#language police

[alexanderwales]

The push for "person-first language" came from the 1983 Denver principles published by the organization "People with AIDS".

We condemn attempts to label us as "victims," a term which implies defeat, and we are only occasionally "patients," a term which implies passivity, helplessness, and dependence upon the care of others. We are "People With AIDS."

This makes sense to me, and it's mostly because the formation "AIDS people" is, instinctively, ludicrous. But this is because "AIDS" isn't an adjective, and there's not a great adjective that we can use in its place, and because there's not a great general term for "people with AIDS" or other formation. Some of this is also just "if the condition is stigmatized, then any term that refers to it will grow stigma".

But then "person-first language" started to spread.

I think it's defensible to have people write "an alcoholic man" rather than "an alcoholic", and I do accept the argument that writing "an alcoholic" in some way essentializes the condition of alcoholism. I don't think that this is some massive improvement, and there are definitely some very untested Sapir-Whorf theories that we'd need to be true for this to be best practices (and the replication crisis should give even more pause than normal), but sure, "homeless people" rather than "the homeless", this is not egregious in my opinion, I can go along with it.

But what a lot of person-first language prescribes is different. It's "a person who is blind" rather than "a blind person". And this runs into the problem that in English, we put adjectives in front of nouns as a matter of course. We say "the cute black cat" rather than "the cat who is cute and black", just as a default.

So there are, naturally, a lot of arguments about this, and a lot of them are premised on shaky sociological studies and linguistic arguments about what goes on in someone's head when they say a thing.

When you say "blind person" are you putting the blindness before the person? When you say "person who is blind" are you making an awkward, ungainly sentence that sticks out and others? Which construction is more alienating? Which one is inclusive? Which more closely aligns with the fundamental reality of the adjectival trait?

And of course some people feel the urge to try to cut the Gordian knot and say "ah ha, let's ask people what they prefer", but I think in practice this doesn't really work, because different people prefer different things, and there isn't always a consensus, and also ... do we really want to have to memorize what every different group prefers, if there were consensus?

I had a section here where I listed out every major American organization and their preferences (if they had one), but it wasn't very funny or interesting, just sort of monotonous, but it would suffice to say that there's a lot of disagreement and/or mixed preferences, and if you're not talking to or about some specific person, it's a crapshoot. The National Federation of the Blind is pretty insistent on "blind people" or "the blind", with a number of articles having come out in strict opposition to person-first language. The Deaf community likewise seems to have a fair amount of opposition to person-first language, for most the same reasons.

So one-on-one, if you're talking with a friend or coworker, you let them lead the way, but if you're writing a letter to the editor, or a blog post, or talking to or with the general public, there are two standards to use and a complex morass of discussion about what's "preferred".

Personally, I loathe the language police, but as I hope I've made clear, I do like playing language detective.

[starsinmypocketpussy]

BREAKING NEWS: CDC orders mass retraction and revision of submitted research across all science and medicine journals. Banned terms must be

Any unpublished manuscript mentioning certain topics, including gender and "LGBT," must be pulled or revised.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

The many terms the Trump administration really hates

The administration has banned or discouraged the use of hundreds of terms, including "advocate," "LGBT," and "trans."

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

There are a lot of terms that Donald Trump’s administration really, really doesn’t like — hundreds of them. They include “activism,” “advocate” (not this publication but a generic use), “assigned female at birth,” “assigned male at birth,” “climate crisis,” “disabilities,” “diversity,” “equality,” “females,” “feminism,” “indigenous community,” “LGBT,” “LGBTQ,” “men who have sex with men,” “racial inequality,” “sexual preferences,” “sexuality,” “social justice,” “they/them,” “trans,” “transgender,” “transsexual,” “unconscious bias,” and “underprivileged,” according to an analysis by The New York Times. The administration has barred or discouraged the use of these and numerous other terms in federal government documents, the Times found. There were more than 250 governmental web pages in which the terms had been deleted or changed since Trump took office in January, the paper reports, and there may be many more. The terms appeared in memos, guidelines, and other documents viewed by the Times. “Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included,” the paper notes. “In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban.” While all administrations have language preferences, the second Trump administration’s efforts are “remarkable,” according to the Times. Sometimes the changes in language are meant to eliminate an entire concept, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion. The administration claims this is going against merit in hiring, when in reality, it’s a way to make sure all meritorious employees and applicants are recognized and welcomed, including members of historically marginalized groups.

The Trump Regime, which claims to stand for “freedom of speech”, is censoring terms in federal documents that the regime hates, such as “feminism”, “LGBTQ+”, “social justice”, “indigenous community”, “assigned female/male at birth”, “diversity”, and more.

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Federal agencies flag over 100 words that violate Trump’s “anti-woke” initiative

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.

- Mark Twain

[panatmansam]

A senior administration official told CNN on Saturday that the cluster of coronavirus cases among top Republican officials probably began at President Donald Trump's Rose Garden event announcing the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Does this qualify as IRONY or is it merely poignant?

[the-chosen-half-of-one]

The language police were trying to get the nearby Walmart’s name changed to French, but like what would they change it to?? Mart de Wal?? I swear...

[yahtzeeyeeyee]

On the Topic of Language and How We Use It

I recall a time in high school. I was sitting in class and there were these two guys that were trading insults. Just calling each other the nastiest of names and laughing it up and I remember I turned to them and I asked them "Why do you talk to each other that way?" That probably isn't exactly what I said I can't remember my exact words but I said something to the effect of "Why would you say these things that would end a friendship for me to someone that you consider a friend?"

