if there are any problems with scirate, please email scirate.mod AT gmail.com
I'd first like to point out that the Google image results return such images because they are of a person with first name 'Ancilla'. Clearly, if one is looking to be offended, they will usually find something to take offense at.. On that note, perhaps we should refrain from the use of Alice? The Google image results return a similarly 'oppressive' selection of images.
Interestingly, 'Ancilla' is also the name of a genus of gastropod ([Wikipedia][1]). Is it too late to change the Zoology textbooks?
My biggest problem with *this* comment is the implicit suggestion that the original author should remain silent by virtue of their group membership. For somebody who presumably eschews the use of discrimination based on membership to some group, this is hypocritical, to say the least.
On a more constructive note, might I suggest that we take a more scientific approach to the problem? Before jumping to conclusions and acting in ways that simply make us feel good about ourselves, how about we find out if there are any tangible consequences of the use of this language? I'd like to add that merely 'taking offense' is not necessarily a good enough reason to begin self censorship. For example, how would you react if a Creationist 'took offence' at a paper from evolutionary biology, and asked the authors to modify their work because of this, perhaps suggesting the use of some alternative language to make it less explicit that an omnipotent being had no part in the process? And to prempt the typically trite response one gets to such an example - we can make the Creationist a member of a marginalized group for this example.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancilla_%28gastropod%29
I'd first like to point out that the Google image results return such images because they are of a person with first name 'Ancilla'. If one is looking to be offended, they will usually find something to take offense at.. On that note, perhaps we should refrain from the use of Alice? The Google image results return a similarly 'oppressive' selection of images.
Interestingly, 'Ancilla' is also the name of a genus of gastropod ([Wikipedia][1]). Is it too late to change the Zoology textbooks?
My biggest problem with *this* comment is the implicit suggestion that the original author should remain silent by virtue of their group membership. For somebody who presumably eschews the use of discrimination based on membership to some group, this is hypocritical, to say the least.
On a more constructive note, might I suggest that we take a more scientific approach to the problem? Before jumping to conclusions and acting in ways that simply make us feel good about ourselves, how about we find out if there are any tangible consequences of the use of this language? I'd like to add that merely 'taking offense' is not necessarily a good enough reason to begin self censorship. For example, how would you react if a Creationist 'took offence' at a paper from evolutionary biology, and asked the authors to modify their work, perhaps suggesting the use of some alternative language to make it less explicit that an omnipotent being had no part in the process? And to prempt the typically trite response one gets to such an example - we can make the Creationist a member of a marginalized group for this example.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancilla_%28gastropod%29
I'd first like to point out that the Google image results return such images because they are of a person with first name 'Ancilla'. If one is looking to be offended, they will usually find something to take offense at.. On that note, perhaps we should refrain from the use of Alice? The Google image results return a similarly 'oppressive' selection of images.
Interestingly, 'Ancilla' is also the name of a genus of gastropod ([Wikipedia][1]). Is it too late to change the Zoology textbooks?
My biggest problem with *this* comment is the implicit suggestion that the original author should remain silent by virtue of their group membership. For somebody who presumably eschews the use of discrimination based on membership to some group, this is hypocritical, to say the least.
On a more constructive note, might I suggest that we take a more scientific approach to the problem? Before jumping to conclusions and acting in ways that simply make us feel good about ourselves, how about we find out if there are any tangible consequences of the use of this language? I'd like to add that merely 'taking offense' is not necessarily a good enough reason to begin self censorship. For example, how would you react if a Creationist 'took offence' at a paper from evolutionary biology, and asked the authors to modify their work because of this, perhaps suggesting the use of some alternative language to make it less explicit that an omnipotent being had no part in the process? And to prempt the typically trite response one gets to such an example - we can make the Creationist a member of a marginalized group for this example.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancilla_%28gastropod%29
Braneshop, and
the US National Science Foundation.
SciRate