Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Patronizing Language (Issue 232) #237

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Apr 25, 2023
Merged

Patronizing Language (Issue 232) #237

Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
374baa6
changes to patronizing language
wareid Feb 8, 2023
429314e
clarifying the language
wareid Mar 27, 2023
442316a
fixing example
wareid Mar 29, 2023
698299a
added definition to glossary and clarified example
wareid Apr 21, 2023
55f04ed
edit definition
wareid Apr 24, 2023
8c0d884
fix spelling error
wareid Apr 24, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
33 changes: 11 additions & 22 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -318,41 +318,30 @@ <h3 id="unacceptablebehavior">
<li>Use of coded language (also known as "dog whistles") used to
rally support for hate groups or to intimidate vulnerable groups.
</li>
<li>Patronizing language or behavior:
<ul>
<li>Intentionally or unintentionally making assumptions about the skills or knowledge of others, such as using language that implies the audience is uninformed on a topic (e.g. interjections like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]").
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. Making unfounded assumptions about the skills of others is more an example of prejudice than of patronizing behavior, so I don't think it belongs here.

  2. The phrase "using language that implies the audience is uninformed" is problematic as an example of patronizing behavior, because a speaker should always set the context and define jargon, even though doing so literally implies that the audience is uninformed on the topic. (If the audience were fully informed about the speaker's topic, there would be no point in the speaker presenting that topic!) The point is that neutrally assuming that an audience is uniformed does not constitute patronizing behavior. There needs to be an element of insult -- even if subtle -- to constitute patronizing behavior.

  3. I suggest changing this whole "Patronizing language or behavior" section to:

Patronizing language or behavior, such as using language that insultingly implies the audience is uninformed on a topic, e.g., making statements like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]".

</li>
<li>Assuming that particular groups of people are technically unskilled due to their characteristics (e.g., “So easy your grandmother could do it”).
Copy link
Contributor

@swickr swickr Apr 11, 2023 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/your grandmother/someone with different experience/

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I'd much rather explain why this particular example is problematic than try to change it. This is a pretty common colloquialism too, changing it would take some of the familiarity away.

</li>
<li>Interrupting or repeatedly commenting in conversations with unneccessary clarifications or comments on audience behaviour (e.g. "I don't think you understood my previous comment...", grammar or language corrections that were not invited).</li>
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. This is more an example of boorishness or rudeness than of patronizing behavior. I don't think it's a good example to include here.

  2. "I don't think you understood my previous comment" seems to me like a completely appropriate statement for someone to make if that person is feeling not understood, so if it is offered as an example of patronizing behavior I think it needs context to clarify why.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would be strongly opposed to removing this. This is very very common in practice, and it needs to be called out here. It is not just boorish or rude; particularly when repeated, it encourages bad conduct.

</ul>
</li>
<li>Microaggressions, which are small comments or questions, either
intentional or unintentional, that marginalize people by
communicating hostile, derogatory, or negative beliefs. Examples
include:
<ul>
<li>Patronizing language or behavior:
<ul>
<li>Be aware that, regardless of the speaker's intentions,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm concerned about dropping this bullet entirely. I think point out that there are some comment triggers/identifiers of patronizing language can be illuminating. I probably used to say "well actually" a lot. I don't anymore. :)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also think the "Well, actually" example is useful to include, because it helps to alert the reader to the existence of terms that may be neutral to the speaker, but nonetheless are triggers to some groups.

Since it is not possible to know all trigger phrases for all possible groups, I think it is helpful to sensitize the reader to be on the lookout for them. That example helped to raise my awareness in a way that a general statement would not.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed "well, actually" because:

  1. It's not the only trigger phrase, but listing them all would be impossible, and not particularly helpful
  2. I can name more times I've been personally patronized to without the use of that phrase than with it
  3. In my experience with CEPC, putting in examples of things tends to lead to people using those examples as excuses for their behaviour ("I can't have been patronizing, it's not like I said 'well, actually...'")

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

["Well, actually" is] not the only trigger phrase, but listing them all would be impossible, and not particularly helpful

I agree that listing all of them would be impossible, and I can see that they don't help with the enforcement role of the document, but I think one or two examples are still helpful for educational purposes -- especially examples (like "Well, actually") that may not be widely known, though I think it's important to explain them. I think that helps alert the reader to be on the lookout for new ones that the reader may not know about. Both the "Well, actually" and "thug" examples were eye opening to me (as one data point). And once I researched those terms on the web, it was clear that I was not at all alone in being unaware of their offensive interpretation to some.

I can name more times I've been personally patronized to without the use of that phrase than with it.

Agreed.

In my experience with CEPC, putting in examples of things tends to lead to people using those examples as excuses for their behaviour ("I can't have been patronizing, it's not like I said 'well, actually...'")

Interesting point. But rather than removing examples, how about addressing that issue head-on? How about adding something like the following in the list of Unacceptable behaviors:

Feigning a lack of understanding of this code, such as pretending not to understand that examples of unacceptable behavior are merely examples, and do not constitute an exhaustive list of unacceptable behaviors.

some phrases or constructions lead people to expect a
patronizing statement to follow, and avoid such phrases. For
example, beginning an interjection with "Well, actually..."
can set this expectation and be taken as a sign of
disrespect.
</li>
<li>Assuming without asking that particular people or groups
need concepts defined or explained to them. It’s great to be
sensitive to the fact that people may not be familiar with
technical terms you use every day, but assuming that people
are uninformed can come across as patronizing.
</li>
<li>Assuming that particular groups of people are technically
unskilled (e.g., “So easy your grandmother could do it”).
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Repeatedly interrupting or talking over someone else.
</li>
<li>Feigning surprise at someone’s lack of knowledge or awareness
about a topic.
</li>
<li>The use of racially charged language to describe an
individual or thing (such as “thug” or “ghetto”).
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with removing these examples from this particular bullet, but I think it would be helpful to include "thug" elsewhere, as an example of a trigger term, as suggested in PR #238 .

I find "thug" to be a good example of a term that historically was neutral -- and still is for many people -- but for some now carries racial overtones. I think it's helpful to alert people to such examples.

individual or thing.
</li>
<li>Referring to an individual in a way that <a>demeans</a> or
challenges the validity of their racial identity.
challenges the validity of any part of their identity.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Love this.

</li>
<li>Mocking someone’s real or perceived accent or first language.
</li>
Expand Down