Language (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Farb

    Mostly Peaceful Poster
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    6,298
    Reaction score
    2,164
    Age
    49
    Location
    Mobile
    Offline
    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?
     
    What I am saying is that attitudes don't change because you change a label.
    They certainly can.

    I mean sure, hardcore homophobes aren’t going to suddenly see the light if you explain to them why “that’s so gay” is derogatory and shouldn’t be used as a casual put-down, but people who aren’t hardcore or don’t understand why it is derogatory can have their minds changed by challenging and informing. That’s true for most derogatory words.
     
    They certainly can.

    I mean sure, hardcore homophobes aren’t going to suddenly see the light if you explain to them why “that’s so gay” is derogatory and shouldn’t be used as a casual put-down, but people who aren’t hardcore or don’t understand why it is derogatory can have their minds changed by challenging and informing. That’s true for most derogatory words.
    And alongside shifting attitudes over time, different words for the same thing can have different associations, triggering different responses. That is, even at a single point in time, a person's attitude and responses may be expressed differently depending on how something is presented to them, which includes which terms are used. Hence, it absolutely does matter which terms are chosen.

    On the topic of the effects of language used to refer to undocumented immigrants , this effect has been studied. For example:

    Rucker, Juliam M. et al. "The immigrant labeling effect: The role of immigrant group labels in prejudice against noncitizens." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2019, Vol. 22(8). (https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Rucker Immigrant Labeling Paper.pdf) extends "research documenting how the perceived negativity of group labels (e.g., those describing gay people) affects people’s downstream attitudes" and found that "relatively negative (vs. neutral) labels (e.g., illegal aliens vs. noncitizens) engendered more prejudice, punitive behavioral intentions, and greater support for punitive policies."

    Similar effects have been seen in medicine, where studies have shown that different terminology used to refer to the same condition can influence management preferences, shifting preferences towards more invasive treatments, and psychological outcomes (Nickel, Brooke et al. "Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences." BMJ open vol. 7,7 (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e014129)).

    Or, for a less scholarly illustration:

    Lisa: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    Bart: Not if you called 'em stench blossoms.
    Homer: Or crapweeds.
    Marge: I'd sure hate to get a dozen crapweeds for Valentine's Day. I'd rather have candy.
    Homer: Not if they were called scumdrops.

    Language matters.
     
    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 afford the fees? That isn't germane to the discussion.

    "Illegal alien" is not a legal term. It is not defined anywhere in the law. It is a political term that intentionally attaches a negative connotation to people.

    The only times "illegal alien" is used anywhere in immigration law is in titles. Which are political statements made by legislators. The actual law does not use it or define it.

    You may not intend to disparage people when you use it, but that does not mean that it is not disparaging. The term was placed there to inspire an anti-immigrant sentiment. Whether or not you feel it is disparaging is not relevant.

    I brought up cars because we do not even assign the term "illegal" to objects, why would we think it is acceptable to assign it to people. The only reason the term "illegal alien" exists is for political manipulation and to give people a negative impression of immigration.

    Most people in the US who become legal immigrants were at some point an "illegal alien". Most of the people who did it the "right" way were "illegal aliens" at some point in their lives.
     
    "Illegal alien" is not a legal term. It is not defined anywhere in the law. It is a political term that intentionally attaches a negative connotation to people.

    The only times "illegal alien" is used anywhere in immigration law is in titles. Which are political statements made by legislators. The actual law does not use it or define it.

    You may not intend to disparage people when you use it, but that does not mean that it is not disparaging. The term was placed there to inspire an anti-immigrant sentiment. Whether or not you feel it is disparaging is not relevant.

    I brought up cars because we do not even assign the term "illegal" to objects, why would we think it is acceptable to assign it to people. The only reason the term "illegal alien" exists is for political manipulation and to give people a negative impression of immigration.

    Most people in the US who become legal immigrants were at some point an "illegal alien". Most of the people who did it the "right" way were "illegal aliens" at some point in their lives.

    That's all well and good, but I think you missed the point of my post. Please read and try again.
     
    They certainly can.

    I mean sure, hardcore homophobes aren’t going to suddenly see the light if you explain to them why “that’s so gay” is derogatory and shouldn’t be used as a casual put-down, but people who aren’t hardcore or don’t understand why it is derogatory can have their minds changed by challenging and informing. That’s true for most derogatory words.

