3 ms·

Who decides if something is a "derogatory" term? Are the following also derogatory?: * Nazi * racist * mansplain * TERF * alt-right etc. My own metric fo

by Chris2048 6y ago

Who decides if something is a "derogatory" term? Are the following also derogatory?: * Nazi * racist * mansplain * TERF * alt-right etc. My own metric for an "derogatory" would be "does this person apply this (negative?) label to themselves, or does some (antagonistic) other apply it?". That's not to say all labels a person doesn't apply to themselves is inaccurate, just that applying it is antagonistic so there should probably be a higher standard of definition, evidence and relevance in using it. Quite a few of the above terms invoke what is often called "identity politics" which fits the description "argue against the character of the person, and not against the content of their statements" - although less "character" and more "demographic". That said, "virtue signal" more accurately attacks a persons motivation, not just their character; Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant. In summary, I disagree VS should never to be used; it is a derogatory term, but if accurate, and relevant, there's no reason not to use it. This differs from terms that are pure insults which generally lack enough meaningful information to be relevant, e.g. bitch, jerk, etc which don't really mean anything other than a pure expression of disapproval/negativity; of course, what level of accuracy meets the condition "relevant" depends on the nature/resolution of the conversation, and the context in which the word is used - in much the same way that "light-years" is a relevant unit for space travel, but not for land travel.

Intermernet 6y ago
micro-societies decide if something is a derogatory term, and there is no uniform micro-society. Some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride. The terms aren't to do with "identity politics", they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live. Can you provide any evidence of the over-all positive effects of Nazism, racism or the alt-right? If so, then we can debate those. (Sorry, I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn.) > Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant Ad-homs are a zero signal. They amount to nothing except to lower the likelihood of the person you're talking to responding to you. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say, then that can be a satisfactory strategy, but it's not really helping anyone in the long run.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride But that isn't relevant to all situations. If you call someone a label they do not attach to themselves, the fact that other people willingly accept that label isn't relevant. In fact, it would be a case of trying to associate a person with a group they do not belong to (or do not self-identify with). > they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live In which who live? Actual, self-confessed "Nazis", or people labelled as such by their enemies? > I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn Who does have "authoritative substance"? If you don't consider yourself qualified (or permitted) to comment because you are male, there's your "identity-politics". This is especially pertinent in the case of "mansplain", since it is a label usually used to attack men. > Ad-homs are a zero signal .. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say I'm not sure what you believe an "ad-hom" to be, but I take the definition "attacking a person versus their arguments" - which is relevant in case of argument from authority when a person lacks the authority they are invoking (which is also an ad-hom), or any situation where a persons status or reputation is seen as boosting their argument e.g. pointing out hypocrisy; since political debates are usually about a person being given some kind of position of power, their person is usually relevant. Also, any situation where personal judgement, or testimony given that trust is relevant in those situation, so any reason to think someone is compromised, biased, or untrustworthy is relevant.

Intermernet 6y ago

micro-societies decide if something is a derogatory term, and there is no uniform micro-society. Some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride. The terms aren't to do with "identity politics", they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live. Can you provide any evidence of the over-all positive effects of Nazism, racism or the alt-right? If so, then we can debate those. (Sorry, I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn.) > Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant Ad-homs are a zero signal. They amount to nothing except to lower the likelihood of the person you're talking to responding to you. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say, then that can be a satisfactory strategy, but it's not really helping anyone in the long run.

Chris2048 6y ago
> some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride But that isn't relevant to all situations. If you call someone a label they do not attach to themselves, the fact that other people willingly accept that label isn't relevant. In fact, it would be a case of trying to associate a person with a group they do not belong to (or do not self-identify with). > they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live In which who live? Actual, self-confessed "Nazis", or people labelled as such by their enemies? > I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn Who does have "authoritative substance"? If you don't consider yourself qualified (or permitted) to comment because you are male, there's your "identity-politics". This is especially pertinent in the case of "mansplain", since it is a label usually used to attack men. > Ad-homs are a zero signal .. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say I'm not sure what you believe an "ad-hom" to be, but I take the definition "attacking a person versus their arguments" - which is relevant in case of argument from authority when a person lacks the authority they are invoking (which is also an ad-hom), or any situation where a persons status or reputation is seen as boosting their argument e.g. pointing out hypocrisy; since political debates are usually about a person being given some kind of position of power, their person is usually relevant. Also, any situation where personal judgement, or testimony given that trust is relevant in those situation, so any reason to think someone is compromised, biased, or untrustworthy is relevant.