3 ms·
Yep... I didn't mean so much "it's been associated with certain people" as it's been demonized from the start. I think there's a difference between honest peop
by undecisive 6y ago
Yep... I didn't mean so much "it's been associated with certain people" as it's been demonized from the start.
I think there's a difference between honest people saying honest things - even if those things are incorrect or not fully justified - and people with a history of dog-whistling and flat-out repugnant behaviour using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And there is language on both sides that get this treatment - for example "gaslighting" or "racist", both can be used by vile individuals who would use their power to divert from lies and bad behaviour. But if the term has a good head-start, before its more controversial uses, it's more likely to have benevolent connotations in people's heads, and is less likely to be labelled a "hate-word" from the start.
So while I think that cancel-culture may make a genuine point, unfortunately that word was saddled with baggage from the start, and may never mean what you want it to mean again. As is often the case, we need not just better words, but words with a better history.
- gadders 6y agoThat is one point of view. The other point of view is that when you give an organisation (government/large company/ngo/whatever) power to enforce controls on speech, that power could be used for good as well as ill.