3 ms·

In combating against bigotry, it is important that we do not become bigots ourselves. Regarding painful words, it is my position that policies against uttering

In combating against bigotry, it is important that we do not become bigots ourselves. Regarding painful words, it is my position that policies against uttering them (for people without any intent to hurt) must essentially be no more a courtesy to those sensitized against them, because of words with multiple meanings and foreign languages with different meanings, and also because what is taboo on one society may not be taboo in another. Punishing the reasonably ignorant seems to be immoral to me. Being sensitized to painful words spoken by people who don't mean them seems to me that it needs to be counted not on the person who says them and does not mean them, but on the people who said them and meant them and made people sensitized to them in the first place. It is the continued damage created by bigots, making words that in some situations are necessary to speak (or far too inconvenient to not use) painful to some because of their bigoted use. The rest of us can try to avoid them, but morality-wise, it looks to me more supererogatory for those in a position to do so rather than a moral obligation.

thinkingemote 6y ago
Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure what the main points were.
- jhanschoo 6y ago
  * In combating against bigotry (racism, xenophobia, etc.), we must be wary that our anti-bigotry policies aren't themselves bigoted. * On slurs and other words that hurt: we cannot punish people who say them if we do not have proof that they intend to hurt. Some people think that even saying them unintentionally ought to be punished, because someone gets hurt even though none was intended. But because words like these so frequently get said - out of necessity - out of ignorance - because it is tremendously inconvenient (considering foreign language meanings, multiple meanings, etc.) it's unrealistic to put this onus on everyone to avoid these words, especially when bigots can so easily make another word a taboo word. My position is that it is a courtesy (and not moral obligation) to actively try to avoid using taboo words and think of synonyms and circumlocutions to avoid hurting someone when none is intended. When analyzing the cause of the hurt, I think we should analyze the pain that happens when hearing someone says a hurtful word unintentionally as not primarily caused by the person saying the hurtful word, but by the person or people that sensitized the hearer into feeling hurt upon hearing the painful words, but having a delayed effect.

thinkingemote 6y ago

Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure what the main points were.

jhanschoo 6y ago
* In combating against bigotry (racism, xenophobia, etc.), we must be wary that our anti-bigotry policies aren't themselves bigoted. * On slurs and other words that hurt: we cannot punish people who say them if we do not have proof that they intend to hurt. Some people think that even saying them unintentionally ought to be punished, because someone gets hurt even though none was intended. But because words like these so frequently get said - out of necessity - out of ignorance - because it is tremendously inconvenient (considering foreign language meanings, multiple meanings, etc.) it's unrealistic to put this onus on everyone to avoid these words, especially when bigots can so easily make another word a taboo word. My position is that it is a courtesy (and not moral obligation) to actively try to avoid using taboo words and think of synonyms and circumlocutions to avoid hurting someone when none is intended. When analyzing the cause of the hurt, I think we should analyze the pain that happens when hearing someone says a hurtful word unintentionally as not primarily caused by the person saying the hurtful word, but by the person or people that sensitized the hearer into feeling hurt upon hearing the painful words, but having a delayed effect.