Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (3 Viewers)

[Nightjar61]

If we want to follow old world naming convention and precedent, we should clearly rename North America’s “Robin” to “American Blackbird” or “Rufous-breasted Blackbird” perhaps?

Ah, but then your blackbird isn’t really a blackbird is it? It’s a thrush

Dave

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

If we want to follow old world naming convention and precedent, we should clearly rename North America’s “Robin” to “American Blackbird” or “Rufous-breasted Blackbird” perhaps?

Robin Thrush

 

[pbjosh]

Robin Thrush

Robin Blackbird for me

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Robin Blackbird for me

Robin Batmanbird ?

 

[dantheman]

Robin Batmanbird ?

I remember the excitement I had travelling on a bus in Turkey to see a highway road sign for 'Batman'.

It was a bit of a let-down though - it was just the name of a reasonably sized town. (Actually it wasn't a let-down, it still tickles me to this day).

 

[qwerty5]

Indeed I am quite tired of the endless repeat loop of fatalistic hyperbole. There are ridiculous statements and poorly constructed arguments and a lack of logic on both sides but many people who I otherwise respect have made themselves look quite a bit less respectable of late.

I realize that these arguments are not being made for my entertainment but they also really don’t work, at least with me. If anything, they have led me to ignore the majority of the arguments against the changes because very few of them are argued without hyperbole or ad hominem attacks.

This is the case with basically every issue, hence the reality of Fox News and MSNBC. It seems most people are strongly attracted to logic-deprived, hyperbolic arguments, rather than reasonable, factual ones. I really don't understand why this is the case, unless it's that people like to listen to their emotions more than their intellect. At any rate, the result is that pretty much no one is persuaded by the other side, and we end up with a screaming match.

 

[Mysticete]

This is the case with basically every issue, hence the reality of Fox News and MSNBC. It seems most people are strongly attracted to logic-deprived, hyperbolic arguments, rather than reasonable, factual ones. I really don't understand why this is the case, unless it's that people like to listen to their emotions more than their intellect. At any rate, the result is that pretty much no one is persuaded by the other side, and we end up with a screaming match.

I believe there are studies that show that people are more likely to click on something that makes them angry then links of more of a neutral or even positive nature. So that sort of thing is going to favor media that aggravates.

Combine that with "twitter" culture where everything has to be reduce to a small number of characters, which allows no nuance, and there you go...

 

[Lerxst]

Many / most terms eventually will but as Mysticete pointed out, the term woke has pretty much been fully coopted as a pejorative at this point, for better or worse.

I could have and should have phrased my last statement better. What I was trying to express is that, whether the person using the term woke realizes it or not, and whether they are ok with it or not, many people will perceive them in a certain (perhaps not so positive) manner as a result of their use of the term.

Yes, understood, but I'll ask again. What term should we use when we want to refer to the political philosophy of the people who invented and use the term themselves? As in "Nine rules for the woke birdwatcher"... ?

I'd really like to know, because my goal is to find an accord, not make the division worse. I'm on the side that is willing to compromise, not the side that has demanded 100% capitulation.

 

[jhopkins]

Yes, understood, but I'll ask again. What term should we use when we want to refer to the political philosophy of the people who invented and use the term themselves? As in "Nine rules for the woke birdwatcher"... ?

I'd really like to know, because my goal is to find an accord, not make the division worse. I'm on the side that is willing to compromise, not the side that has demanded 100% capitulation.

It used to be called 'politically correct'. This is a longer way of expressing the concept but at least had the merit that those not speaking 'American English' knew what it meant.

 

[pbjosh]

I think it’s clear the meaning of “woke” has shifted tremendously, as already detailed by Mysticete.

In terms of labeling people, knock yourselves out I guess. I don’t worry too much about trying to label people, honestly.

 

[Lerxst]

I think it’s clear the meaning of “woke” has shifted tremendously, as already detailed by Mysticete.

In term of labeling people, knock yourselves out I guess. I don’t worry too much about trying to label people, honestly

I'm not interested in labeling people, but trying to refer to the ideology that is driving this decision. We have no choice but to affix monikers if we want to converse. If you want to see labeling go off the rails, visit the Bird Names for Birds site and see how often they use the label "racist."

 

[qwerty5]

I think it’s clear the meaning of “woke” has shifted tremendously

Has the meaning changed, or just the attitude applied with its usage? It seems that "woke" still describes the same ideology, but now the right has attached a negative connotation when they use it. This shouldn't be surprising, given that the ideology is viewed negatively by the right.

