Berkley to cease using gendered language like "manhole"

[Liriena]

Are you asking for evidence of 'safe space' and 'trigger warning' policies? Because they objectively do exist.

My, I didn't realize that there was such vitriol against things like the MPAA and ESRB.

Gonna take some toddlers to watch Antichrist to own the SJWs and their trigger warnings.

[GlobalControl]

It may seem like satire, but it's true.

Soon, there will be no more manholes in the city of Berkeley, California. There will also be no chairmen, no manpower, no policemen or policewomen.

No, that doesn't mean a whole city will be without committee leaders and law enforcement. It means that words that imply a gender preference will be removed from the city's codes and replaced with gender-neutral terms, according a recently adopted ordinance.

The city voted Tuesday night to replace gendered terms in its municipal codes, like "manhole" and "manpower," with gender-neutral ones like "maintenance hole" and "human effort."

The item passed without discussion or comments and was not controversial, said Berkeley City Council member Rigel Robinson, the bill's primary author.

"There's power in language," Robinson said. "This is a small move, but it matters."

The revised city documents also will replace instances of gendered pronouns, such as "he" and "she" with "they," according to the ordinance.

Berkeley's municipal code currently contains mostly masculine pronouns, the office of the city manager said in a letter to the mayor and city council.

"Having a male-centric municipal code is inaccurate and not reflective of our reality," Robinson said. "Women and non-binary individuals are just as entitled to accurate representation. Our laws are for everyone, and our municipal code should reflect that."

The city of Berkley, California, unhappy with how many times they have to use 'man' as part of a sentence, has now seen fit to scrub all official use of gendered words from it's vocabulary. 'Manhole' is now 'maintenance hole', 'policeman' is now simply 'police officer', and so on. We live in a brave new age of Newspeak where words that no one outside of the Berkley City Council was offended by previously must now be limited (I mean, seriously, was anyone really offended by 'manhole'). Obviously, I find this to be ridiculous as I don't see how the use of these common terms was detrimental to anybody.

Thoughts?

I thought for a moment of time, that when I looked at this, it'd be something considered to be at the least sane.
Before I saw the entirety of the title.

Frankly I'm not even shocked, and not disappointed.

I'm just amused.
Amused by it all.

[Galloism]

By the way, trigger warnings is just basic human decency. Like hey, I'm going to discuss rape so maybe you don't want to read this right now because it might bring up painful memories you don't want to relive right now. Is that so terrible? Is that the worst thing the evil cultural Marxists have come up with, just giving a heads up so people can decide for themselves if they want to proceed?

I mean, according to a recent harvard study, probably yes.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... lp-or-harm

A recently published Harvard study tackled these questions. Researchers Benjamin Bullet, Peyton Jones, and Richard McNally had participants read passages from literary texts like Moby-Dick or Crime and Punishment. But before reading these passages, half of the participants received a warning that read: “TRIGGER WARNING: The passage you are about to read contains disturbing content and may trigger an anxiety response, especially in those who have a history of trauma.”

The researchers found that being exposed to trigger warnings caused participants to rate both themselves and others as more vulnerable to developing PTSD. Trigger warnings led to no self-reported differences in anxiety between the two groups overall, but for participants who already held the belief that “words cause harm,” trigger warnings led to an increase in anxiety.

While this study provides some initial evidence for why trigger warnings can be harmful, it has a major limitation: It was conducted with the general public, not with traumatized participants. Since trigger warnings are specifically designed for people with PTSD or those who would otherwise be sensitive to upsetting content that reminds them of past trauma, more research needs to be conducted.

The authors of the study addressed this limitation in their paper, and author Peyton Jones said on Twitter that the researchers plan to do a follow-up study involving participants with trauma histories. But, the authors have also proposed that trigger warnings may be counterproductive for individuals with PTSD because they encourage people to avoid trauma. Research suggests that avoiding trauma, while beneficial in the short term, can worsen symptoms in the long-term. One of the most effective treatments for PTSD is prolonged exposure therapy, which encourages repeated exposure to triggers so that patients can get used to them and no longer find them upsetting.

