a very fair question at this point.
> grand[\ -]?father\ clause|grand[\ -]?fathered
So saying the word grandfathered is "disallowed"?
I'm sick and tired of these woke morons.
So saying the word grandfathered is "disallowed"?
I'm sick and tired of these woke morons.
TL;DR: It's a commit where the word "dummy" (occurring in dozens of places) was replaced by "phony".
Looking up the etymology of "dummy":
> 1590s, "mute person," from dumb (adj.) + -y. Extended by 1845 to "figure representing a person," hence "counterfeit object, something that imitates a reality for mechanical purposes."
Looking up the etymology of "dummy":
> 1590s, "mute person," from dumb (adj.) + -y. Extended by 1845 to "figure representing a person," hence "counterfeit object, something that imitates a reality for mechanical purposes."
These remind me of "General Aladeen" replacing both the words "positive" and "negative" by "Aladeen"[0]. The scene shows a physician asking a patient:
Physician: "Do you want the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?"
Patient: "Aladeen"
Physician: "You are HIV Aladeen"
There are some words being removed because they are perceived as insulting or disrespectful, and that perception appears to stem from the fact these words refer to a "negative" property. Say, "moron", "idiot", "stupid", "dumb" as opposed to "smart", "sharp", "shrewd", "brilliant", etc.
That these words may be hurtful is not the argument. Wouldn't removing words that have antonyms destabilize language by creating a "linguistic void"?
Some words refer to an "absence" of something or the opposite of something. "Darkness", "cold", "unstable", "evil". This either creates a sort of "spectrum" of which they are the ends, or a dichotomy with mutual exclusion. These can be deemed as disrespectful as well. Would the language become impractical when amputated from words invented to communicate "lack of something" or opposition to something.
For example, if somehow the word "cold" became perceived as disrespectful, how would you describe an entity with that property? Not hot?
There are insults that carry their own weight, like racist or homophobic slurs, for example. They don't need or have an opposite/antonym. I was on a forum and someone, knowing where I am from, has used the expression "sand n-word". Now, the moderators deemed that as insulting.
Now, given that this "insult" was addressed to me and it's a composed insult, could I use the n-word to report it? One could say it is "tautologically insulting", and that the "sand" part is redundant. However, it is composed. Similar to a "sea lion" or "desert rose": without the words "sea" or "desert", we're not talking about the same thing.
One also could argue it is insulting because it is insulting, in a circular reasoning way.
However, there are insults that derive their "insult power" from their opposition to something desirable or positive.
Are there linguists here who could chime in? This is intriguing. Are there concepts that address "language stability" or "practicality"?
- [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU
Physician: "Do you want the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?"
Patient: "Aladeen"
Physician: "You are HIV Aladeen"
There are some words being removed because they are perceived as insulting or disrespectful, and that perception appears to stem from the fact these words refer to a "negative" property. Say, "moron", "idiot", "stupid", "dumb" as opposed to "smart", "sharp", "shrewd", "brilliant", etc.
That these words may be hurtful is not the argument. Wouldn't removing words that have antonyms destabilize language by creating a "linguistic void"?
Some words refer to an "absence" of something or the opposite of something. "Darkness", "cold", "unstable", "evil". This either creates a sort of "spectrum" of which they are the ends, or a dichotomy with mutual exclusion. These can be deemed as disrespectful as well. Would the language become impractical when amputated from words invented to communicate "lack of something" or opposition to something.
For example, if somehow the word "cold" became perceived as disrespectful, how would you describe an entity with that property? Not hot?
There are insults that carry their own weight, like racist or homophobic slurs, for example. They don't need or have an opposite/antonym. I was on a forum and someone, knowing where I am from, has used the expression "sand n-word". Now, the moderators deemed that as insulting.
Now, given that this "insult" was addressed to me and it's a composed insult, could I use the n-word to report it? One could say it is "tautologically insulting", and that the "sand" part is redundant. However, it is composed. Similar to a "sea lion" or "desert rose": without the words "sea" or "desert", we're not talking about the same thing.
One also could argue it is insulting because it is insulting, in a circular reasoning way.
However, there are insults that derive their "insult power" from their opposition to something desirable or positive.
Are there linguists here who could chime in? This is intriguing. Are there concepts that address "language stability" or "practicality"?
- [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYJ2w82WifU