Woke nonsense that -phobia = hate

[Augustus]

People often argue that the -phobia suffix to mean hate/animosity is part of some "woke" agenda to distort language.

Just by chance, I happened to notice that not only is that usage far older than many seem to think and is probably not far off contemporaneous with the common usage of "fear" in English, the usage is actually "Founding Father Approved™"

The other day, I noticed George Orwell was using -phobia in 1945 to criticise the "woke" people of his day - self-hating Brits, or Anglophobes.

Negative Nationalism

1. Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

Notes on Nationalism | The Orwell Foundation

"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'."

www.orwellfoundation.com

So I thought I'd look up the origins of Anglophobia in the OED, and its first noted usage was actually from Founding Father and notorious wokester, Thomas Jefferson

1793 T. Jefferson Let. 12 May in Papers (1955) XXVI. 26 We are going on here in the same spirit still. The Anglophobia has seized violently on three members of our council.

So seems to me like any common usage over 230 years old is about as legitimate as any other aspect of the modern English language, and it's origins cannot really be linked to any political ideological orientation.

This is more a "in case you are interested" rather than a specific debate, but I will add a perfunctory "thoughts" at the end just in case.

Thoughts?


(FWIW, I'm not a massive fan of the term -phobia being used to mean hate/animosity and think it is often misused in political spats, but language is simply use of language so it is what it is.)


If anyone is interested:

​

 

[Stevicus]

People often argue that the -phobia suffix to mean hate/animosity is part of some "woke" agenda to distort language.

Just by chance, I happened to notice that not only is that usage far older than many seem to think and is probably not far off contemporaneous with the common usage of "fear" in English, the usage is actually "Founding Father Approved™"

The other day, I noticed George Orwell was using -phobia in 1945 to criticise the "woke" people of his day - self-hating Brits, or Anglophobes.

Negative Nationalism

1. Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

My understanding is that phobia is indicative of a certain fear (usually an irrational fear), and fear can be seen as a root cause of hatred. It's antonymous to the suffix "-phile," as the opposite of an Anglophobe would be an Anglophile.

Interestingly, I have never heard anyone say "Americaphobe," although I looked it up and such a term does exist. I've just never heard or read it used in context. More often than not, such an attitude is called "anti-Americanism" and attributed to "America haters."

I can't really speak to what left-wing intellectuals said and did in Britain during WW2, although in observing parallel attitudes and how they arose here in America, I don't think they hated America itself - as in the land and people. Most of it seemed to revolve around reactions against the propaganda and imagery associated with Americana - the idea that America didn't become rich and powerful due to conquest, expansionism, violence, aggression, and murder, but rather, it was due to freedom, hard work, and the Hand of God which gave us our "Manifest Destiny." In Britain, you guys had the "White Man's Burden," or as I've also heard it said, the "Pukka sahibs who made their fortunes by sweating and exploiting 300 million Asiatics."

But then these same "Pukka sahibs" got all indignant and sanctimonious, claiming the moral high ground when the Germans were trying to do the same thing they did. Of course, some people couldn't help but see the irony in such a "principled" stance and tended to roll their eyes over it. But I can't see it as being "hatred" or even "phobia" as much as it's simply calling out Western liberal hypocrisy.

 

[MikeF]

People often argue that the -phobia suffix to mean hate/animosity is part of some "woke" agenda to distort language.

Just by chance, I happened to notice that not only is that usage far older than many seem to think and is probably not far off contemporaneous with the common usage of "fear" in English, the usage is actually "Founding Father Approved™"

The other day, I noticed George Orwell was using -phobia in 1945 to criticise the "woke" people of his day - self-hating Brits, or Anglophobes.

Negative Nationalism

1. Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

Notes on Nationalism | The Orwell Foundation

"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'."

www.orwellfoundation.com

So I thought I'd look up the origins of Anglophobia in the OED, and its first noted usage was actually from Founding Father and notorious wokester, Thomas Jefferson

1793 T. Jefferson Let. 12 May in Papers (1955) XXVI. 26 We are going on here in the same spirit still. The Anglophobia has seized violently on three members of our council.

