Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by Sarkus, May 1, 2022.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    It's a matter of respect, and labelling the person as the problem doesn't do that.
    They do have the rights. If you disagree, which rights do you think they lack?
    You stated that they were not equal. Being equal is to be afforded all the rights that everyone else is afforded. If you do not think they are equal you must think that either they have additional rights, or that they lack rights (i.e. have had some taken away). So which is it?
    Because to many that stresses the problem over the person.
    More respectful.
    Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but in my experience it matters to those you're referring to. But we disagree, and that's okay.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    The thing to bear in mind is that even corrective revisions in language that try to reduce microaggressions can ironically be deemed bad or offensive words themselves in the future. As a result of the Compassionate Community reciprocally reacting to its own products and fashionable trends -- or performing the next iterative Marxist analysis on the current situation.

    So you have to stay updated on the changes.

    For instance, the student patrol at Brandeis University released an updated list of verboten words and phrases last year which put the taboo on formerly acceptable terms like “victim,” “addict,” “survivor,” “tribe,” “picnic,” and the phrase “people of color.”

    So there are items that you might have formerly felt were not only "safe" but perhaps endorsed, but now they are not (or in the process of working their way up from campus-level complaints to Establishment recognition as being harmful).

    To top it off, "trigger warning" itself is now deemed questionable because:

    "Warning can signify that something is imminent or guaranteed to happen, which may cause additional stress about the content to be covered. We can also never guarantee that someone will not be triggered during a conversation or training; people's triggers vary widely. "Content note" [the replacement] allows the same message to be conveyed, sharing details about the information/topics to come, without implying it is an exhaustive list or implying that someone is certain to be triggered." (from the violent language list)​

    Here's part of the opening page intro:

    Suggested Language List

    Brandeis University is deeply committed to free speech and free expression as articulated in our principles of free expression. The administration worked with the students who developed the Suggested Word List to find an appropriate, non-university platform for the list, as it does not represent university policy. The students have now established an independent webpage through which to share their word list with interested parties.

    And here are the categories of the "harmful words" list at the student site, which may or not have been updated again since then:


    The bottom line is don't take things for granted and assume that what was "proper language" five years ago is still the case now. The fight against cultural hegemony and systemic racism is not static -- it is an evolving struggle against oppressive evil.

    Even using “person-first language” to “resist defining people by just one thing about them” could flip in the future for _X_ reason.
    - - - - -


    In the context of trans-orthodoxy, expressions such as “Female-identifying,” “Male-identifying,” “Female-bodied,” and “Male-bodied” are now verboten since they “imply that a person’s identity isn’t ‘real’ or that their body defines them in a different way than they might identify.”

    And of course older “ableist language” should have already been sent to the trash bin for its insensitivity... Like “crazy,” “wild,” “insane,” and “lame.” Even “walk-in” might “trivialize” the “experiences of people living mental health conditions.” Phrases like “long time no see” and “no can do” also “originate from stereotypes making fun of non-native English speakers.”

    - - - - - -
    Last edited: May 5, 2022
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Nobody is labelling them as the problem.
    Two hundred years ago, "people experiencing slavery" did not have the right to vote. You can scream to the high heavens that they "should" have the right to vote but the fact remains that they did not have the right to vote.

    In many places "people experiencing wheelchairs" do not have ramps. You can say they "should" have ramps, but that doesn't provide them with ramps. You can say the have a right to ramps but that doesn't provide them with ramps.
    Don't confuse "should be" with "are". Women should be equal but are not. People of color should be equal but are not.
    Exactly. Women are not afforded all of the rights that they should be. People of color are not afforded all of the rights that they should be.
    Again, don't confuse "should be" with "are".
    In my experience, it does not matter to homeless people whether they are called "homeless people" or "people experiencing homelessness".
    I don't think we do disagree by much.

    My only contention in this thread is that "homeless people" --> "people experiencing homelessness" is a useless change.
    Sarkus likes this.
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Here is my reply, using only "safe" language:
    DaveC426913 and C C like this.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    In my time, the idea of political correctness has run at least two simultaneous courses. These are the one that actually makes linguistic sense, which isn't always apparent in the discussion, and the politically controversial caricature, a sosobra contrived explicitly for the burning. I can find a 2013 run-through of this bit about crazy, wild, insane, and lame; these suggestions emerge through particular interests, and would expect to purify and ossify the language for whatever unrealistic reasons—one version of the list reached back to someone's blog about autism. This is hardly definitive of "political correctness" or any cohesive progressive assertion.

    Meanwhile, consider the present thread; see Motor Daddy at #60↑, "then they have a SPECIAL NEED for a wheelchair ramp", and Sarkus at #61↑, "their 'need' is to get in to a house". Now, here's a small detail, but think about it: I live in a maritime region, and am accustomed to marina pier gangways. And while it is true, "stairs are for able-bodied", so are ramps.

    But before anyone frets that I might be complaining that Sarkus or anyone else has overlooked the prospect of building all houses with ramps, it's easy enough to stop and think about why stairs are such an obvious tool. Ramps take up a lot of space compared to steps. By the time we get around to discussing house and lot sizes, and start taking turns blaming capitalism, well, right, now we're talking ableism.

    (Related: Americans have a hard time understanding that what we really need to do is build upward; part of our problem is our sprawl, but that is its own discussion. Vis à vis ableism, meanwhile, the electricity will occasionally fail, and we need to be able to house people in wheelchairs above street level. It's one thing to have a ramp, and even a solution for getting rollers up to their apartments when the power fails, but for the able-bodied, stairs might be useful, compared to walking four to five times farther just to carry groceries to the fifth floor. And if we stop to wonder why these sorts of engineering challenges must be viewed as extraneous problems, well, we're probably right back to blaming capitalism.)​

    There are reasons why a certain level of ableism is woven into the language, and even in the case of insults like idiot and moron, yes, people will not cease to dispute and doubt each other's comptency, so by the time we get to crazy, insane, and wild, I'm perfectly willing to suggest it is a matter of priorities: We can get around to that when circumstance informs that we must. Just like we finally got around to addressing ageism↑ in the United States when we decided that what was really necessary for the sake of the economy and therefore the society was that retired people should go back to work. We still haven't properly countenanced LFD, though.

    And, hey, there's a good wonderfully reckless way to turn back toward↑ the topic: Compared to LFD, I can promise taliswoman is not the problem, here.
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    "Last Fuckable Day"↱, the colloquial name for a tacit male-chauvinist Hollywood benchmark at which an actress is considered no longer believably desirable: "You know how Sally Field was Tom Hanks' love interest in Punch Line," says Tina Fey, "and then, like, 20 minutes later, she was his mom in Forrest Gump?"


    Ciccone, Carla. "Your Last F*ckable Day: Amy Schumer on Ageism". Glamour. 13 May 2015. Glamour.com. 12 July 2022. https://bit.ly/3v6gwUL
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Well TIL...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But there are women who are immune*. Does that confirm the trope or refute it?

    * Diane Lane, Helen Mirren, etc.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2022
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It's an ongoing discussion, and the notion will only be refuted by marketplace results.

    Think of it this way: Jack Nicholson doesn't have an LFD. The concept reflects marketplace superstitions about itself. It's not so much that older women don't have sex, but the way casting works, and it affects the course of careers. To the other, there are power players, but it is a dubious prospect of any useful discussion starting with the last time you saw Glenn Close's new movie and thought about what it would be like to tap that.
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    When was the last time you thought about what it would be like to tap Glenn Close?

Share This Page