• Finkler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    My level of despair just keeps growing the more I see this complete nonsense going on.

    Stop the world this is where I get off ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    • criitz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Is it so bad to want to change the name of a plant from a racial slur to something else?

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They go on and on about a slur “affra” that I’ve literally never heard used. But it’s supposedly “super common”. Like, aren’t there literally plants called “removed heads”?

        From inaturalist.org: “Enneapogon nigricans, known by the common names blackheads,[1] bottle washers, pappus grass,[1] purpletop grass,[1] and removedheads,[3] is a perennial Australian grass.”

        It feels like the article is doing a lot of reaching when more obvious examples are RIGHT THERE.

        Instead it’s going “well this person was bad so this discovery doesn’t count anymore even though it’s the standard we applied to everything else”.

        It’s pointless nitpicking and virtue signalling. Naming a plant after something doesn’t suddenly make everyone who encounters it racist. It makes you racist if that’s your first thought instead of “well that’s a stupid name but it’s just a name”.

        Edit: Lemmy edited out the n-word, even when used in a scientific name. Funny that affra stayed…

        • criitz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          But really, who is hurt by changing the name of a plant from a racial slur to something else? Why are you upset?

          • fishos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            For the same reason most people who oppose this do: it will create multiple names for plants and sow confusion. Imagine trying to look up research papers. You won’t be just searching for the new name, you’ll be searching for the new name and every single name it was ever called to find all relevant research. You’ll literally still be dealing with it every time.

            It’s come up a few times with insects. Name changes and suddenly research papers get missed/ignored because they still used the old name and vice versa.

            And frankly, it’s a name. It’s just a word we attached to something to identify it. If that makes you emotional, maybe don’t be in science?

            The words have negative meanings because we acknowledge the meaning. Most people don’t know “affra” is a slur and never would have even considered it until someone else loudly goes “hey! That sucks!”. If you just ignored it, it literally wouldn’t exist. It’s going out of its way to point out something most people never even consider.

            • criitz@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Just seems like a weird hill to die on. Names can change. That’s such a smaller problem than being black and having to talk about some “n-word flower” all the time, don’t you think?