Thanks for this. I think this illustrates the problems with prescriptive language changes in general. Even with the best intentions, if one group objects to common usage on moral grounds and expects a corresponding change in usage, it instantly transforms the majority of people who naturally adhere to common usage for its breadth of comprehensibility into immoral actors even though their choice of language wasn’t intended to carry any moral weight. This breeds understandable resentment, which is directed at the group that prescribed the usage change thus defeating its purpose. It’s almost a sure-fire way to sow conflict when all anybody really wanted was to be understood.
One of the big issues in this case is that the norms fluctuate from group to group and without any broad consensus it becomes very confusing, even to insiders.
This is true but also people don't like to change and I'm not sure we can make much progress based on that. Change is as often to be set when it comes fast as when it comes slow, see gay marriage.
On words to me, I think it is case by case basis. An acquaintance who worked with it used the term with albinism instead off albino to describe people and on reflection I think that it does matter. There is too much other wordly crap related to albinos. Nobody kills people "with albinism" for mysterious cures, for example. Same should go with lepers.
On the other hand, epileptics suffer a lot of stigma (I am one) but I don't think with epilepsy works better; it isn't specific enough to be scientifically correct but also it is the condition not the people that creates that out of whack stigma. Or to put it another way because it is so hidden, being epileptic is always known as a have condition so you aren't correcting anything, unlike leper and albino. (Dwarfism might need to join them, though that will be a hard fight)
And this is true of the rest. Likewise qualities of actual identity can't be unmade simply changing how it appears. This rule matters in the words now.
One of my pet peeves is that to often necessary cultural change is decided by people who are not facile in that field. Poets don't come up with new words. Artists don't come up with new images (or at least not the more talented). I'm convinced Kwanza would have been a bigger deal if some one who actually understood ritual and art etc. had created it and not political activists. Political activists are necessary but they like so many, don't value art, and so do it very badly when called upon.
>Some cases involve a deeper social meaning but the meaning is a matter of historical contingency, like ‘coloured person’ (outdated, offensive) and ‘person of colour’ (modern, acceptable).
I always kind of assumed that all these terms involve a deeper social meaning but that it was arbitrary. It's similar to how your use of "coloured" made me instantly clock you as a non-American. If I hear someone say "unhoused" I can identify them as someone that probably doesn't want to tear down the nearby encampment. It is true that there's usually some awkward justification for why certain terms should be preferred, but I don't know how seriously people actually take that reasoning. It's often struck me as post-hoc rationalization that shouldn't be taken too literally. But usually the explanation for why a term should be used will explain what the user's views are, so should be treated as such.
This is true even when the term is less accurate in a literal sense. For example, the term "undocumented immigrant" is often inaccurate as they have documentation (such as an outdated visa) and are not an immigrant (if they do not plan to move permanently). But the term generally has a more positive connotation than alternatives so should used (or not used) with that in mind.
As America becomes more polarized, this use of vocabulary as shibboleth is probably going to get more common. It's only been a month and Trump has already made mentioning the Gulf's name a partisan act.
Standup comedians make fun of progressives quite a bit on this linguistic issue. A more recent trend is for them to make fun of woke progressives in general. These are mainly *liberal* comedians. I could be wrong, but I think a good rule of thumb is "If the comedians start making fun of you, and their audiences love it, then it's a good idea to change how you're doing things". After all, the reason the comedians are killing it--with both conservative and liberal audiences--is that *the audiences are against how you're doing your politics*.
No I would never take stand up comics as my moral guides. They are people pleasers who tend not to be very kind to those surrounding them off stage. And people laughing are a mixed bunch. Trump's people laugh at pure cruelty.
Thanks for this. I think this illustrates the problems with prescriptive language changes in general. Even with the best intentions, if one group objects to common usage on moral grounds and expects a corresponding change in usage, it instantly transforms the majority of people who naturally adhere to common usage for its breadth of comprehensibility into immoral actors even though their choice of language wasn’t intended to carry any moral weight. This breeds understandable resentment, which is directed at the group that prescribed the usage change thus defeating its purpose. It’s almost a sure-fire way to sow conflict when all anybody really wanted was to be understood.
One of the big issues in this case is that the norms fluctuate from group to group and without any broad consensus it becomes very confusing, even to insiders.
This is true but also people don't like to change and I'm not sure we can make much progress based on that. Change is as often to be set when it comes fast as when it comes slow, see gay marriage.
On words to me, I think it is case by case basis. An acquaintance who worked with it used the term with albinism instead off albino to describe people and on reflection I think that it does matter. There is too much other wordly crap related to albinos. Nobody kills people "with albinism" for mysterious cures, for example. Same should go with lepers.
On the other hand, epileptics suffer a lot of stigma (I am one) but I don't think with epilepsy works better; it isn't specific enough to be scientifically correct but also it is the condition not the people that creates that out of whack stigma. Or to put it another way because it is so hidden, being epileptic is always known as a have condition so you aren't correcting anything, unlike leper and albino. (Dwarfism might need to join them, though that will be a hard fight)
And this is true of the rest. Likewise qualities of actual identity can't be unmade simply changing how it appears. This rule matters in the words now.
One of my pet peeves is that to often necessary cultural change is decided by people who are not facile in that field. Poets don't come up with new words. Artists don't come up with new images (or at least not the more talented). I'm convinced Kwanza would have been a bigger deal if some one who actually understood ritual and art etc. had created it and not political activists. Political activists are necessary but they like so many, don't value art, and so do it very badly when called upon.
>Some cases involve a deeper social meaning but the meaning is a matter of historical contingency, like ‘coloured person’ (outdated, offensive) and ‘person of colour’ (modern, acceptable).
I always kind of assumed that all these terms involve a deeper social meaning but that it was arbitrary. It's similar to how your use of "coloured" made me instantly clock you as a non-American. If I hear someone say "unhoused" I can identify them as someone that probably doesn't want to tear down the nearby encampment. It is true that there's usually some awkward justification for why certain terms should be preferred, but I don't know how seriously people actually take that reasoning. It's often struck me as post-hoc rationalization that shouldn't be taken too literally. But usually the explanation for why a term should be used will explain what the user's views are, so should be treated as such.
This is true even when the term is less accurate in a literal sense. For example, the term "undocumented immigrant" is often inaccurate as they have documentation (such as an outdated visa) and are not an immigrant (if they do not plan to move permanently). But the term generally has a more positive connotation than alternatives so should used (or not used) with that in mind.
As America becomes more polarized, this use of vocabulary as shibboleth is probably going to get more common. It's only been a month and Trump has already made mentioning the Gulf's name a partisan act.
Standup comedians make fun of progressives quite a bit on this linguistic issue. A more recent trend is for them to make fun of woke progressives in general. These are mainly *liberal* comedians. I could be wrong, but I think a good rule of thumb is "If the comedians start making fun of you, and their audiences love it, then it's a good idea to change how you're doing things". After all, the reason the comedians are killing it--with both conservative and liberal audiences--is that *the audiences are against how you're doing your politics*.
No I would never take stand up comics as my moral guides. They are people pleasers who tend not to be very kind to those surrounding them off stage. And people laughing are a mixed bunch. Trump's people laugh at pure cruelty.