Define the value and method for "conscious" use of language

[quaid]

Overview

Focusing on “problematic” or “offensive” language, while often accurate, puts projects on the defensive. Many times they have used terms unknowingly, or just because of inertia. Telling people, implicitly, that they are bad for those word choices, will necessarily make our work harder.

The focus on conscious language, on the other hand, demonstrates the two important goals: Choosing words that are the right ones to not drive away community members; Choosing words that are the right words to express the technical concept clearly and without ambiguity or colloquialism.

It also reduces the chance of a defensive response. It emphasizes the increase of good, rather than the elimination of bad. Words matter, and the words we use to talk about words also matter.

Changing words changes minds

We found that when someone didn't or couldn't understand a "causing harm to someone" explanation for changing a word or term, they often could understand an "it's unclear or inaccurate language" explanation.

It is easier for them to "understand" that a term is inaccurate or unclear, and they can consciously choose a better term that doesn't require e.g. non-native English speakers to look up what "run all the bases" or "basic blocking and tackling" means.

Once they have accepted the idea a word or term could cause confusion (a harm) for some people, they are one step closer to shifting in a different type of person experience and different type of harm to be conscious about. To go from "confusing because it may be unclear for non-native English speakers" to "harmful because this word/term has alternative harmful meanings for some people because of who they are."

It's a sideways way of getting people to think of the situation from another person's perspective, by having that POV be something non-argumentative for the person you are talking with.

[rbowen]

Unclear what the action is here. Is this a request for a page/document that discusses these topics? If so, where does that page/document go?

[quaid]

Unclear what the action is here. Is this a request for a page/document that discusses these topics? If so, where does that page/document go?

To me this is abstract to create understanding in the working team, in that one of the ongoing discussion is the format that a recommendation for a word or term will take. So we may want to include "conscious choice reasoning" that is more than focusing on one set of harms or risks. Or to have words/terms that are not universally replaced included in a list, with the conscious reasoning/choosing for their being included.

[celestehorgan]

Hmm. Can we put this on the agenda for the next meeting, @quaid, and do a bit of a collective brainstorm?

[markcmiller86]

A discussion of this during face-to-face (or face-to-screen) meeting time is potentially valuable but also IMHO a potential distraction. Further, I wonder if dialog of this kind may be better suited for slack than here, publicly, on GitHub. I don't want to suggest less transparency. Only that we have the space to collect our thoughts and come to a shared understanding among ourselves first.

[Aspie96]

I asked this on the mailing list, however it is relevant in this discussion (the readers of which may not be in the list).

Is there any actual reason to believe such words are confusing to non-native English speakers?

I am myself a non-native English speakers. English words don't usually have an intuitive meaning, they are just words to learn. "Blacklist" and "master" were never (to me) any less intuitive than the suggested alternatives.

I understand that's just my experience, but what is that claim based on? Is it at least based on someone's experience? Or on speculation (from native English speakers)?

If I am being honest, that seems almost based on a parody of non-native English speakers, if anything. There is no significant difficulty in learning those specific terms which wouldn't exist in learning any other technical term.