So seems to me like any common usage over 230 years old is about as legitimate as any other aspect of the modern English language, and it's origins cannot really be linked to any political ideological orientation.

This is more a "in case you are interested" rather than a specific debate, but I will add a perfunctory "thoughts" at the end just in case.

Thoughts?


(FWIW, I'm not a massive fan of the term -phobia being used to mean hate/animosity and think it is often misused in political spats, but language is simply use of language so it is what it is.)


If anyone is interested:

View attachment 76715

​

Thanks for sharing the Orwell essay. I could see a bi-annual reading as a useful tool to prompt self-assessment for any growing 'nationalist' feeling, with 'nationalism' being the broad definition presented in the essay.

 

[icehorse]

It seems often to be the case that X-phobia is combined or conflated in some way with "bigot" or "bigotry". I looked up bigot and bigotry in several dictionaries and there are slight (but I think important) differences in the definitions:

1 - bigotry: hatred towards a racial or ethnic group
2 - bigotry: hatred towards a religious group

It seems to me these are two VERY DIFFERENT situations. Hating a person for their race or ethnicity seems indefensible. But religions are a collection of ideas, and I think it's often quite appropriate to hate an idea.

I think it's safe to add a third definition (one I didn't find in a dictionary):

3 - bigotry: hatred towards a group with a certain sexual orientation

So taking this back to Xphobia:

It seems being homophobic is indefensible, but
being Islamophobic might be reasonable.

People often conflate Islamophobic with racist. This is clearly a mistake since Islam is popular across many races and ethnicities.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me these are two VERY DIFFERENT situations. Hating a person for their race or ethnicity seems indefensible. But religions are a collection of ideas, and I think it's often quite appropriate to hate an idea.

Religions are a collection if ideas? They aren't practices, or a way of life that is a significant and central component of a person's identity, including but not limited to their culture or ethnicity? I suppose telling the story that way is an interesting way to depersonalize hating on religion, but at the end of the day, I hope you acknowledge that the two are really as "very different" as you might assume. Sorry, but if you hate my religion, you hate me, period. There is no religion without the people practicing it.

 

[MikeF]

1 - bigotry: hatred towards a racial or ethnic group
2 - bigotry: hatred towards a religious group

I think you have tripped yourself up right at the start. In the second definition, you are again directing hatred towards people, those who identify with a particular religion. There is not the distinction between the person and the belief.

It seems being homophobic is indefensible, but
being Islamophobic might be reasonable.

So when you use the term Islamophobic, is it clear where the fear or hatred is being directed? You do not think it appropriate to hate someone for an accident of birth (being homosexual). Can one hate another for the accident of the culture to which they are born and raised? Would that be reasonable in your view?

ETA: For me, adding suffix -phobic implies an unwarrented or irrational fear. In this sense, no phobia would be reasonable as you have suggested.

 

[MikeF]

I think people can have unwarrented fears of things and it is appropriate to use a suffix like -phobic to aid in referencing and talking about such cases. I think, however, that it can also be used as an ad hominem attack as a way of shutting down reasoned discussions about complex and emotionally important issues. Just because someone throws out an accusation of phobia does not mean it is being applied accurately or in good faith.

 

[icehorse]

Religions are a collection if ideas? They aren't practices, or a way of life that is a significant and central component of a person's identity, including but not limited to their culture or ethnicity? I suppose telling the story that way is an interesting way to depersonalize hating on religion, but at the end of the day, I hope you acknowledge that the two are really as "very different" as you might assume. Sorry, but if you hate my religion, you hate me, period. There is no religion without the people practicing it.

And @MikeF -

With all sincerity, I think that in this case you're both guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Not all religions are equally problematic. But to the degree that a given religion is dogmatic AND makes extraordinary claims, that religion is quite literally generating / originating intolerance and hatred and violence.

The world's most popular religions ARE dogmatic AND they make extraordinary claims with weak evidence. These are not benign behaviors. I'm not saying it's easy for a person born into these cultures to change, it's certainly not. But that doesn't mean we should enable the perpetuation of these divisive behaviors.