    The OP is not about derogatory words, and challenging and informing are not the same as a label switch. Still, it's not the label, it is the thought/attitude associated with what the label describes. The thought/attitude towards what the label describes doesn't change just because you relabel it.

    Take the word "homosexual". In on itself, it describes a person who has a sexual orientation to people of the same sex. If I find abhorrent the thought of a person having a sexual orientation towards people of the same sex, of two men sticking their penises in each other, believe such people should not marry and are going to burn in hell, replacing "homosexual" with "gay" is not going to change my attitude towards them. You are just using a different label for the condition I find abhorrent. And if I get enough chastising, I may even start using "gay" exclusively to describe a person who has a sexual orientation to people of the same sex, but again, my attitude towards what the word "gay" describes is not going to change.

    As for derogatory words, depending on my attitude towards homosexuality, I can very well use the word "homosexual" as a derogatory word, not because the word is offensive in on itself, but because of my attitude towards the condition it describes.

    Same with "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant". Either term describes the same people, and depending how I feel about them. I even could use either term as a derogatory term. And they don't really care what you call them. This particular label switch is really something to make white people feel good about themselves.

    You are right in that information and education change attitudes. But labels? No.
     
    That's all well and good, but I think you missed the point of my post. Please read and try again.
    yea, i'm not sure what you were talking about then.

    Your post mentioned guardrails, which in this context, i'm not sure what you mean. The term "illegal alien" isn't one of the guardrails.

    We don't really need a term to refer to the group of people who are here without legal status. Referring to that huge group of people with one term is an oversimplification that is only useful in politics.
     
    Your inclination is that you think it makes no difference what words/labels are used.
    Relabeling things/conditions don't change attitudes towards that condition.
    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?
    I am not saying that at all. But is not the banning of the word that has brought about such progress.
    You don't think any of that progress is due to "forcing" basic respect and acceptance of black people in the public square?
    Forcing anyone to do anything doesn't make them accept what they have to do. Likewise, when you force a label change, you don't change the attitude to that which is labeled.
    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.
    Message, not messenger.

    And here we go again with transgenders... No, I am not bothered by transgenders.
     
    calling someone an African American instead of the n word hasn't made people less racists,
    That's in line with what I am saying.
    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.
    And I agree.
    why do people really care if someone is a sanitation worker or a janitor?
    And that too is in line with what I am saying.
    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..
    Yes. But also, people love it because it makes them feel better about themselves.
     
    "Illegal alien" is not a legal term. It is not defined anywhere in the law.
    United States Code, Title 8, §1365(b)
    (b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
    An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully and--
    (1)  whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or
    (2)  whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and--
    (A)  whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or
    (B)  whose unlawful status was known to the Government,
    before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.
     
    Words express concepts. They often do so poorly because meanings change do to humans altering meaning consciously or not. Basically, words are agitprop. In narrow contexts meanings are seemingly apparent but body language, facial expression and tone of voice can alter the meaning through revealing or obscuring intent. Words including words used in describing certain topics that are considered taboo in one particular space-time may not be so in a different space-time.

    Childish wishes for change not to occur are just that, childish.
     
    How do you feel about the n-word?
    Why would you ask me that? Does the n-word describe a condition? Does someone who doesn't use the word makes that someone accepting of people of African descent? Is Eminem racist because he uses the n-word in lyrics?
     
    Relabeling things/conditions don't change attitudes towards that condition.

    I am not saying that at all. But is not the banning of the word that has brought about such progress.

    Forcing anyone to do anything doesn't make them accept what they have to do. Likewise, when you force a label change, you don't change the attitude to that which is labeled.

    Message, not messenger.

    And here we go again with transgenders... No, I am not bothered by transgenders.

    We really just fundamentally disagree. But I think that when actually studied, science and history do not agree with you.

    Also, when we change a label that we use to refer to a group of people from something that is derogatory or negative to something that affirms or is acceptable to that group of people, then we change the "message". That's what I've been saying. Changing a label is often a step in changing the narrative/message surrounding said group.
     
    yea, i'm not sure what you were talking about then.

    Your post mentioned guardrails, which in this context, i'm not sure what you mean. The term "illegal alien" isn't one of the guardrails.

    We don't really need a term to refer to the group of people who are here without legal status. Referring to that huge group of people with one term is an oversimplification that is only useful in politics.