Because back then I couldn't understand why you would talk to someone you considered a friend in such a callous manner. And they explained to me that things that would be horribly offensive to one person could be just good fun among friends to another person. They explained that if it's among friends it's not really hurtful cause they know it's not meant in a hurtful context.

So what happened there was I didn't get why some people talked like that... so I asked. I didn't judge them. I didn't sit up on my high horse and say, "Oh those guys are so offensive!" I asked them why they did it and they told me.

And then I understood that people, especially men, bond in different ways. Men roughouse and push each other around and call each other dicks and it's all in good fun. Women don't do that usually. Some do. Some women call each other bitches and whores and we know it's all just jokes and we're all good friends at the end of the day but not most women. With most women, when we're calling each other bitches and whores it's behind each other's backs. Cause we're catty like that.

Something similar happened when I was sitting with a group of black students that were throwing around the N word. Now I've never understood why if the N word is such a bad thing black people use it so freely. So I took the opportunity and asked the guy. He told me that among black people the N word is used among close friends as a term of affection and as a way to sort of take the power out of the word. So, in turn, I asked him if he had a white friend who called him the N word, would he be okay with that?

And you know what he said?

"Yes."

That was not the answer I was expecting but it made me give the guy major respect. Though I doubt some of his black peers would be so understanding.

[misadventureswithintjs]

I understand getting your ask full of this kind of messages can be annoying so I promise this is the last one. (I'd also like to ask everybody else to keave you alone, too; you won't achieve anything people) However, I just gotta say I'm dissapointed you didn't even respond to the points I raised. Oh well, you are a kid, I can remember what I was like.

Alright I’ll bite. The assumption that WORDS said by STRANGERS to NO ONE in particular causes harm to EVERYONE is just ludicrous. If that was true, then everyone will be writhing in agony every single time someone said a bad word in a movie or show. Should we ban south park or the R rating then? If I met you in person and said “Hey retard”, is that hurtful and rude? Yup. Why? Because I’m singling you out in particular and whether you have a disability or not, calling you a mean thing. It’s not that case here is it? No one needs you, oh moral crusader, to defend their fair honor on the internet. Oh em gee he said a bad word. I’m clutching my pearls so hard right now. Will no one think of the CHILDREN!!!

1-“I have no idea what the context is, but  Using a slur is a problem”. See point above. Also, what about historical or academic context? Should we ban old books now because they contain words that are unacceptable today? You must be one of those assholes who censored Macbeth back in my high school because there was a scene where a guard is describing a orgy they had last night.

2-”You may think  that just using a word causes no harm. In reality, due to the normalisation of slurs as insults, there are negative effects on the people targeted by them.” a) Doesn’t normalisation mean that since the word is now normal and acceptable to say, it’s not a slur or that offensive anymore? b) Who really is targeting mentally disabled people anyway? Assholes? Sociopaths? Point is, it’s not socially acceptable to make fun of disabled people. In fact, it’s extremely frowned upon. This isn’t like the olden times where fair entertainment was going to the local insane asylum to make fun of the people there. I say that Americans saying ‘Holy cow’ is offensive to Indians because we worship and revere cows in our culture. Should I call on you to lead the charge? No, because I’m not a oversensitive prick like you.

3-”You do cause harm because you continue to normalise its usage.“ Same point as a) above

4-”Furthermore, you reacted immaturely.” Because I really don’t give a shit about your sanctimonious attitude

5-”Also, you displayed no concern for disabled people.” No, I displayed no concern for your moral proselytizing. And before you say “Oh he has no idea what it’s like to have mental disability”, I have OCD. And not the “Oh I like arranging things lol XD I’m sooooo OCD”. I’m talking full blown obsessive thoughts like dying or improbable scenarios that will never ever happen but you really can’t get rid of because of this shit. So please, spare me your moralizing about me not knowing how others feel like. I know exactly how bad it is. It feels like someone is nailing a nail into your head but you can’t get rid of the thought even though you know it’s never gonna happen. I just chose not to get offended over jokes about it (unlike you).

6-”All in all, you should reconsider.“ Reconsider what? The fact that I don’t care about language policing, holier-than-thou assholes like you?

7-”Also, just as an addition, I just the post where you defended yourself by saying it was a rick and morty copypasta. I do understand that shitposts are shitposts and not the word of evil, so you probably never meant any harm. However, even if it was a mistake, you do not get to avoid responsability by saying it was just a meme. It is a common tactic to do something harmful, and then defend yourself by saying “just joking”. The fact that you were “just joking” does not take the guilt away.” Guilt over what? It IS a copypasta you idiot. Here’s the link http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/to-be-fair-you-have-to-have-a-very-high-iq-to-understand-rick-and-morty How fucking petty are you, Jesus Christ. What next? You gonna get a bodyguard because I posted the Navy Seal Copypasta? Fuck off.

8-”I understand getting your ask full of this kind of messages can be annoying so I promise this is the last one.“ Not really. I just feel sorry for you that you’re so sensitive that some random blog on the internet really rustled your jimmies because he said retard.

9-”I’d also like to ask everybody else to keave you alone, too; you won’t achieve anything people“ - Implying anyone else was petty enough and thin-skinned enough to be this offended apart from you.

10-”Oh well, you are a kid, I can remember what I was like.” I’m 25 you idiot.

Beauty of the internet is that you can turn the computer off and walk away. No one is forcing you A Clockwork Orange style to read this blog. If you’re really that offended, the unfollow button is right there. Report it too while you’re at it. We really don’t give a shit about any of this anymore.