I don't disagree that language needs to evolve and change. But I don't know that swapping the words does anything to change the unconscious bias. I think a racist is still racist regardless of the language they use being explicitly about race, using coded words like "urban" or some other euphemism, etc. On the other hand I think someone's white grandmother that donates to orgs like the ACLU or NAACP says something like "we need to do more to assist colored kids get into college, have more opportunity...." is using antiquated language, but working in the right direction of positive social change.
So if a criminal justice department adopts the style guide and language but keeps the exact same practices, that makes a difference for reform somehow?
Equity-language guides are proliferating among some of the country’s leading institutions, particularly nonprofits. The American Cancer Society has one. So do the American Heart Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Recreation and Park Association, the Columbia University School of Professional Studies, and the University of Washington. The words these guides recommend or reject are sometimes exactly the same, justified in nearly identical language. This is because most of the guides draw on the same sources from activist organizations: A Progressive’s Style Guide, the Racial Equity Tools glossary, and a couple of others. The guides also cite one another.
It's calling out that a handful of sources that are cited in profession specific style guides that have referential loops, and are managed by a small portion of people. Based on the names, of these sources, is the activist nature appropriate for general style guides, or is it a dangerous tool of politicization of language? I identify as a leftist and progressive, but I don't think partisan orgs with this much influence and questionable methodology should set standards. The Progressive's Style Guide links websites like this as sources ( which is basically one journalist's opinion blog post): https://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-write-about-climate-pull-up-a-barstool/
Or this table from the source. How is "genderfuck" a professionally acceptable term, but "sexual preference" a taboo. Or slut or slut shaming is allowed, but only in certain context? Or we can't talk about metaphors of spirit animal since that is appropriation, but for gender two spirit is okay to appropriate? How does a lay person navigate this minefield of discourse without a masters degree and staying up on style guide updates?
Or this page on discussing Israel. Personal politics aside, this style guide has an obvious political agenda, right?
As for the euphemism treadmill aspects, we’ll never outrun that; language and meanings are always changing, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t. We’ll always need to be changing our language with time as language itself evolves if we want to have the same or similar meanings as before.
Yes, but as the author points out.
Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above. They haven’t emerged organically from the shifting linguistic habits of large numbers of people.
Something has changed recently where the language change has been too top down, and seemingly more about creating pleasant sounding euphemisms that either mean the same thing or obfuscate the meaning to make the term less useful.
Is this that crazy though for AI since Hamilton the musical? All founding fathers were portrayed as people of color in the casting. Google image search for Alexander Hamilton is pulling a decent number of pictures from the musical cast.
I understand. But I think from the get go of the announcement of closing the API's, Reddit had always discussed not wanting to be harvested by AI tech for free. The point is they saw the value of their user content, and wanted to establish a model to profit on that. This announcement is just that; they now have something in market to allow AI to be trained on it's user generated content.
They were transparent about it. AI and gatekeeping the user generated comments was the deciding factor to close the API and that's what they told the public.
I was running an edge router x until a few months ago. It was the cheapest set up to deploy a unifi wireless access point for my apartment. I was worried until I read:
It affected routers running Ubiquiti's EdgeOS, but only those that had not changed their default administrative password. Access to the routers allowed the hacking group to "conceal and otherwise enable a variety of crimes," the DOJ claims, including spearphishing and credential harvesting in the US and abroad.
Change you default passwords friends. Given that the edge router is not the most noob friendly device to set up, I'm curious how the user base of these devices is not changing the PW.
Curious, the article makes it sound specific to elementary school. How does age factor into rationale for this kind of opt-out? Is the grounds for this justification not sustainable in highschool or middle school when sex Ed is taught.
I think there needs to be better unemployment security and resourcing. I think there are certain jobs that should be let go over time. IE, if we get off fossil fuels, I would expect a lot of people to lose those jobs in fossil fuel. As we get more automation, that is going to replace those jobs. I think right now it's hard to determine what is reasonable or justified layoffs for business reasons, and what is really there to just pump the stock up. But everyone knows cable TV is going to die... I would expect jobs to be cut. Similarly Sky TV recently also had a layoff of a percentage of the work force. That primarily hit the technician team that was responsible for installing cable boxes in people's homes.
I am hoping one day we can have tax system that makes sense and is fair, and support a UBI eventually.
What I find kind of amusing about some of the comments on this thread are the communist leaning folks seem to parrot neo libs where the solutions is jobs for the sake of jobs.
But I think the argument here is a specific business lines are failing. Namely advertising revenue for Linear. Linear TV is cable. So as cable subs get cut, you can't just shift linear staff over to digital, because digital staff were already hired and working in parallel to build that business.
For the third quarter of 2023, Paramount Global’s revenue rose 3% thanks to its growth in its streaming and film businesses — but revenue in its largest division, linear TV, fell 8% as sales of traditional television advertising continued to contract (declining 14% in the quarter).
It's strange. On lemmy people hate ads. They hate cable TV. But you have to realize if people stop watching ads and people stop paying for cable, then people that work in that area will probably lose jobs.
you show up for 1 day, tell the judge (if you are selected as a jury candidate for a trial) your financial situation and they'll excuse you and say they will call you up at a later time.
I don't disagree that language needs to evolve and change. But I don't know that swapping the words does anything to change the unconscious bias. I think a racist is still racist regardless of the language they use being explicitly about race, using coded words like "urban" or some other euphemism, etc. On the other hand I think someone's white grandmother that donates to orgs like the ACLU or NAACP says something like "we need to do more to assist colored kids get into college, have more opportunity...." is using antiquated language, but working in the right direction of positive social change.