[Liriena]

But it's still Orwellian in nature.

Is it though? Is this at all what Orwell was talking about when he described the ways in which his hypothetical totalitarian regimes manipulated language?

[Kowani]

Have you ever read any legislation? It’s inorganic already. And at any rate, it’s not like anything besides the maintenance codes are being altered.

The fact that a government body felt the need to alter it at all shows that those who proposed it find conventionally used language problematic, otherwise there would be no need to change it. That's the main problem here, not what was changed but the fact they felt the need to change it anyways.

I forget that English doesn’t have a regulatory body...

[Nakena]

I am using a lot of "offensive" (perceived) or just plain-old-fashioned language sometimes, and I've found out that it is one (among many) thing that puts sort of a cultural divide between me and some groups of other people. Its also a bit correlated to political leanings and age.

So yes language does matter. Different people talk in different ways.

[Nova Cyberia]

The entire notion of changing words that have been around forever for no other reason that to appease those obsessed with cultural outrage is a bit Orwellian to me.

And also funny.

>words that have been around forever

>modern English words to describe relatively new things like "manhole"

Pick one.

It's fairly obvious hyperbole, m8.

[Kowani]

>words that have been around forever

>modern English words to describe relatively new things like "manhole"

Pick one.

It's fairly obvious hyperbole, m8.

So, yeah, the Great Vowel Shift...

[The Black Forrest]

I don't know the Berkeley codes. I really doubt you will find "manhole" in them. Probably, called utility access points. It's what we called them at the government facility I was at.

The outrage is probably more about the reduction of the use of the word man.

Personally; I don't care. It's just words. They change all the time and have different meanings in outer countries.

Here for example; you might get a if you mention you are going to go light up a fag.

I honestly just don't want a guy trying to correct me when I use the old terms. The new terms don't bother me until someone tries to enforce change upon what terms I use.

Well? Sometimes it can be appropriate. When I was a kid "ball breaking" would include calling each other fags. It became muscle memory at one point. I had to really work at stop using it or referencing it....

[Camelone]

Language should evolve by the interactions of the people, and governmental bodies while using more formal language should do its best to reflect the vernacular in a formal well form. "

You know the French actually have such a body, but nobody actually listens to them. Which is why getting uppity about these kinds of things is always a non-starter.

Which is probably a giant waste of money if it's sponsored by the government. I more annoyed by the virtue signalling to win brownie points to be honest. But my points about how government should stay out of language beyond the formal usage for the understanding of laws still stands.

[Nova Cyberia]

But it's still Orwellian in nature.

Is it though? Is this at all what Orwell was talking about when he described the ways in which his hypothetical totalitarian regimes manipulated language?

I don't think Orwell really intended for everything that he was warning people of to align 100% with how he described it in his book, which I'm sure you already know.

[Risottia]

Wtf is this nonsense about policemen anyway, it's constables or agents.

[Purgatio]

A liberal-progressive cultural movement seeking to upend and undermine traditional modes of being, respect for traditional culture and religion, national pride and identity, historical revisionism and postmodernism, erasing distinctions between races, nations, genders, cultures etc, as evidenced by the 'safe space' and 'trigger warning' policies being pushed for so hard in higher education.

How is that anti-Semitic exactly? I didn't mention the Jews once in that

What does "postmodernism" mean to you exactly? Because every time I see this term it seems like an empty catch all for "all the things I'm against."

By the way, trigger warnings is just basic human decency. Like hey, I'm going to discuss rape so maybe you don't want to read this right now because it might bring up painful memories you don't want to relive right now. Is that so terrible? Is that the worst thing the evil cultural Marxists have come up with, just giving a heads up so people can decide for themselves if they want to proceed?

Oh, and it isn't the cultural Marxists who call the FCC when they hear the word "fuck" on network television.

