5 ms·

I wholeheartedly agree with you; even having grown up in the US. I've come to realize the unimaginable hardships of people in other parts of the world. Only i

I wholeheartedly agree with you; even having grown up in the US. I've come to realize the unimaginable hardships of people in other parts of the world. Only in a hyper-privileged country like the US can people find insignificant 'wars' to fight because they have not experienced the reality that most people historically and around the world face. I've always wondered if people here were to live in true hardship for just one month as truly deprived people did, then magically transported back to their privileged life, would they come to realize how truly petty their squabbling over language is? And perhaps even be grateful for their station. I'd even like to indulge a bit and say there's too much focus on how the system 'fails' while being blind to the unimaginable good it has produced by the very fact that they can sit in comfort and complain. Not enough gratitude for the suffering of others (contemporary and historical) that has brought them to this point.

stone-monkey 8y ago
This is to be expected as people get closer to equality - the more low hanging fruit we pick, the smaller the gains will be. But does that mean we should stop shooting for equality as "close enough" because it's not on the same magnitude as ending slavery?
- axlprose 8y ago
  >does that mean we should stop shooting for equality as "close enough" the question is, which definition of "equality" are we even aiming for: equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? In reality, most people would likely agree with you that we should aim for "equality", but there are some pretty big fundamental differences about what people mean when they say that. Equal opportunity inherently means that we have to be ok with accepting less than equal outcomes if the process is the same for everybody; while equal outcomes mean we have to be ok with the possibility of favoring more opportunities for some people over others. These two interpretations of the same exact word are as close to mutually exclusive as you can get, so it's no surprise that there's so much tension around it. Doesn't mean people don't want "equality" though, it just means that the way they view the world led them to a different (equally defendable) interpretation of what it should mean.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
I spent nearly six years homeless. I have a serious genetic disorder and raised two special needs kids. I've known plenty of genuine hardship. I think respect as expressed via language matters. Hardship has given me more sympathy for the suffering of others and made me somewhat more patient with certain things. But it hasn't convinced me that arguing about language is too petty to bother with. Quite the contrary. I think demanding respectful language is a gateway to demanding equal rights.
- evilturnip 8y ago
  The very reason they are taboo or sensitive words are the reason we use them to express extremity. We are violating the fragility of the term as a means of expression. It's somewhat like what extreme art or film can do, but on a much smaller scale. If people in a culture say that they are using terms as a means of expression and don't believe they are actually homophobic, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume they are? Maybe they are, but if they otherwise don't exhibit homophobic behavior, I tend to believe they are not. Words and actions are entirely different. Also, who should judge whether the word is 'good' or 'bad'? You? A committee? Language evolves organically, and a small cadre of privileged Westerners don't get to decide how a culture uses them. Especially if that culture otherwise doesn't condone violent or homophobic behavior.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Since I do not speak fluent Spanish, I wouldn't dare judge this specific use case. I was merely disputing the idea that if privileged people knew real suffering, they wouldn't bother to argue about language. My maternal grandmother came from a low level noble family. The family sold the title when they fell on hard times, which is why I am not nobility. I was homeless for about a year before I finally grasped how upper-class my mother's expectations are. I think I fully qualify as someone from a very privileged background who has experienced real hardship, and for far more than a mere month.
    - axlprose 8y ago
      Hardship is hardship regardless of where it's experienced, or by whom, it doesn't make it any less real, but it does take on very different flavors depending on the cultural context, and that can shape one's outlook a lot. Being in a bad spot while surrounded by examples of people that are doing well is inevitably going to be a different experience from going through hardship somewhere where everyone around you is also in a shit situation. They both suck, and I'm not about to try and compare one to the other, but it wouldn't surprise me that alone produces different results for the people experiencing the hardship. For example, since I moved to the US ages ago, I've regularly found a lot more in common between myself (a central american) and the world views of immigrants from china, vietnam, and russia, than I have with people from the US, and it wasn't because my american friends were all super well off (most of them live paycheck to paycheck, and more than a few have dealt with homelessness, drug addiction, or involvement with other dubious activities). It's hard to describe, but it encompasses a sort of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" type of outlook that seems to form the basis of much of the thinking in these cultures. At least in my experience. And in the case of slurs in spanish in particular, it's actually part of a broader context that includes the casual use of words that would be considered blunt insults in the west (though not necessarily slurs), as expected parts of conversation, and often times even as terms of endearment. Like, getting someone's attention by calling them the spanish equivalent of "fatso", "bastard", or "idiot" would be considered normal and non-offensive by the person receiving the remark. It's viewed in the same vein as calling someone skinny/short/tall/black/white/asian/etc, which is to say, it's treated as light-hearted mocking that doesn't really mean anything other than something to get your attention by. If a person wants to take a mild jab at you, they might call you one of the more infamous "slur" words like puto/pendejo/maricon/idiota/etc, but the terms in this group vary wildly by region, and they're generally not considered to be any more severe than calling someone an ass here. If you really want to get under the skin of someone in spanish, you have to basically insult their mothers or physically threaten them somehow. Basically, so long as you aren't literally threatening a person's family or physical safety, it's not really taken seriously very much, and I believe this is largely because your physical safety can very realistically be in serious danger in those parts of the world. For example, it's been several years, and I still find it odd to not hear gunshots going off outside my house at night every now and then; which is weird because it's not something you'd normally associate with a comforting sound that would remind someone of "home". That being said, latin-america is huge, and I don't claim to speak for all the countries there, but there is a decent amount of overlap in the cultures.
chickenfries 8y ago
I am one generation removed from third-world subsistence farmers. Don't presume to know who you are talking to.