In terms of labeling people, knock yourselves out I guess. I don’t worry too much about trying to label people, honestly.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but labels are necessary, it's why we use nouns.

 

[Lerxst]

This shouldn't be surprising, given that the ideology is viewed negatively by the right.

And many liberals, such as Bill Maher. Some people want this all to be "W-word" vs. MAGA (another label some are quite fond of using). It is hardly that simple.

 

[pbjosh]

Has the meaning changed, or just the attitude applied with its usage? It seems that "woke" still describes the same ideology, but now the right has attached a negative connotation when they use it. This shouldn't be surprising, given that the ideology is viewed negatively by the right.

As I understand it (and I welcome corrections, I’m not expert) woke was originally something akin to “alertness / awareness / vigilence for racism / inequality.” My impression of what people want to say when they use the word these days is that it is a catchall for anything wishing to be labeled “liberal ideology” with a pejorative connotation of being frivolous and/or extremist.

 

[Xenospiza]

Yes, understood, but I'll ask again. What term should we use when we want to refer to the political philosophy of the people who invented and use the term themselves? As in "Nine rules for the woke birdwatcher"... ?

I'd really like to know, because my goal is to find an accord, not make the division worse. I'm on the side that is willing to compromise, not the side that has demanded 100% capitulation.

I think you should leave the use of the term "woke" to the people who self-identify as "woke".

In the eponym debate, try and come up with a term that is not politically loaded, e.g. "status-quo", "selective change", "no-eponym"?

 

[Lerxst]

As I understand it (and I welcome corrections, I’m not expert) woke was originally something akin to “alertness / awareness / vigilence for racism / inequality.” My impression of what people want to say when they use the word these days is that it is a catchall for anything wishing to be labeled “liberal ideology” with a pejorative connotation of being frivolous and/or extremist.

I think that is mostly correct, except for: (1) some people on the left still use the term to favorably describe their worldview (as in the "9 rules for woke birders" article - you realize that is a "pro-woke" piece, right?) and (2) it isn't fair to associate it with liberalism. There are plenty of classical liberals that are highly critical of what is called woke, because they see it as an illiberal mindset.

 

[Lerxst]

I think you should leave the use of the term "woke" to the people who self-identify as "woke".

Practically speaking, that is good advice. Which is why I have tried to avoid using that word here unless we are specifically talking about the word (which I would rather not do).

In the eponym debate, try and come up with a term that is not politically loaded, e.g. "status-quo", "selective change", "no-eponym"?

Again, practical good advice, but the entire debate is 100% politically loaded thanks to the forces that have thrust it upon us. The Bird Names for Birds site is a good place to start if you want to see loaded terms that will eclipse those used here.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I remember the excitement I had travelling on a bus in Turkey to see a highway road sign for 'Batman'.

It was a bit of a let-down though - it was just the name of a reasonably sized town. (Actually it wasn't a let-down, it still tickles me to this day).

There's a village in Nottingham, near my old home called 'Gotham' but it's pronounced 'Goat-am'.

 

[Brian J Small]

I'm not sure if its ironic or just amusing, to see the number of Brits up in arm over the changes. If eponymous name are so wonderful, why is it that barely any of the regularly occurring breeding birds of Great Britain use them? Perhaps we can retain history by having Brits adopt some of these eponyms? Townsend's Dunnock or Bachman's Linnet anyone?

You are in favour of change to US bird names, yet in your own taxonomy you continue to use eponym's - e.g. Pinon Imperial Pigeon - according to Wikipedia "Rose de Freycinet, born Rose Pinon, (1794 – 7 May 1832) was a Frenchwoman who, in the company of her husband, Louis de Freycinet, sailed around the world between 1817 and 1820 on a French scientific expedition on a military ship, initially disguised as a man. While not the first woman to circumnavigate the world, she was the first to record her experiences, in a diary. Being not intended for publication and being both frank and personal musings about people, places and events, her writings represent an important anthropological resource."

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think that is mostly correct, except for: (1) some people on the left still use the term to favorably describe their worldview (as in the "9 rules for woke birders" article - you realize that is a "pro-woke" piece, right?) and (2) it isn't fair to associate it with liberalism. There are plenty of classical liberals that are highly critical of what is called woke, because they see it as an illiberal mindset.

Of course it's illiberal, they are the biggest bunch of hypocrits, espousing free speech in one breath then cancelling and de-platforming people who don't agree with them in the next.

Sadly, the mindset seems contageous within and partially, without, academia and has certainly 'crossed the pond'.