4 ms·

Words change meaning, my dear egregious etymologist. By that reasoning every nice woman is an ignorant queen. (Nice comes from latin "ne scius", and queen was

Words change meaning, my dear egregious etymologist. By that reasoning every nice woman is an ignorant queen. (Nice comes from latin "ne scius", and queen was the general word for woman) EDIT: egregious also flipped it's meaning; I clearly meant the old meaning of "remarkably good" You cannot just pick and choose. We live today and we understand each other based on a shared under ding of what words mean and what they are are "meant to mean". A veiled insult is still an insult, and there are places where it's inappropriate

Blueskytech 6y ago
By virtue of the fact that numerous people disagree with your assessment. Should it not be obvious that you could be living in your own private Idaho sharing a belief that all humans experience your gestalt. People have been finding ways to call both themselves and others mentally handicap since communication began. The irony of the current cultural dialogue is that the real negative experience of an expressive and living word is assumed to negate substantial positive aspects which are well documented by those of good humor and cheer. Your line of reasoning attempts to censure peers much as a child would demand of a playmate when in disagreement.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  I think your mixing up two distinct points here: a) whether it's ok or not to insult person A with terminology that currently insults group B as a side effect. (The topic here would be "to PC or not to PC, have we gone to far with it etc; which is a conversation that can and should be had) b) whether it's ok, while discussing point "a" above, to insist that some words mean something else than what it's generally understand in good faith, in order to apply ineffective whataboutism ("what about idiot, it used to be a medical term!") to the conversation. To what goal? Claim that you can use "retard" because you can use "idiot"? Let's not play etymological games, if you want to discuss about PC overreach, discuss PC overreach; there are plenty of good arguments to be had against extreme political correctness and censure that don't involve having your readers rolling their eyes at blatant attempts to clutching at straws.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Words change meaning over time. They do not flip over in an instant. What I believe we're seeing is a society-wide disagreement on the connotations of the word. It will shake itself out, one way or another - but this process used to take decades and was barely noticeable. Now it takes months to years, which is catching people by surprise. Also: the flip side of "words change meaning" is that, during a period of change, you'll encounter people using a different meaning than you. The arguments favoring the updated weight of the word we're discussing here seem frequently of the form, "$word truly means $my-meaning; surely you do not really believe it means $your-meaning, you're just pretending, and in reality you're just a hateful person who hates $me and $mine" - which is essentially twisting logic and sanity into a pretzel. (For better or worse, I expect the "revisionists" to win over "conservatives" here, now that the updated connotations have institutional backing of big social media companies, in form of the ban policies.)
- ithkuil 6y ago
  I think you're right, society is not homogeneous and language does evolve differently in different niches. Usually this can be observed in smaller groups, which have a strong pressure to "code switch" the dominant language of the society where they live. Minority group members do this all the time, all over the world; often there is a continuum of language/dialect/register that speakers navigate throughout their daily lives. What's peculiar here is that american society has become polarized, on a rough 50/50% split, along certain cultural norms that affect a small part of language. Members of group A will not easily concede "code switching" to the vocabulary that is ok for group B because group be is not clearly the majority dominant group. In this case it's easy, since the word has alternatives, so a member of group A doesn't have to code switch to group-B-speak and say "retard" instead of "idiot". Furthermore some vocal members of group A will demand that members of group B refrain from using that word on the same ground (there is an easy alternative). You may be rightfully annoyed that group A is dictating something to you, dear group B member. A meager consolation is that there many minorities in the world that know how you feel (although some may not identify you as a minority since you're not; but that's beside the point, that's how it feels to be one). Culture is complicated. Where I live there is a big chunk of local culture that uses blasphemy as casual filler words. Other areas of the country, and a sizeable chunk of the same region, find that utterly repugnant and it cannot be used in polite speech (e.g. people are fired for saying "porco Dio" on television). Locals here just know it when it's ok to use it and when it's not a good idea. Some insist they should be free to stay whatever they want, and "porco Dio" they may well be right! A famous local nobel prize winner (Margherita Hack), when asked "do you use blasphemy in casual speech?" answered "sure, I'm from Tuscany!". I myself fit well in the that local culture. That said, do I still talk like that when my 4yo child is around? No! I don't want him to talk like that until he can control himself and read the room! Is fixing this bug in the society (the rule against insulting the christian God) a hill I want to die on? Why should I? It's just a word, a fun habit, would it be rational for me to yell at people that I'm free to insult their gods because if freedom of speech or whatever? I'd be looked at as a crazy man because that's what I'd be. To me people who cling their freedom to utter words that a significant portion of their fellow compatriots find offensive, look exactly like that. Picking a silly battle, and entrenching themselves.