 

[MikeF]

And @MikeF -

With all sincerity, I think that in this case you're both guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Not all religions are equally problematic. But to the degree that a given religion is dogmatic AND makes extraordinary claims, that religion is quite literally generating / originating intolerance and hatred and violence.

The world's most popular religions ARE dogmatic AND they make extraordinary claims with weak evidence. These are not benign behaviors. I'm not saying it's easy for a person born into these cultures to change, it's certainly not. But that doesn't mean we should enable the perpetuation of these divisive behaviors.

My intent is to suggest the focus be towards the ideas specifically, ideas of any stripe, as opposed to the people who hold those views for whatever reason.

From the Orwell essay:

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. LINK​

​

If we are simply speaking of ideas, one can have rational and valid reasons to critique ideas and one can have unwarrented or irrational fear of an idea or a particular set of ideas. If the suffix -phobic is meant to refer to the latter case, would it ever be reasonalbe to be Islamophobic as you suggested?

So I am not saying one cannot have reasoned arguments against religious beliefs, but I am also saying that I don't think the -phobic label should be applied to the one making those reasoned arguments. Does that make sense?

 

[icehorse]

So I am not saying one cannot have reasoned arguments against religious beliefs, but I am also saying that I don't think the -phobic label should be applied to the one making those reasoned arguments. Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense.

In my experience, apologists OFTEN apply the Xphobic label to those making reasoned arguments. That's what I'm railing against.

I've seen this apologist tactic in many debates: religious, political, sexual orientation, and so on.

E.g., "If you disagree with or criticize my stance, even slightly, you're X-phobic"

 

[Left Coast]

Religions are a collection if ideas? They aren't practices, or a way of life that is a significant and central component of a person's identity, including but not limited to their culture or ethnicity? I suppose telling the story that way is an interesting way to depersonalize hating on religion, but at the end of the day, I hope you acknowledge that the two are really as "very different" as you might assume. Sorry, but if you hate my religion, you hate me, period. There is no religion without the people practicing it.

This seems to be a way to shield one's worldview from any criticism at all. Any criticism, on this view, would ultimately be reducible to at best insult, or at worst bigotry.

That isn't a very fair or reasonable approach, in my opinion. Religions surely do involve practices, and people do certainly identify with their religion, but beliefs or ways of seeing the world certainly also underlie those practices. And it shouldn't be taken as a personal insult by the person to suggest that, perhaps, some underlying belief or view they hold is inaccurate or irrational or unreasonable. Or that some of their practices (such as ancient pagans who engaged in human sacrifice) may even be harmful to themselves or others.

Such criticism isn't inherently an insult. It can even be an act of kindness to help someone see that what they're doing is not in accordance with reality or is causing harm they don't see.

 

[Kfox]

People often argue that the -phobia suffix to mean hate/animosity is part of some "woke" agenda to distort language.

Actually the "woke" agenda uses the suffix phobia to mean disagreement or disapproval of specific woke views.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

(FWIW, I'm not a massive fan of the term -phobia being used to mean hate/animosity and think it is often misused in political spats, but language is simply use of language so it is what it is.)

​

So you personally aren't phobiaphilic?

 

[MikeF]

So you personally aren't phobiaphilic?

Would that be someone who likes to have unwarrented fears about things?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Would that be someone who likes to have unwarrented fears about things?

Or who has a fondness for the suffix "phobia."

 

[MikeF]

Or who has a fondness for the suffix "phobia."

 

[Quintessence]

With all sincerity, I think that in this case you're both guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Not all religions are equally problematic. But to the degree that a given religion is dogmatic AND makes extraordinary claims, that religion is quite literally generating / originating intolerance and hatred and violence.

The world's most popular religions ARE dogmatic AND they make extraordinary claims with weak evidence. These are not benign behaviors. I'm not saying it's easy for a person born into these cultures to change, it's certainly not. But that doesn't mean we should enable the perpetuation of these divisive behaviors.

