language

“Hate speech”: an anti-concept

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language writing on by

The first time I ran into the term “hate speech” was on a mainstream political site that assured the reader that it was not advocating censorship but linked prominently to a site whose title was “Hate speech is not free speech.” From its beginning, “hate speech” has been what Ayn Rand called an “anti-concept,” a term that doesn’t define a category with specific characteristics but serves to obscure the speaker’s intent. The term is and has always been a call for censorship.

Hatred is an emotion and can be good or bad. Hating tyranny and deadly diseases is good. Hating people for their sexual preferences or skin tones is bad. Either way, it isn’t really the emotion that matters; it’s what people do and say. What’s actually wrong is spreading falsehoods, uttering gratuitous insults, using appearance as a proxy for character, making threats, and suppressing people with discriminatory laws and violence.

“Hate speech” doesn’t mean speech expressing hatred. In practice, it means “speech I hate” or “speech I want banned.” Saying “I hate spinach” or even “Fuck J.K. Rowling” isn’t considered hate speech. Grossly insulting everyone who registers Republican isn’t hate speech. However, I’ve seen claims that drawing a picture of Muhammad and saying “there are no atheists in foxholes” are hate speech.
(more…)

“The right side of history” 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language usage writing on by

Once again, let’s look at an expression which is loaded with meaning that most people don’t think about. Some writers use it without thinking, others because they’re promoting their particular philosophy. The expression is “being on the right side of history.” If you don’t support a certain cause, you supposedly aren’t on the right side of history.

What does that mean, though, and why do you want to be on that side? It’s an idea that comes from the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and its two bastard children, Marxism and Fascism. This idea, called historicism, holds that history inexorably follows a certain path. Your only choice is to go with the tide or against it.

If you put the phrase into your writing without thinking about it, you could be lending support to historicism without knowing it.
(more…)

Algorithms don’t need defending 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language software usage writing on by

I’m constantly annoyed by the statements that people ignorant of software development make about “algorithms.” They don’t have the least idea what one is, yet they think they’re competent to declare how evil an algorithm is.

Let me focus on one article, because it’s from Reason, which I expect better things of. The piece is “In Defense of Algorithms,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown. A look at her bio shows that she’s got the background to write about many things, among which she claims “tech,” but she doesn’t mention any experience with the computer industry or software development. She should have known better than to pick up this topic and put a dent in a record of excellent articles.
(more…)

Stanford’s laughable “Elimination of Harmful Language” document 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language Stanford writing on by

Some things are sillier than any parody you could make of them. An example is Stanford University’s recent “Elimination of Harmful Language” document. It was greeted with so much laughter that Stanford has hidden it behind a login screen. Fortunately, the Internet Archive still lets you see the document, so we can still make fun of it. Try to imagine writing an article adhering to its demands. It would have no color (oops, can’t say that — racist!), and the effort would leave you gasping (belittles people with asthma!) and drive you insane (insults people with psychiatric issues!).

It starts with a self-own: “Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.” Further on, it self-owns the self-own by telling you that a “trigger warning” “can cause stress about what’s to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.”

That last is actually the one piece of sensible advice in the whole clown act. Psychological experts have found that warning someone that scary stuff is coming only makes the reader more anxious. So naturally they don’t follow their own advice.

For the rest, I can’t do better than pick out some gems:
(more…)

More linguistic griping

This entry was posted in Commentary Techniques and tagged grammar language usage on by

Just some more miscellaneous complaints about how people abuse the English language. I’ll avoid ones I’ve already written about, and hopefully the items here aren’t the ones you usually see. To vary things a bit, I’ll include some alleged corrections which I disagree with.

“Free reign.” The term “free rein” means lack of restriction, letting someone do what they want. If it’s applied to a government official or agency running wild, “free reign” could make sense, but in general it’s wrong.

“LOL.” Laughing out loud is appropriate when something is funny or ridiculous, but too many people on the Internet stick it onto everything they say. For some, it’s a cheap way to score a point. Some people seem to think it softens what they say. It doesn’t.

“Illegal” as a noun. People do illegal things. There is no such thing, at least in the United States, as a person whose existence is illegal.

“Begging the question.” I’m losing this battle, but I’ll keep fighting it. Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming the point which is to be proven. Example: “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.” People often use it to mean something like “leading to the question.” Granted, expressions shift in meaning, but “begging the question” as a term for a fallacy conveys a precise, useful meaning that shouldn’t be watered down.

“Ad hominem.” While we’re on the subject of logical fallacies, here’s another one whose name is often misused. An ad hominem argument attacks the person making a statement rather than its facts or reasoning. We often see it used for insults in general. An ad hominem argument doesn’t have to be insulting; an example of an ad hominem argument could be “X isn’t European and has never been to Europe, therefore his statement about Europe is wrong.” (Technically, this item is about abusing the Latin language.)
(more…)