stone-monkey 8y ago

This is to be expected as people get closer to equality - the more low hanging fruit we pick, the smaller the gains will be. But does that mean we should stop shooting for equality as "close enough" because it's not on the same magnitude as ending slavery?

axlprose 8y ago
>does that mean we should stop shooting for equality as "close enough" the question is, which definition of "equality" are we even aiming for: equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? In reality, most people would likely agree with you that we should aim for "equality", but there are some pretty big fundamental differences about what people mean when they say that. Equal opportunity inherently means that we have to be ok with accepting less than equal outcomes if the process is the same for everybody; while equal outcomes mean we have to be ok with the possibility of favoring more opportunities for some people over others. These two interpretations of the same exact word are as close to mutually exclusive as you can get, so it's no surprise that there's so much tension around it. Doesn't mean people don't want "equality" though, it just means that the way they view the world led them to a different (equally defendable) interpretation of what it should mean.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I spent nearly six years homeless. I have a serious genetic disorder and raised two special needs kids. I've known plenty of genuine hardship. I think respect as expressed via language matters. Hardship has given me more sympathy for the suffering of others and made me somewhat more patient with certain things. But it hasn't convinced me that arguing about language is too petty to bother with. Quite the contrary. I think demanding respectful language is a gateway to demanding equal rights.

evilturnip 8y ago
The very reason they are taboo or sensitive words are the reason we use them to express extremity. We are violating the fragility of the term as a means of expression. It's somewhat like what extreme art or film can do, but on a much smaller scale. If people in a culture say that they are using terms as a means of expression and don't believe they are actually homophobic, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume they are? Maybe they are, but if they otherwise don't exhibit homophobic behavior, I tend to believe they are not. Words and actions are entirely different. Also, who should judge whether the word is 'good' or 'bad'? You? A committee? Language evolves organically, and a small cadre of privileged Westerners don't get to decide how a culture uses them. Especially if that culture otherwise doesn't condone violent or homophobic behavior.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Since I do not speak fluent Spanish, I wouldn't dare judge this specific use case. I was merely disputing the idea that if privileged people knew real suffering, they wouldn't bother to argue about language. My maternal grandmother came from a low level noble family. The family sold the title when they fell on hard times, which is why I am not nobility. I was homeless for about a year before I finally grasped how upper-class my mother's expectations are. I think I fully qualify as someone from a very privileged background who has experienced real hardship, and for far more than a mere month.
  - axlprose 8y ago
    Hardship is hardship regardless of where it's experienced, or by whom, it doesn't make it any less real, but it does take on very different flavors depending on the cultural context, and that can shape one's outlook a lot. Being in a bad spot while surrounded by examples of people that are doing well is inevitably going to be a different experience from going through hardship somewhere where everyone around you is also in a shit situation. They both suck, and I'm not about to try and compare one to the other, but it wouldn't surprise me that alone produces different results for the people experiencing the hardship. For example, since I moved to the US ages ago, I've regularly found a lot more in common between myself (a central american) and the world views of immigrants from china, vietnam, and russia, than I have with people from the US, and it wasn't because my american friends were all super well off (most of them live paycheck to paycheck, and more than a few have dealt with homelessness, drug addiction, or involvement with other dubious activities). It's hard to describe, but it encompasses a sort of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" type of outlook that seems to form the basis of much of the thinking in these cultures. At least in my experience. And in the case of slurs in spanish in particular, it's actually part of a broader context that includes the casual use of words that would be considered blunt insults in the west (though not necessarily slurs), as expected parts of conversation, and often times even as terms of endearment. Like, getting someone's attention by calling them the spanish equivalent of "fatso", "bastard", or "idiot" would be considered normal and non-offensive by the person receiving the remark. It's viewed in the same vein as calling someone skinny/short/tall/black/white/asian/etc, which is to say, it's treated as light-hearted mocking that doesn't really mean anything other than something to get your attention by. If a person wants to take a mild jab at you, they might call you one of the more infamous "slur" words like puto/pendejo/maricon/idiota/etc, but the terms in this group vary wildly by region, and they're generally not considered to be any more severe than calling someone an ass here. If you really want to get under the skin of someone in spanish, you have to basically insult their mothers or physically threaten them somehow. Basically, so long as you aren't literally threatening a person's family or physical safety, it's not really taken seriously very much, and I believe this is largely because your physical safety can very realistically be in serious danger in those parts of the world. For example, it's been several years, and I still find it odd to not hear gunshots going off outside my house at night every now and then; which is weird because it's not something you'd normally associate with a comforting sound that would remind someone of "home". That being said, latin-america is huge, and I don't claim to speak for all the countries there, but there is a decent amount of overlap in the cultures.

chickenfries 8y ago

I am one generation removed from third-world subsistence farmers. Don't presume to know who you are talking to.