    The guardrails I'm referring to is rules governing the process of legal entry into the country. Without the guardrails, chaos ensues on the border. Federal law does define/label them.

    The term "illegal alien" is actually used in the federal code, although sparingly. The term alien is used extensively though. And is defined as any non-US born or naturalized citizen. You say we don't need a term to refer to the group of people who are here without legal status, but the federal code does precisely that and calls them aliens. There are numerous sub-groupings under that, but broadly speaking, whether unauthorized, undocumented or whatever, the point is, in order for federal law to be effectively enforced, those people have to have a definition applied.

    Politics is beside the point. Whether they can afford the fees or not is beside the point.
     
    We really just fundamentally disagree. But I think that when actually studied, science and history do not agree with you.
    Nah, they do.
    Also, when we change a label that we use to refer to a group of people from something that is derogatory or negative to something that affirms or is acceptable to that group of people, then we change the "message". That's what I've been saying. Changing a label is often a step in changing the narrative/message surrounding said group.
    First, we weren't talking about derogatory terms. But even if we were talking about derogatory terms, the people who use them, they are not going to change their minds about those they hate because you switch a label.
     
    Nah, they do.

    First, we weren't talking about derogatory terms. But even if we were talking about derogatory terms, the people who use them, they are not going to change their minds about those they hate because you switch a label.

    You base your whole argument around people that are closed minded. It's already been stated many times that it isn't going to change somebodies mind that is close minded and unwilling to change. The purpose is to change the minds of those aren't stuck in their labels, i.e. people that are open minded or young.
     
    The OP is not about derogatory words, and challenging and informing are not the same as a label switch.
    The OP is not about words that you find derogatory. However, many people find "illegal alien" to be derogatory. Why do you get to be the arbiter of what is derogatory and what isn't? Perhaps it should be the people to whom the label is applied that get to decide how they feel about it.

    As for derogatory words, depending on my attitude towards homosexuality, I can very well use the word "homosexual" as a derogatory word, not because the word is offensive in on itself, but because of my attitude towards the condition it describes.
    Which brings me back to my original post - connotation vs. denotation. As you have now admitted, there is a difference between the strict definition of a word (denotation) and the underlying nuance conveyed in a word (connotation). It's why, generally, homosexual is being used less and less, even though, by strictest definition, it simply means a person who is attracted to the same sex. Today, the word tends to convey being gay in a negative light, even if that isn't the strict definition of the word.

    Why would you ask me that? Does the n-word describe a condition?
    It describes the condition of being black. Being black is no more or less a condition than being "illegal".

    @DaveXA said that the word was "always derogatory," but that's not exactly the case. Plenty of people in history used the word without malice.

    Wikipedia said:
    The word originated in the 18th century as an adaptation of the Spanish word negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, which means "black".[1] Over time it took on a derogatory connotation,[2] and by the mid-20th century, particularly in the United States, its usage by anyone other than a black person had come to be generally seen as a racist insult.

    Now, just because people may have casually used the word without malice does not mean that it wasn't derogatory. Obviously, once the n-word was thoroughly deemed a slur, its common use became unacceptable, and it was replaced with what you would call "softer language," like negro (which has now also fallen out of favor), and finally African American or simply black. Guess what? In the future, we may decide that these words don't properly convey the message we're trying to send, and we may change those words, too.

    Now, if you want to continue to argue that the n-word was always derogatory and people eventually decided it wasn't acceptable to use the word, that's fine. I would argue that in that case, "illegal alien" has also always been derogatory, and people are now deciding that it's not acceptable to use that word.

    On the other hand, if you want to argue that the n-word was at first acceptable, and then became unacceptable, then you're admitting that language evolves and that we make changes to our language when words no longer convey the message we intend. "Illegal alien" has a more negative connotation than "undocumented immigrant," even if they have the same denotation.
     
    Last edited:
    United States Code, Title 8, §1365(b)
    (b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
    An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully and--
    (1)  whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or
    (2)  whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and--
    (A)  whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or
    (B)  whose unlawful status was known to the Government,
    before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.

    Yessir.

    Do you believe that that definition applies to anyone present in the US without legal status? Read the definition.

    I wouldn't have a problem with people using the term if they are referencing that very specific section of law, that is actually talking about the federal government reimbursing state and local governments for detaining a criminal alien who has already been convicted of a felony.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom