No Offense

[Left Coast]

Yesterday I read this piece in the Atlantic about "Equity Language" guidelines being adopted by all sorts of professional organizations here in the States:

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

The article makes what I think are good points overall about the silliness and even counter-effectiveness of this language policing.

As a society, we seem to be getting less and less tolerant of ever being offended or having to hear people express views we regard as backwards or unenlightened. Obviously it does little good for us to hurl nothing but insults at each other if we want to communicate. But we have reached a point of twisting ourselves into a pretzel to avoid saying anything that might be somehow construed, no matter how implausible or unreasonable it is, as offensive.

Thoughts?

 

[The Hammer]

The "Culture" war nad Language policing have gone too far imo. I know that language and such can hurt others, but we also need to toughen up when people disagree with us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yesterday I read this piece in the Atlantic about "Equity Language" guidelines being adopted by all sorts of professional organizations here in the States:

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

The article makes what I think are good points overall about the silliness and even counter-effectiveness of this language policing.

As a society, we seem to be getting less and less tolerant of ever being offended or having to hear people express views we regard as backwards or unenlightened. Obviously it does little good for us to hurl nothing but insults at each other if we want to communicate. But we have reached a point of twisting ourselves into a pretzel to avoid saying anything that might be somehow construed, no matter how implausible or unreasonable it is, as offensive.

Thoughts?

I might could possibly find some extent of agreement
with what you've posted, if I've inferred your meaning
correctly regarding issues of concern to so many, &
possibly contentious & triggering to people with other
perspectives at various degrees on a spectrum of
race, culture, ethnicity, religion, neurodivergence,
life experience, genetics, & physical characteristics.

Sorry for my bluntness.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Overall, being responsible for our own feelings while acknowledging the impact of our words and actions on others requires a delicate balance of self-awareness, empathy, active listening and communication skills. It's a process of ongoing learning and growth, and people will be at different stages of this process.

And through the wonders of global telecommunication we are bombarded by extreme ends of that learning curve at all times. I.e. people who 'your feelings don't matter' and 'only my feelings matter' are both unhealthy and loud positions that get a lot of spotlight just by virtue of being loud. And that can cause both a feeling of injustice in the former and empathy fatigue in the latter.

 

[PureX]

The "Culture" war nad Language policing have gone too far imo. I know that language and such can hurt others, but we also need to toughen up when people disagree with us.

There is a pretty easy and obvious different between a disagreement and an insult. Calling you "stupid and ugly" isn't a disagreement. It's an insult. Calling you "wrong" is a disagreement, not an insult.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to be able or willing to recognize the difference. They confuse who and what they are with what they think and do. So that when someone criticizes what they think, say, or do, they perceive this as an insult against who and what they are. And now that we are all drowning in a sea of social media every waking moment of our lives, this confusion has become omnipresent and intensified.

The solution is simple, but then nothing is simple, anymore, when it comes to cultural interaction. We ought to simply teach our kids starting from when they first enter the school system that there is a difference, and how to recognize that difference. So that as they interact in with each other in school, and more importantly throughout every waking moment of their day on a dozen different social media platforms, they will not have to feel insulted every time someone disagrees with something they think, say, or do. Or even when someone intends to insult them based on whatever that person happens to be thinking. The point being that ideas are not people, and opinions are not insults, even if they were intended that way. Because opinions are also based on ideas. One we need not accept them even if it's intended to insult us; as it's based on nothing more than someone else's idea.

But as we can see down in Florida, simply teaching kids things they need to know has become insanely complicated, convoluted, and nonsensical because the adults in this country don't themselves know how to tell the difference. And are too willfully ignorant to bother to learn. So there's not much chance that the kids will be taught anything useful.

 

[Quagmire]

Apparently we need an entirely new language with nothing but gender-neutral pronouns and idioms that don't actually refer to anything.

 

[Stevicus]

Yesterday I read this piece in the Atlantic about "Equity Language" guidelines being adopted by all sorts of professional organizations here in the States:

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

The article makes what I think are good points overall about the silliness and even counter-effectiveness of this language policing.

As a society, we seem to be getting less and less tolerant of ever being offended or having to hear people express views we regard as backwards or unenlightened. Obviously it does little good for us to hurl nothing but insults at each other if we want to communicate. But we have reached a point of twisting ourselves into a pretzel to avoid saying anything that might be somehow construed, no matter how implausible or unreasonable it is, as offensive.

Thoughts?

I suppose if society could enforce some measure of absolute consistency in this regard, it might be doable (although not necessarily desirable). But if it's a kind of thing where some harsh, mean language is okay and some is not - based on some kind of arbitrary or politically-charged standard - then it probably won't work in the long run. In other words (just as an example), if there are going to be those who insist that it's appropriate and proper for blacks to use the "N word," then there will always be those who are going to insist that whites be able to use it too, without penalty or social ostracism. People are getting more brazen about it and adopting more of a "screw you" attitude towards this kind of trend, which could potentially set society back and make things worse than they were before.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I suppose if society could enforce some measure of absolute consistency in this regard, it might be doable (although not necessarily desirable). But if it's a kind of thing where some harsh, mean language is okay and some is not - based on some kind of arbitrary or politically-charged standard - then it probably won't work in the long run. In other words (just as an example), if there are going to be those who insist that it's appropriate and proper for blacks to use the "N word," then there will always be those who are going to insist that whites be able to use it too, without penalty or social ostracism. People are getting more brazen about it and adopting more of a "screw you" attitude towards this kind of trend, which could potentially set society back and make things worse than they were before.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the N-word. I see it as perfectly understandable that most people view it as only acceptable when used by black people, but I don't know whether you're arguing against this distinction between black people and others when it comes to acceptability of using the word.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yesterday I read this piece in the Atlantic about "Equity Language" guidelines being adopted by all sorts of professional organizations here in the States:

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

The article makes what I think are good points overall about the silliness and even counter-effectiveness of this language policing.

As a society, we seem to be getting less and less tolerant of ever being offended or having to hear people express views we regard as backwards or unenlightened. Obviously it does little good for us to hurl nothing but insults at each other if we want to communicate. But we have reached a point of twisting ourselves into a pretzel to avoid saying anything that might be somehow construed, no matter how implausible or unreasonable it is, as offensive.

Thoughts?

I view this as almost entirely a first-world problem, and I rarely use that term. My native language doesn't even have gender-neutral pronouns, and everything has a gender, even inanimate and abstract objects. The offensive language that someone here might worry about is overt insults or slurs, not language that one has to dig deep to find offensive.

My society couldn't worry about "linguistic microaggression" even if we wanted. We have priorities to worry about such as poverty, terrorism, FGM, basic rights and freedoms, and basic infrastructure. The average person on the street won't worry about barely noticeable "offensive language" when we don't know what our currency will be worth next month.

 

[Curious George]

Yesterday I read this piece in the Atlantic about "Equity Language" guidelines being adopted by all sorts of professional organizations here in the States:

The Moral Case Against Equity Language

The article makes what I think are good points overall about the silliness and even counter-effectiveness of this language policing.

As a society, we seem to be getting less and less tolerant of ever being offended or having to hear people express views we regard as backwards or unenlightened. Obviously it does little good for us to hurl nothing but insults at each other if we want to communicate. But we have reached a point of twisting ourselves into a pretzel to avoid saying anything that might be somehow construed, no matter how implausible or unreasonable it is, as offensive.

Thoughts?

Language matters. We are responsible for the words we choose and the consequences that follow. I see nothing wrong with analyzing our word choice and trying to ameliorate bias, disparity, and potential negative impacts.

However, communication is a two way street. And while the impact of our words are important, so too is the intent. While those one might dub “language police” often analyze the impact of words, too often little thought is paid to the intent. If someone doesn’t use people first, politically correct, socially aware, or trauma informed language, they do not deserve to be skewered and roasted alive.

 

[Quintessence]

Devoid of all relevant context, I'd generally agree on principle.

When relevant context comes into play and we're no longer talking about some abstract problems?

Language use shapes how a culture thinks, which in turn shapes how laws are made.

There are too many laws being pushed right now that are blatantly prejudiced against certain groups for me to agree that equity language is the problem.

 

[JustGeorge]

I view this as almost entirely a first-world problem, and I rarely use that term. My native language doesn't even have gender-neutral pronouns, and everything has a gender, even inanimate and abstract objects. The offensive language that someone here might worry about is overt insults or slurs, not language that one has to dig deep to find offensive.

My society couldn't worry about "linguistic microaggression" even if we wanted. We have priorities to worry about such as poverty, terrorism, FGM, basic rights and freedoms, and basic infrastructure. The average person on the street won't worry about barely noticeable "offensive language" when we don't know what our currency will be worth next month.

I sometimes think part of the problem in my neck of the woods is we do have people worried about things like poverty, violence, involuntary homelessness, etc that don't necessarily want to offend, but have bigger fish to fry than language nuances. We also have people that are well off enough that they can't imagine what its like to not know where your next meal is coming from, or to have to choose between having running water or working lights.

These two populations mix, and all kinds of miscommunications happen, and all kinds of motives are assumed...

Just what I've observed, anyways.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not sure I understand your point about the N-word. I see it as perfectly understandable that most people view it as only acceptable when used by black people, but I don't know whether you're arguing against this distinction between black people and others when it comes to acceptability of using the word.

The thing is, if there are inconsistencies, double standards, or other types of situations where it's "rules for thee, but not for me," then it's really not going to achieve the desired or expected result. Not in the long run.

Now, of course, people have argued that the oppressor group held power and maintained unfair double standards over the oppressed groups, and believe that "it's only fair" that they take shots at their former oppressors, as a vicarious form of "payback." Or, as others have put it, "it's our turn now."

How did anyone think this was going to turn out, especially since it's been going on for 40-50 years now?

 

[Left Coast]

Devoid of all relevant context, I'd generally agree on principle.

When relevant context comes into play and we're no longer talking about some abstract problems?

Language use shapes how a culture thinks, which in turn shapes how laws are made.