Blueskytech 6y ago

By virtue of the fact that numerous people disagree with your assessment. Should it not be obvious that you could be living in your own private Idaho sharing a belief that all humans experience your gestalt. People have been finding ways to call both themselves and others mentally handicap since communication began. The irony of the current cultural dialogue is that the real negative experience of an expressive and living word is assumed to negate substantial positive aspects which are well documented by those of good humor and cheer. Your line of reasoning attempts to censure peers much as a child would demand of a playmate when in disagreement.

ithkuil 6y ago
I think your mixing up two distinct points here: a) whether it's ok or not to insult person A with terminology that currently insults group B as a side effect. (The topic here would be "to PC or not to PC, have we gone to far with it etc; which is a conversation that can and should be had) b) whether it's ok, while discussing point "a" above, to insist that some words mean something else than what it's generally understand in good faith, in order to apply ineffective whataboutism ("what about idiot, it used to be a medical term!") to the conversation. To what goal? Claim that you can use "retard" because you can use "idiot"? Let's not play etymological games, if you want to discuss about PC overreach, discuss PC overreach; there are plenty of good arguments to be had against extreme political correctness and censure that don't involve having your readers rolling their eyes at blatant attempts to clutching at straws.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Words change meaning over time. They do not flip over in an instant. What I believe we're seeing is a society-wide disagreement on the connotations of the word. It will shake itself out, one way or another - but this process used to take decades and was barely noticeable. Now it takes months to years, which is catching people by surprise. Also: the flip side of "words change meaning" is that, during a period of change, you'll encounter people using a different meaning than you. The arguments favoring the updated weight of the word we're discussing here seem frequently of the form, "$word truly means $my-meaning; surely you do not really believe it means $your-meaning, you're just pretending, and in reality you're just a hateful person who hates $me and $mine" - which is essentially twisting logic and sanity into a pretzel. (For better or worse, I expect the "revisionists" to win over "conservatives" here, now that the updated connotations have institutional backing of big social media companies, in form of the ban policies.)

ithkuil 6y ago
I think you're right, society is not homogeneous and language does evolve differently in different niches. Usually this can be observed in smaller groups, which have a strong pressure to "code switch" the dominant language of the society where they live. Minority group members do this all the time, all over the world; often there is a continuum of language/dialect/register that speakers navigate throughout their daily lives. What's peculiar here is that american society has become polarized, on a rough 50/50% split, along certain cultural norms that affect a small part of language. Members of group A will not easily concede "code switching" to the vocabulary that is ok for group B because group be is not clearly the majority dominant group. In this case it's easy, since the word has alternatives, so a member of group A doesn't have to code switch to group-B-speak and say "retard" instead of "idiot". Furthermore some vocal members of group A will demand that members of group B refrain from using that word on the same ground (there is an easy alternative). You may be rightfully annoyed that group A is dictating something to you, dear group B member. A meager consolation is that there many minorities in the world that know how you feel (although some may not identify you as a minority since you're not; but that's beside the point, that's how it feels to be one). Culture is complicated. Where I live there is a big chunk of local culture that uses blasphemy as casual filler words. Other areas of the country, and a sizeable chunk of the same region, find that utterly repugnant and it cannot be used in polite speech (e.g. people are fired for saying "porco Dio" on television). Locals here just know it when it's ok to use it and when it's not a good idea. Some insist they should be free to stay whatever they want, and "porco Dio" they may well be right! A famous local nobel prize winner (Margherita Hack), when asked "do you use blasphemy in casual speech?" answered "sure, I'm from Tuscany!". I myself fit well in the that local culture. That said, do I still talk like that when my 4yo child is around? No! I don't want him to talk like that until he can control himself and read the room! Is fixing this bug in the society (the rule against insulting the christian God) a hill I want to die on? Why should I? It's just a word, a fun habit, would it be rational for me to yell at people that I'm free to insult their gods because if freedom of speech or whatever? I'd be looked at as a crazy man because that's what I'd be. To me people who cling their freedom to utter words that a significant portion of their fellow compatriots find offensive, look exactly like that. Picking a silly battle, and entrenching themselves.