I understand that postmodernism is a broader artistic and academic movement, but when applied to very specific disciplines like sociology and politics, postmodernism has the damaging effect of assuming that every aspect of politics and human societies is the product of a narrow and subjective perception of a tiny privileged and overrepresented group in society, projecting their perceptions into supposedly objectively-rational modes of human association, an extreme example of this being the application of postmodernism into the jurisprudence which has manifested in the 'radical indeterminacy of law' thesis of Unger in Critical Legal Studies. Obviously I'm not criticising, say, postmodernist art work or postmodernist music.

Trigger warnings have a very narrow place but can you deny they've been abused? I mean we have serious problems if, for example, in law school (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/trigger-warnings-at-oxford-would-threaten-academic-freedom-and-i/) trigger warnings start being applied to important criminal law cases involving rape or domestic violence, cases which a victim of such offences really needs to read in order to understand the positive law as it stands.

Also, trigger warnings have been shown to reduce psychological resilience to these same triggers: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/happiness-and-the-pursuit-leadership/201808/harvard-study-trigger-warnings-might-coddle-the

[Cappuccina]

Please make this retarded pandering stop. /thread

[Scomagia]

Are you asking for evidence of 'safe space' and 'trigger warning' policies? Because they objectively do exist.

My, I didn't realize that there was such vitriol against things like the MPAA and ESRB.

You mean those ratings boards that often deem gay sex or kissing as deserving of a higher ratings than scenes of ultra-violence?

Yeah, they suck.

[Camelone]

The fact that a government body felt the need to alter it at all shows that those who proposed it find conventionally used language problematic, otherwise there would be no need to change it. That's the main problem here, not what was changed but the fact they felt the need to change it anyways.

I forget that English doesn’t have a regulatory body...

Yeah, such bodies seem rather useless in my opinion.

[Purgatio]

Are you asking for evidence of 'safe space' and 'trigger warning' policies? Because they objectively do exist.

You have to actually demonstrate that these policies, by and large, are part of a "cultural Marxist" movement that is somehow being led by "liberal-progressives" (precisely the sort of people who could not be Marxists or apply the politics of Marxism).

Name me a "cultural Marxist" thinker.

First of all, when I use cultural Marxism I don't mean it to be synonymous with Marxist-Leninism. I use it to draw a historical analogy that the iconoclasm that Marxist-Leninism applied to the so-called 'ruling ideology' and how it oppressed the working class through 'false consciousness' is very similar to the similarly iconoclastic arguments and framing of the modern progressive movement and how 'traditional culture' systematically oppresses racial minorities, sexual minorities, women and what not, so the argument that liberals and Marxists aren't the same isn't the point, the point is drawing a historical analogy to show a similarity in the way of thinking between the two, but applied to different so-called 'oppressed groups'.

[Scomagia]

My, I didn't realize that there was such vitriol against things like the MPAA and ESRB.

Gonna take some toddlers to watch Antichrist to own the SJWs and their trigger warnings.

For what it's worth, trigger warnings harm the people they're supposed to be helping.

[Page]

Have you ever read any legislation? It’s inorganic already. And at any rate, it’s not like anything besides the maintenance codes are being altered.

The fact that a government body felt the need to alter it at all shows that those who proposed it find conventionally used language problematic, otherwise there would be no need to change it. That's the main problem here, not what was changed but the fact they felt the need to change it anyways.

Either people will start using the alternative terms or they won't, either way, so be it. Language is constantly evolving and ultimately popular consensus is its only judge.

Language should evolve by the interactions of the people, and governmental bodies while using more formal language should do its best to reflect the vernacular in a formal well form. It's an ideological fueled move to change perfectly accept words, I mean if people naturally began to change what they called something I'm fine with that but a government changing the language of their texts for purely ideological reasons is something I am firmly against even if it something trivial like this. Granted I understand this is pure virtue signaling but its still annoying and well worth a "You got to be kidding me?"

