Re: [Terminology] We should avoid childish acronyms as well

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:43 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2022-01-10 17:20, Dan Harkins wrote:
> > Divining for offense is a popular pastime these days so the fact
> > that someone somewhere was offended by an IETF backronym should
> > surprise
> > absolutely no one. This really took off when the definition of offense
> > changed from intention of the speaker to how the recipient felt about
> > it and being offended started to be used as a cudgel. It's basically a
> > power-grab-- I take offense at your words and you must now grovel to
> > my satisfaction.
> . . .
>
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
> used
> to be a long-established cultural tool available in cases like these at
> issue.  Useful to help all sides of an issue maintain calmness and
> rationaliy,
> but I have not seen it being used lately.
>
> Tom
>

Victim blaming is of course a very convenient approach, if someone is
offended you can dismiss them for being weak and unworthy. If they were not
the person offended you can ask why they are making a fuss. So you can
defend people being obnoxious by mocking people who suggest being obnoxious
is wrong.


The whole point of this group is to avoid giving unintended offense. But
the argument you are making lacks understanding of just how powerful social
peer pressure can be and how it is abused to suppress dissent.

If you look at the information engagement literature you will discover that
the Tudor monarchs popularized 'Irish jokes' as part of a campaign to
justify the invasion of Ireland.

If you watch rallies by mid 20th century dictators, you will find they
spend quite a lot of their time making insulting and derogatory comments
about their opponents. The reason Trump has lost his hold on US politics
outside his party is not that he doesn't have access to Twitter, it is
because the establishment media refuses to repeat his demeaning attacks on
his opponents.