Originally posted by Jedidiah
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Inclusive Language Tyranny?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostCan you read? I wrote "If I am unaware." If in a face to face situation I hurt someones feeling, yes, I would apologize. That does not seem to me to apply to the massive overall idea that if people are using ordinary language and someone gets their feelings hurt we must change everything. It is this society wide sort of garbage that I was referring to.
And Sea, if there are "many who are unaware of what they're doing" perhaps the problem is with the perception of the few, not the language of the many.
I do feel like there must be a balance if for no other reason that it's impossible to avoid all situations in which someone might harmed. I don't think the answer is to deny that ordinary language is hurtful, but to recognize that such harm isn't intended. It still requires a balance of adjusting the use of certain words when reasonable. The cost of changing our vocabulary is pretty negligible.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostYes, I can read. If you were made aware that you hurt someone, I've no doubt that you would apologize. However, being unaware of harm does not mean you're innocent of doing harm. It does apply to the massive overall idea, as you put it, because 'ordinary language' isn't an excuse. If ordinary language is hurtful, it's no less hurtful by being commonplace (quite the opposite). Claiming that it's common doesn't exonerate the perpetuation of it, especially once its hurtful nature is brought to light.
I do feel like there must be a balance if for no other reason that it's impossible to avoid all situations in which someone might harmed. I don't think the answer is to deny that ordinary language is hurtful, but to recognize that such harm isn't intended. It still requires a balance of adjusting the use of certain words when reasonable. The cost of changing our vocabulary is pretty negligible.Last edited by Zymologist; 02-25-2015, 05:05 PM.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostPerhaps he's referring to what appears (to me) to be the increasingly absurd justifications for people getting offended. If I'm speaking to someone and they say that something I've said was hurtful, then my response would more than likely be, "I'm sorry, I didn't know. I'll be more careful in the future." But could you agree that there's been a recent trend to apparently find all manner of utterly mundane, inoffensive things, offensive? "Microaggressions" might be a good example of this.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostYes, I can read. If you were made aware that you hurt someone, I've no doubt that you would apologize. However, being unaware of harm does not mean you're innocent of doing harm. It does apply to the massive overall idea, as you put it, because 'ordinary language' isn't an excuse. If ordinary language is hurtful, it's no less hurtful by being commonplace (quite the opposite). Claiming that it's common doesn't exonerate the perpetuation of it, especially once its hurtful nature is brought to light.
I do feel like there must be a balance if for no other reason that it's impossible to avoid all situations in which someone might harmed. I don't think the answer is to deny that ordinary language is hurtful, but to recognize that such harm isn't intended. It still requires a balance of adjusting the use of certain words when reasonable. The cost of changing our vocabulary is pretty negligible.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI disagree pretty much 100%. Personal face to face is in no way equivalent to the idiotic trend I see despoiling the society in the US. What happens else where I do not address. The only reasonable solution is to stop accepting that every little contrived offense matters. Do I get to outlaw the use of "old coot?" If not forget about it from my perspective.
I guess it is only bad if the liberals get called names, not if they use them themselves against others.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI disagree pretty much 100%. Personal face to face is in no way equivalent to the idiotic trend I see despoiling the society in the US. What happens else where I do not address. The only reasonable solution is to stop accepting that every little contrived offense matters. Do I get to outlaw the use of "old coot?" If not forget about it from my perspective.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI guess it is only bad if the [person in question] get[s] called names, not if they use them themselves against others.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostYes, I agree there is such a trend. I think there are better and worse ways of handling such a trend. Dismissal of the complaints because we're just using ordinary language is a worse way. Getting people to understand that most people aren't intending harm with their words is a better way, however significantly more difficult it may be. Most often the response I see is the same as what Jed has said: that we've always said this so there's not really a problem and people should just get over it.
Sure, some people might occasionally feel offended by things that ultimately are probably contrived or overblown, but that, again, is precisely why we'd like to be reassured that there was no real reason to be concerned about something. When you know you possess an inborn characteristic that for a long time was commonly and ordinarily used as an excuse to persecute or belittle or outright dismiss people like you who share that characteristic, and then people who share characteristics with those who inflicted all that upon people like you ignore your concerns and outright dismiss them with a "Just get over it," that conveys a deep, cruel historical irony. It's as if the circumstances of those truly bad times have changed, but the spirit of those times has been kept alive. Instead, please take time to understand where people are coming from, and if it indeed turns out to be contrived or overblown, just provide reassurance, not some haughty, dismissive, condescending decree to "just get over it."
You, sir, should be knighted. I almost want to kiss the ground at your feet.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Let me try something a little different.
I'm an introvert. I don't like to talk all that much, and when I first meet someone, my conversation is typically awkward, because I'm just not very good at talking to people. I'm very mild-mannered and all around a nice guy, I'm just lousy at making conversation (though I'm getting increasingly good at faking it). If I'm talking to someone and accidentally commit a "microaggression", you can be damn sure I didn't mean anything sinister by it. I'm just trying to make conversation. Poorly, probably, but I'm just trying to be friendly. Doing my limited best, and all that. If this person becomes offended because of an ordinary, typically inoffensive thing that I've said, my reaction would be something like, "No, that wasn't what I meant. I was just trying to be friendly; I'm sorry for the confusion." I would then likely never try to talk to that person again, and in addition I would be discouraged from trying to make conversation with people in general, because in my introvertedness it is simply not worth my time and effort. I'm already bad at making conversation, and if I am this likely to offend somebody by saying something purely innocent, then what's the point?
So if something like that happened, I would be as polite and respectful as I could in response. Then, I would just talk even less than I do now, and be even more uncertain of myself than I am now anytime I did actually talk. I would likely struggle with feeling a bit offended at this person's quickness to assume sinister motives on my part, because I'm naturally thin-skinned and offense comes way too easily to me (I'm working on this).
Because of the existence of "microaggressions" and whatnot, I am discouraged from attempting to be friendly, even in my own clumsy way. Is this better?I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostYes, I agree there is such a trend. I think there are better and worse ways of handling such a trend. Dismissal of the complaints because we're just using ordinary language is a worse way.
Comment
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostPerhaps he's referring to what appears (to me) to be the increasingly absurd justifications for people getting offended. If I'm speaking to someone and they say that something I've said was hurtful, then my response would more than likely be, "I'm sorry, I didn't know. I'll be more careful in the future." But could you agree that there's been a recent trend to apparently find all manner of utterly mundane, inoffensive things, offensive? "Microaggressions" might be a good example of this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seasanctuary View PostThe point of that Microaggressions PDF is to highlight some mundane things that seem inoffensive to you actually function as constant reminders of white superiority to losers looking to blame someone else for their failures."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
134 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
296 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
367 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:37 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
375 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment