[nonsince]

Genuine question - I hang around in some pretty seriously left-wing, often social-justice-obsessed circles and I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market, or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east. Have you got examples of this kind of thing being commonplace? I have heard people complain that people complain about these things, but never first-hand experienced people's complaints about language beyond stuff that seems pretty benign like "don't use ableist or racist slurs". I would say that I'd be the most likely to see stuff like this - I spend a lot of time online, mostly in leftist and social justice circles, and most of my friend group in the real world aren't too different. I think that the idea that free speech is under attack is entirely a fabrication, and the idea that people get "offended" at this stuff is no more real. The term "triggered", which is so often used by the right to refer to people offended over nothing, is a term specifically referring to people with PTSD or trauma. You'd understand that they might want to be careful with subjects that might "trigger" them - i.e. set off episodes of PTSD - and when people give content or trigger warnings that's what they're talking about. No-one who liberals and the right might call a SJW cares about "offensive" content, and if anything leftist and social justice circles LOVE offensive content, they just hate when people openly and deliberately punch down. It is definitely true that leftists will criticise use of language, but when they do it's often that there's a good reason that is deliberately ignored by those who rail against this criticism (see use of "retard" or "spastic", or the fact that "aspergers" is named after a nazi who wanted to commit genocide on those with autism) but this idea that it's arbitrary or that everything is offensive isn't borne out by reality.

[dependenttypes]

> I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market

It is not the most used term in the world. Why not try gimp, git, white/blacklist, etc?

> or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east

To be frank I was unaware that slavery was a thing in the middle east until I stumbled upon the GP's post so I presume that such a thought is not that rare. Are you sure that you just did not talk about the topic with your friends?

> I think that the idea that free speech is under attack is entirely a fabrication

This is probably due to your personal beliefs. I presume that you consider it free speech as long as your own beliefs are not being censored. Just in another post in this thread you talked about how firing that professor would be an ok thing to do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23638867

As for examples of free speech being attacked. Check out the whole Stallman case from last year, or the Assange case, or the Damore case, or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384 - there was even a case with a ruby github project not that long ago. I personally was accused of being a pedophile and there was a "petition" to ban me from a server that I dwelled on (by someone who was not even a member) because I dared to defend Stallman's right to speech.

> if anything leftist and social justice circles LOVE offensive content

As long as it is offensive against the people who they dislike, yes.

> there's a good reason ... see use of "retard" or "spastic", or the fact that "aspergers" is ...

It is not a fact of nature that there is a good reason to avoid these terms, rather, it is your personal opinion - accusing them of ignoring what you consider as a good reason when they do not consider it as such one is not logically inconsistent.

[joshuamorton]

> Are you sure that you just did not talk about the topic with your friends?

Note that GP mentions that they're involved in left wing/social justice circles. Many of those circles involve activism that extends beyond the US, so being aware of things like international sex trafficking, forms of slavery, etc. is probably more likely in those circles than in an average person.

> Just in another post in this thread you talked about how firing that professor would be an ok thing to do

I don't think GP said what you claim they said.

> As for examples of free speech being attacked. Check out the whole Stallman case from last year, or the Assange case, or the Damore case

Stallman wasn't about speech. He was a missing stair at best, and at worst someone who repeatedly abused his position to harass women. Are you going to argue that sexual harassment should be protected by the principle of speech?

I admit I'm not particularly informed about Assange, but as far as I can tell the charges against him are for soliciting espionage/hacking. In other words, requesting other people commit crimes for him (and in other cases for aiding in crimes). I don't think those things should be protected acts, even if you believe that Assange has been a force for good (which I don't). It's like trying to defend Snowden on free speech grounds. No, he committed crimes. Arguably the crimes he committed were done with a good moral purpose, but he violated multiple laws. Assange doesn't have the defenses Snowden did (whistleblowing).

As for Damore, as someone who spoke with Damore on his "document", I can say that from my personal interactions, HN gives him way too much credit. I formed my opinions on his document from my interactions with it and with him, prior to any media attention, and the martyrdom he is given is undeserved.

The UCLA professor is under investigation not for "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" but for refusing to self censor after multiple students requested that he do so (and he can't be fired anyway). It's more complicated than "he read a speech".

[bluntfang]

While I don't know anyone who goes off the rails on someone who about terms like "black market," I do think there are academics studying terms like these [0] and how they effect culture and society as a whole. I also think they would communicate in such a way as to say "Hey it's not cool to use that word because it promotes institutional racism, can we use another term instead?"

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

>This commentary addresses the widespread use of racist language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples include terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. The use of such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves to legitimize and perpetuate it.