Difference between revisions of "Talk:Code word"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
So what are we going to do here?  Ignoring the left bashers, temporarily? {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 
So what are we going to do here?  Ignoring the left bashers, temporarily? {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:I object to the mass reversion of my edits, some of which were made in accordance with the current consensus here. In my additions, I took particular pains not to mention the political views of the people using the buzzwords in question, who are not exclusively left-wing, not that this is actually relevant to the page content. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 06:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:I object to the mass reversion of my edits, some of which were made in accordance with the current consensus here. In my additions, I took particular pains not to mention the political views of the people using the buzzwords in question, who are not exclusively left-wing, not that this is actually relevant to the page content. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 06:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
::Maybe you'd best back off and learn to understand the complexities here instead of inserting even more aggressively flamebaitish content into the article. You've shown a pattern of taking complex issues and going at them with an axeblade. Ramping up the confrontational tone in a touchy article does not make you look good. [[User:EVDebs|EVDebs]] ([[User talk:EVDebs|talk]]) 07:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::I don't see anything particularly wrong with ListnerX's edits, and certainly nothing 'flamebaitish'.  A subject such as this will ''always'' highlight differences of opinion, but surely we can do better than to edit war and unilaterally revert? {{User:DeltaStar/sig|}} 07:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::Nothing wrong with taking politically slanted definitions and making them even more slanted? Not to mention the definition of "inclusiveness", which is just a flat-out lie (and no, I'm not going to argue over the details, except that as written it's just the standard paranoid right-wing straw definition). Also, I'm not sure "affirmative action qualifies as a codeword to begin with -- although we can't seem to agree on a definition, it is definitely a thing unto itself, not a stand-in for something else. I'm taking both out. [[User:EVDebs|EVDebs]] ([[User talk:EVDebs|talk]]) 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:08, 5 October 2010

Snarky, not obnoxious, please

  • Affirmative action - Like it or not, this just means racism. In some places, it is also referred to as "positive discrimination", which doesn't hide the racist connotations as well as "affirmative action" does. Although since the election of Barack Obama and the coining of "Affirmative Action President", this phrase may have changed course from a left-wing code word to a right-wing snarl word used to denigrate real achievements.

Okay, I'm not comfortable with the above entry, especially as it misrepresents the original aim of affirmative action. Is there a way to rewrite it in a less confrontational and loaded manner? EVDebs (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, you said it was "flamebait" in your edit summery, but I don't see any "flaming" on this talk page in the 11 months it has been there. --Onion Hi! :) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's only because nobody bit. Doesn't mean it wasn't intended as a troll. EVDebs (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
So you think board of trustees member Armondikov was trolling? --Onion Hi! :) 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you define "trolling" as "posting an opinion I, personally, disagree with", which many do. It looks fine to me, at any rate. Theemperor
The thing posted above barely makes sense, let alone provides a good example of a "code word". I think we should pare down the examples to a few very clear ones (like "family values"). ħumanUser talk:Human 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Human and Eugene - this is flamebait, or at the very least needless prevarication. Blue (pester) 02:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify -- it's flamebait because of the (frequently misunderstood) nature of what AA is supposed to do. The semantics involved are fairly complex but work out to something like "Yes, you are qualified, but so is that person, and that person has fewer opportunities than you do". Calling it inherently racist is somewhat misleading, as "racism" tends to imply some level of malice or hatred. (In other words, it's not what the entry says that's the problem; it's what it doesn't say.) EVDebs (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative action is racial discrimination. Although it is perhaps performed with good intentions, one is always hearing complaints about how someone or other did something that was well-intentioned but racist. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually not fond of "choice", "informed decision", or "open mind", simply because they are usually not used as code words (frequently even in a political context). Co-opting the positive connotations of a common phrase is not really using a "code word". Especially in the case of the label "pro-choice", where most everyone knows pretty well what it means.
As for affirmative action, it's clearly not just racism in the sense that not all affirmative action is even about race (although that seems to be the arena in which it always gets discussed). My understanding of it is as being analogous to compensating for a disability; setting aside resources earmarked for disabled people is discriminatory against the healthy, but the premise is that it's providing a service which only certain people really need to take advantage of. I think the real questions are a) whether quota systems really make sense as a way of combating racism, and b) whether the type and scope of the problem match the type and scope of proposed solutions. But it's far from clear to me that the only time a policy is allowed to acknowledge the social phenomenon of race is to point at it and demand "ignore this." --Quantheory (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both code words, no matter that many people now know the code. "Open mind" is also a code word, although I am inclined to agree about "informed decision."
Affirmative action is just another variant of the old Red bunk about giving the historical "underclass" privileges and watching the distinction melt away. We see how that has worked out. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I guess I agree about "pro-choice" in general, but "choice" by itself seems a bit vague. And if we keep "open mind", we could at least use a better example. I mean, people from virtually every group use that one, and it's not entirely fallacious (insofar as it appeals to the opponent to reject confirmation bias), although I do agree that it's a crock of shit in most contexts. But in order to be a "code word", doesn't it have to have particular groups that use it in an insider/outsider distinction?
Also, "Communism proposed something like this, communism is bad, therefore this is bad." is a stupid argument (specifically, association fallacy). Can you rephrase your objection in the form of something that isn't easily confused with this stupid argument? --Quantheory (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The communism argument was that affirmative action is directly sourced from a particular Marxist idea that has seen a limited amount of success. Right and wrong did not enter into it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So what are we going to do here? Ignoring the left bashers, temporarily? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to the mass reversion of my edits, some of which were made in accordance with the current consensus here. In my additions, I took particular pains not to mention the political views of the people using the buzzwords in question, who are not exclusively left-wing, not that this is actually relevant to the page content. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you'd best back off and learn to understand the complexities here instead of inserting even more aggressively flamebaitish content into the article. You've shown a pattern of taking complex issues and going at them with an axeblade. Ramping up the confrontational tone in a touchy article does not make you look good. EVDebs (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything particularly wrong with ListnerX's edits, and certainly nothing 'flamebaitish'. A subject such as this will always highlight differences of opinion, but surely we can do better than to edit war and unilaterally revert? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with taking politically slanted definitions and making them even more slanted? Not to mention the definition of "inclusiveness", which is just a flat-out lie (and no, I'm not going to argue over the details, except that as written it's just the standard paranoid right-wing straw definition). Also, I'm not sure "affirmative action qualifies as a codeword to begin with -- although we can't seem to agree on a definition, it is definitely a thing unto itself, not a stand-in for something else. I'm taking both out. EVDebs (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)