And @Left Coast

To make the point clearer - it seems to have been missed a bit - let's remember there is no religion without people practicing it. It's a component of human culture and inexorably connected to a people: who they are, whose they are, what they do. What this means is that when culture is critiqued - religion being one subcategory of culture - so too is one critiquing the people. Intolerance, hatred, and violence can happen whenever there are fundamental incompatibilities in different peoples ways of life, whether we call it "religion" or some other term. So I don't understand this notion of finding it indefensible to hate on race (the person) but that it is defensible to hate on religion (still the person). That doesn't make sense to me. It makes more sense to go "I'm going to hate on things I don't agree with and be done with it" because everyone more or less does that anyway if we're honest with ourselves.

 

[fantome profane]

People often argue that the -phobia suffix to mean hate/animosity is part of some "woke" agenda to distort language.

Just by chance, I happened to notice that not only is that usage far older than many seem to think and is probably not far off contemporaneous with the common usage of "fear" in English, the usage is actually "Founding Father Approved™"

The other day, I noticed George Orwell was using -phobia in 1945 to criticise the "woke" people of his day - self-hating Brits, or Anglophobes.

Negative Nationalism

1. Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

Notes on Nationalism | The Orwell Foundation

"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'."

www.orwellfoundation.com

So I thought I'd look up the origins of Anglophobia in the OED, and its first noted usage was actually from Founding Father and notorious wokester, Thomas Jefferson

1793 T. Jefferson Let. 12 May in Papers (1955) XXVI. 26 We are going on here in the same spirit still. The Anglophobia has seized violently on three members of our council.

So seems to me like any common usage over 230 years old is about as legitimate as any other aspect of the modern English language, and it's origins cannot really be linked to any political ideological orientation.

This is more a "in case you are interested" rather than a specific debate, but I will add a perfunctory "thoughts" at the end just in case.

Thoughts?


(FWIW, I'm not a massive fan of the term -phobia being used to mean hate/animosity and think it is often misused in political spats, but language is simply use of language so it is what it is.)


If anyone is interested:

View attachment 76715

​

Well said.

But fear and hate often go hand in hand (I think Yoda said something like that).

I have observed in the past that the term -phobia can be use to denote both fear and hate. Often when I point the out someone will object that it doesn't mean fear. But using homophobia as an example, If someone believes that homosexuality will bring about the end of civilization, that is fear. It is not only fear, but extreme fear, irrational fear, and possibly even debilitating fear. Possibly not in every instance, but I think often if someone feels hatred towards homosexuals, they also feel fear.

And that applies to other kinds of hate as well.

 

[Left Coast]

And @Left Coast

To make the point clearer - it seems to have been missed a bit - let's remember there is no religion without people practicing it. It's a component of human culture and inexorably connected to a people: who they are, whose they are, what they do. What this means is that when culture is critiqued - religion being one subcategory of culture - so too is one critiquing the people. Intolerance, hatred, and violence can happen whenever there are fundamental incompatibilities in different peoples ways of life, whether we call it "religion" or some other term. So I don't understand this notion of finding it indefensible to hate on race (the person) but that it is defensible to hate on religion (still the person). That doesn't make sense to me. It makes more sense to go "I'm going to hate on things I don't agree with and be done with it" because everyone more or less does that anyway if we're honest with ourselves.

One of the reasons that comparison doesn't hold water is because ideas can change. I'm betting your ideas have changed in the course of your life. Similarly, we have agency over what we do. We have a choice to take certain actions or not take them. Opinions about the world, or actions we take voluntarily (especially those that have a moral quality) are quite different than some immutable, amoral trait of a person, like their eye color. Those are just apples and oranges.

Nor is it per se an attack on you, in terms of your character or something like that, to say that something you believe doesn't make sense or is contradicted by the evidence. This is the reason, right here on this website, we permit criticism of members' ideas but not the person themselves.

In the past I've seen you criticize some conservative political ideas. Do you hate all the human beings who hold those ideas you've criticized, as people? Or do you simply believe they're wrong in what they think about something, or in some actions they take? For me personally, when I criticize someone's ideas, it has nothing to do with hating them as human beings.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not getting my point across well, apparently. Oh well.

Stuff is interconnected. The end. That's all folks. Bye.