There are too many laws being pushed right now that are blatantly prejudiced against certain groups for me to agree that equity language is the problem.

I don't think it's the problem. I think it's a problem, when taken to the nth degree as it seems to be lately.

 

[Left Coast]

How did anyone think this was going to turn out, especially since it's been going on for 40-50 years now?

What's been going on?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The thing is, if there are inconsistencies, double standards, or other types of situations where it's "rules for thee, but not for me," then it's really not going to achieve the desired or expected result. Not in the long run.

Now, of course, people have argued that the oppressor group held power and maintained unfair double standards over the oppressed groups, and believe that "it's only fair" that they take shots at their former oppressors, as a vicarious form of "payback." Or, as others have put it, "it's our turn now."

How did anyone think this was going to turn out, especially since it's been going on for 40-50 years now?

I don't think the situation with the N-word is a double standard unless someone argues they should be able to use slurs directed at other groups while also saying that only black people should be able to use the N-word.

The concept of ingroups reclaiming slurs from outgroups is far from new. It has happened with women, LGBT people, and black people, among others. I don't see it as one of the problems with the subject of "offensive language" and excessively walking on eggshells.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think the situation with the N-word is a double standard unless someone argues they should be able to use slurs directed at other groups while also saying that only black people should be able to use the N-word.

The concept of ingroups reclaiming slurs from outgroups is far from new. It has happened with women, LGBT people, and black people, among others. I don't see it as one of the problems with the subject of "offensive language" and excessively walking on eggshells.

I may have been a bit rushed when I wrote that last post, so please allow me to clarify.

I was addressing the general point about "language policing" as raised in the OP, or what was referred to as a "language-equity guide" used by various organizations. This also relates to numerous topics often associated with terms such as "woke" and "political correctness," so it all falls within the same basic category and the same mode of thinking - which is also often associated with identity politics.

It seems the whole idea behind it seems well-intentioned enough, so I have no quarrel with the motives or the intention. I find nothing wrong with a demand for basic politeness, courtesy, manners, or just overall human decency. If that's the sole basis and intention of PC language-policing, then I get it. I understand that. It's just basically an elaborate and grandiose way of sending the message "Let's all work and play nice together."

But do we really mean that? Has it really been working? Has American society actually gotten nicer and more decent over the past decades? I'm not just talking about politically incorrect language, but just general niceness. Are people more polite and well-mannered today than they were in days before political correctness? If not, why not? And if not, why are there those who keep insisting on doubling down on what appears to be a failed political strategy?

Based on what we see taking place in states like Florida and Tennessee, there are very serious and genuine concerns regarding setbacks and regression in the areas of civil rights and social justice.

Look at what's been going on for the past 5-10 years. Things are getting uglier and uglier out there, both on and off the internet. All the hullabaloo over Trump was really just a symptom of a deeper problem, but anyone with any kind of insight could have (and should have) seen this coming. I knew the country started heading in the wrong direction during the Reagan era. The left allowed itself become duped and co-opted by corporate slicksters. All this stuff about PC, "wokeness," language policing - it's Corporate America's way of making a parody and a mockery of civil rights. People see it as being silly because it IS silly. The left got totally hornswoggled, and now they've painted themselves into a corner.

It's not just about ethnic or racial slurs, although I picked that example because it's one that's come up recently, such as a teacher being fired for reading it out of a book, or a kid being attacked on social media for singing rap lyrics containing the n-word. The thing is, we all live together in the same society, intermingling and interspersing with each other's culture, which I regard as a good thing. The language and slang tend to flow naturally, and not everyone can think of the rules they're supposed to follow at any given time.

But my basic point here is that, if we are going to impose rules and police language to such a degree, then it should conform to a consistent set of principles, rather than just imposed in a random, ad hoc style. Worse still, it shouldn't be one set of rules for whites and a different set of rules for blacks. If people embrace that idea and think that it's okay, can they not see where it could potentially lead?

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think it's the problem. I think it's a problem, when taken to the nth degree as it seems to be lately.

I couldn't read the article because it's paywalled; what little of it I could read I'm not sure how routine or widespread some of the examples the author cited are. The Atlantic has a good reputation as far as reporting outlets go so I'm inclined to give it some benefit of the doubt, but I'd like to see something statistically representative of how routine this is.

Working at a university I'm more or less front and center in DEI space. Not sure what the author is talking about; I don't see it here. There are a couple offices that were renamed since working at the university that could be (mis)construed as inappropriate use of equity language by those with an axe to grind against DEI and education spaces. Similarly, the damage control and policy changes the university had to enact as a result of increased racist/hate speech in campus spaces could be (mis)construed likewise. Training on accessibility emphasized adopting the language the students use to describe themselves and cautioned against things like "differently abled." Suppose the language police would be annoyed at respecting how others use words to identify aspects of themselves or their cultural background and (mis)construe that as inappropriate equity language. So in the space I'm in, it's at most mountains out of molehills or "conservatives" throwing a fit about DEI because they hate DEI. Maybe it's different in other universities, or in the corporate spaces. I don't know.