Language (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

In another thread, it was brought to my attention that we am not allowed to use certain centuries old definitions because they have been 'updated'. That discussion was about the definition of 'racism'. I asked who controls the 'words' and who exactly gets to update the meaning of those commonly used words.

I saw this yesterday and thought this would be a discussion to attempt to have.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-terms-like-birthing-parents-human-milk.html

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-replace-women-birthing-people-033500864.html

IMO this is a move to be 'inclusive' to trans people at the sake of women (we are discussing birthing humans after all).

The recent call to change the word for a person who comes into a country illegally from Alien to undocumented. Why? What possible purpose does it serve?

Even 'white supremacy' doesn't mean 'white supremacy'.

I am sure we are all somewhat familiar with Orwell and 1984. So i thought this would be a good place to post and discuss the language that we are seeing right in front of us. If we can't even share a language with common definitions, how do we expect to share a government?

 

[SystemShock]

The word "alien" was used to refer to anyone who is not a US national. Someone here legally on a B2 visa would also be an "alien".

"Undocumented" only replaces the word "illegal". People cannot be illegal, only actions are illegal. That is the reason for the change in that part of the terminology.

If we are going to get to that level of pedantry, then "undocumented" is the wrong word too, as migrants still are documented somewhere.

 

[samiam5211]

If we are going to get to that level of pedantry, then "undocumented" is the wrong word too, as migrants still are documented somewhere.

I prefer "people present in the US without legal authorization". I would accept just "people". But i think there should be some acknowledgement of personhood.

 

[SystemShock]

Lol, I can respond to your whole response by just responding to that one question/statement. Here it goes: "Yes it does, And "Oh Well".

My personal preference is for us to treat each other with dignity and respect. If that means changing what we call people or language to make marginalized groups feel more a part of our society and spread acceptance, then good. If old people are upset about it, "Oh Well". We (the old) will eventually die and young people will carry on, change the language anyway and live long enough to see themselves be on the other side of this argument with language in the future.

In other words, this isn't as big a deal as it's being made out to be. Sorry I'm not as upset as your are about this.

"U mad?" may work for you in some other places, I guess.

The point is, the idea that merely force-changing language is going to spread acceptance or even change attitudes is naive. It doesn't. Well, maybe for the simple minded, but really, it only serves to make those who want the change feel good about themselves, and further entrench the other side, which makes things for the affected people even worse.

 

[SystemShock]

I prefer "people present in the US without legal authorization". I would accept just "people". But i think there should be some acknowledgement of personhood.

You can call them whatever you want to call them to feel good about yourself for being such a humanitarian, but that doesn't change their condition, or the ill attitude of other people towards them.

Remember when Bush Sr. promoted "revenue enhancers"?
How about Tucker Carlson calling people who stormed the Capitol "patriots"?
Or Taylor-Greene promoting "uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions"?

Did the softer language change your attitude towards taxes, seditionists, or racists?

 

[samiam5211]

You can call them whatever you want to call them to feel good about yourself for being such a humanitarian, but that doesn't change their condition, or the ill attitude of other people towards them.

Remember when Bush Sr. promoted "revenue enhancers"?
How about Tucker Carlson calling people who stormed the Capitol "patriots"?
Or Taylor-Greene promoting "uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions"?

Did the softer language change your attitude towards taxes, seditionists, or racists?

So if it doesn’t matter what words we use, why do you care enough to argue about it on the internet?

 

[DaveXA]

I prefer "people present in the US without legal authorization". I would accept just "people". But i think there should be some acknowledgement of personhood.

Isn't an an immigrant by definition a person? Calling someone no less acknowledges their personhood than the word person.

As for illegal, I'd always understood that to mean a person who is not in the US through the legal process. People aren't illegal, but they do illegal things. Seems pretty simple to me. But what do I know?

 

[DaveXA]

"U mad?" may work for you in some other places, I guess.

The point is, the idea that merely force-changing language is going to spread acceptance or even change attitudes is naive. It doesn't. Well, maybe for the simple minded, but really, it only serves to make those who want the change feel good about themselves, and further entrench the other side, which makes things for the affected people even worse.

I do tend to think people tend to pick and choose their battles poorly. Getting bent over language, regardless what cause you have, will usually be a useless exercise. There are better ways to win the hearts and minds of people than arguing over the meaning of words.

It can be a fun thought experiment, but I don't think it really accomplishes all that much.

 

[coldseat]

"U mad?" may work for you in some other places, I guess.

The point is, the idea that merely force-changing language is going to spread acceptance or even change attitudes is naive. It doesn't. Well, maybe for the simple minded, but really, it only serves to make those who want the change feel good about themselves, and further entrench the other side, which makes things for the affected people even worse.