There are far worse examples of governments trying to change language like enhanced interrogation (torture), civil asset forfeiture (robbery) , and whatever euphemism they're currently using for kidnapping migrant children. The manhole thing wouldn't rank high on my list. But sure, it can be worth a "you've got to be kidding me." Like I said, I'm probably the most left-wing person here and I don't even care about manholes.

[Liriena]

You have to actually demonstrate that these policies, by and large, are part of a "cultural Marxist" movement that is somehow being led by "liberal-progressives" (precisely the sort of people who could not be Marxists or apply the politics of Marxism).

Name me a "cultural Marxist" thinker.

First of all, when I use cultural Marxism I don't mean it to be synonymous with Marxist-Leninism.

You clearly don't mean it to be synonymous with any Marxism whatsoever. Because, again, you're calling it a movement of "liberal-progressives".

This is basic.

I use it to draw a historical analogy that the iconoclasm that Marxist-Leninism applied to the so-called 'ruling ideology' and how it oppressed the working class through 'false consciousness' is very similar to the similarly iconoclastic arguments and framing of the modern progressive movement and how 'traditional culture' systematically oppresses racial minorities, sexual minorities, women and what not, so the argument that liberals and Marxists aren't the same isn't the point, the point is drawing a historical analogy to show a similarity in the way of thinking between the two, but applied to different so-called 'oppressed groups'.

So it's a cheap guilt-by-association tactic. Red-baiting with an added coat of pretentious paint.

Walter Benjamin is rolling in his grave.

[Nakena]

Gonna take some toddlers to watch Antichrist to own the SJWs and their trigger warnings.

For what it's worth, trigger warnings harm the people they're supposed to be helping.

It's promoting a bad mindset. One that gets hyperreactive to "triggers". Same happens btw on the alt-right where the hyperreactivity is however focussed on detecting supposed attacks on western culture etc.

[Page]

My, I didn't realize that there was such vitriol against things like the MPAA and ESRB.

Gonna take some toddlers to watch Antichrist to own the SJWs and their trigger warnings.

I regret seeing Antichrist. I never even blinked at the Saw movies and was only slightly disturbed by mother! and Hereditary, but Antichrist was something else...

[Liriena]

Gonna take some toddlers to watch Antichrist to own the SJWs and their trigger warnings.

For what it's worth, trigger warnings harm the people they're supposed to be helping.

Yes, I've seen Gallo cite some research on that.

But that's kind of besides the point.

[Kowani]

I forget that English doesn’t have a regulatory body...

Yeah, such bodies seem rather useless in my opinion.

Meh. Our RAE is pretty open-minded.

[Purgatio]

First of all, when I use cultural Marxism I don't mean it to be synonymous with Marxist-Leninism.

You clearly don't mean it to be synonymous with any Marxism whatsoever. Because, again, you're calling it a movement of "liberal-progressives".

This is basic.

I use it to draw a historical analogy that the iconoclasm that Marxist-Leninism applied to the so-called 'ruling ideology' and how it oppressed the working class through 'false consciousness' is very similar to the similarly iconoclastic arguments and framing of the modern progressive movement and how 'traditional culture' systematically oppresses racial minorities, sexual minorities, women and what not, so the argument that liberals and Marxists aren't the same isn't the point, the point is drawing a historical analogy to show a similarity in the way of thinking between the two, but applied to different so-called 'oppressed groups'.

So it's a cheap guilt-by-association tactic. Red-baiting with an added coat of pretentious paint.

Walter Benjamin is rolling in his grave.

What? Its not guilt by association. I'm not accussing progressives of wanting to seize the means of production or anything like that. I'm pointing out however that it comes from a similarly poisonous mentality of blind iconoclasms and wanting to tear down all traditional modes of thinking and being on vague aspersions that traditional institutions reinforce an ideology that oppresses certain groups of people until that ideology is destroyed in some way.