It might not spread acceptance among older people or people of your inclination, but it certainly does spread acceptance among those open to it and the young. And as we progress through time as a society, that acceptance becomes more wide spread.

So while you may look at this in a short sighted/simply minded way, it certainly does have a long term objective and it it effective to that end. I mean we don't go around calling black people the N-word anymore, I think we can all agree that's a good thing. That's only because people in the past thought it racist and decided to mount campaigns to end that sort of language. Of course, a lot of people of that time had these same types of consternation with language and "what they could no longer say".

 

[samiam5211]

Isn't an an immigrant by definition a person? Calling someone no less acknowledges their personhood than the word person.

As for illegal, I'd always understood that to mean a person who is not in the US through the legal process. People aren't illegal, but they do illegal things. Seems pretty simple to me. But what do I know?

We don’t call cars with expired tags “illegal cars”.

Many “illegals” are just people who can’t afford the fees to get legal.

 

[SystemShock]

So if it doesn’t matter what words we use, why do you care enough to argue about it on the internet?

Sometimes I wonder...

I didn't say the words we use don't matter. What I am saying is that attitudes don't change because you change a label.

 

[SystemShock]

I do tend to think people tend to pick and choose their battles poorly. Getting bent over language, regardless what cause you have, will usually be a useless exercise.

Are you referring to me?

There are better ways to win the hearts and minds of people than arguing over the meaning of words.

That's part of my point. Changing labels is not going to win hearts and minds.

 

[SystemShock]

It might not spread acceptance among older people or people of your inclination,

Please, do explain what my inclination is.

So while you may look at this in a short sighted/simply minded way,

Oh, I do?

it certainly does have a long term objective and it it effective to that end. I mean we don't go around calling black people the N-word anymore, I think we can all agree that's a good thing. That's only because people in the past thought it racist and decided to mount campaigns to end that sort of language. Of course, a lot of people of that time had these same types of consternation with language and "what they could no longer say".

Yet racism, institutionalized no less, still exists, so many generations after. Attitudes didn't change with the removal of a label, because a nicer label doesn't change attitudes towards people. It's just another way of describing someone you don't like (or like, whichever the case may be).

 

[DaveXA]

Are you referring to me?

That's part of my point. Changing labels is not going to win hearts and minds.

No, I was just piggybacking off your post. Not directed at you.

 

[DaveXA]

We don’t call cars with expired tags “illegal cars”.

Many “illegals” are just people who can’t afford the fees to get legal.

I guess not, but they're things, not people. That said, driving a car with expired tags is illegal, and entering the country without proper documentation also illegal. The bottom line is without going though the legal process to ensure entry, theyre not supposed to be coming into the country. There's a reason we have borders and are a sovereign nation. They're people, most of them are probably good people trying to do right by their families. I sympathize with it, but we have to have guardrails, otherwise it becomes chaos.

I don't know what the simplest way to describe them, maybe undocumented foreigners?

And so what if they can't afford the fees? That isn't germane to the discussion.

 

[brandon]

Isn't an undocumented migrant someone who is in a country not where they were born without being legally allowed into that country, i.e., an illegal alien? The "softer" language changes nothing, except probably making the people who coin those "softer" terms feel better about themselves. Because the people who do not appreciate other people who are in the condition described by either term, are not gong to appreciate them because of the softer language. Would you feel better about a convicted murdered if they were referred to as a "legally declared passing away facilitator"?

How do you feel about the n-word?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Please, do explain what my inclination is.


Oh, I do?



Yet racism, institutionalized no less, still exists, so many generations after. Attitudes didn't change with the removal of a label, because a nicer label doesn't change attitudes towards people. It's just another way of describing someone you don't like (or like, whichever the case may be).

calling someone an African American instead of the n word hasn't made people less racists, but what it has done is made the ones who use the n word look like the aholes racists they are instead of making it ok to say.
why do people really care if someone is a sanitation worker or a janitor? just call it sanitation and go on about your business. but people hate that because it makes it harder to put others down so they can feel better about themselves..

 

[coldseat]

Please, do explain what my inclination is.


Oh, I do?



Yet racism, institutionalized no less, still exists, so many generations after. Attitudes didn't change with the removal of a label, because a nicer label doesn't change attitudes towards people. It's just another way of describing someone you don't like (or like, whichever the case may be).

Your inclination is that you think it makes no difference what words/labels are used.

Yes, institutional racism still exists. Nobody has made the case that's its a cure all. But are you saying that no progress has been made on race issues since it was common to hear the n-word in the public square? You don't think any of that progress is due to "forcing" basic respect and acceptance of black people in the public square?

Honestly, I just think you didn't really think your point out or are just bothered by transgendered people on some level. Either way, The point your trying to make isn't very well founded.

 

[DaveXA]

How do you feel about the n-word?

I'm pretty sure that's always been a derogatory word. I'm not sure why you'd ask that.