4 ms·

Comparing the term bigot to the term homeless is apples and oranges. It doesn't make sense to try to soften the stigma of a word like bigot. People who are big

Comparing the term bigot to the term homeless is apples and oranges. It doesn't make sense to try to soften the stigma of a word like bigot. People who are bigoted enforce cruelty on others. People who aren't able to acquire shelter for whatever reason: mental health, misfortune, disability... are not visiting cruelty on others but are themselves suffering. The reason why language around such groups changes is to try to decrease social stigma directed at those groups, because older terms may carry cultural baggage e.g. the word "homeless" may evoke imagery of a violent drug addict in the minds of some people which is counter productive to trying to advocate for the group as a whole (it's branding essentially). Bigots could also use support in that most bigoted people are suffering from their own trauma and projecting that onto out-groups in the form of hatred, mistrust and discrimination but the act of being a bigot should continue to be branded in a negative light.

tablespoon 4y ago
> It doesn't make sense to try to soften the stigma of a word like bigot. People who are bigoted enforce cruelty on others. It kind of does, because otherwise you're blocking the path to redemption. Calling someone "homeless" reduces them to that thing and implies it's a permanent identity, but calling someone a "person experiencing homelessness" at least invites the possibility of seeing that experience as temporary. Also you're talking like being a "bigot" is some kind of objective condition. However, in fact it's highly subjective and the label has been over-applied by various activists in attempts to enforce ideological conformity. If you, random internet person, call someone a bigot, I'm just going interpret it as a meaningless slur against people you disagree with, because you want it to be unacceptable to disagree with you. Any other interpretation needs far more context.
- theprincess 4y ago
  > Also you're talking like being a "bigot" is some kind of objective condition. However, in fact it's highly subjective and the label has been over-applied by various activists in attempts to enforce ideological conformity. If you, random internet person, call someone a bigot, I'm just going interpret it as a meaningless slur against people you disagree with, because you want it to be unacceptable to disagree with you. Any other interpretation needs far more context. It's not unacceptable to disagree with me personally. It is unacceptable to hold bigoted positions against other people in our society though. It's like if we were roommates in a small apartment together with some other people and you were being a jerk to them so I called you out for being a jerk.... That's not you and I disagreeing, it's me calling you out for being a jerk to our roommates who we're trying to get along with while we all enjoy our lives in this tiny apartment to the best of our abilities. You do make a good point though. If I wanted to maintain my relationship with said hypothetical roommate I would probably say that they are "being a jerk" rather than call them a jerk outright. So I guess I'll say that well informed Republicans are being bigots. I would love it if they stopped being bigots.
- cudgy 4y ago
  > Calling someone "homeless" reduces them to that thing and implies it's a permanent identity, but calling someone a "person experiencing homelessness" at least invites the possibility of seeing that experience as temporary. This is an obvious form of virtue signaling. It sends a message that you care … a tiny bit, but only in a meaningless way that distracts from the truly complicated problems facing homeless people and the pathetic attempts to help them.

tablespoon 4y ago

> It doesn't make sense to try to soften the stigma of a word like bigot. People who are bigoted enforce cruelty on others. It kind of does, because otherwise you're blocking the path to redemption. Calling someone "homeless" reduces them to that thing and implies it's a permanent identity, but calling someone a "person experiencing homelessness" at least invites the possibility of seeing that experience as temporary. Also you're talking like being a "bigot" is some kind of objective condition. However, in fact it's highly subjective and the label has been over-applied by various activists in attempts to enforce ideological conformity. If you, random internet person, call someone a bigot, I'm just going interpret it as a meaningless slur against people you disagree with, because you want it to be unacceptable to disagree with you. Any other interpretation needs far more context.

theprincess 4y ago
> Also you're talking like being a "bigot" is some kind of objective condition. However, in fact it's highly subjective and the label has been over-applied by various activists in attempts to enforce ideological conformity. If you, random internet person, call someone a bigot, I'm just going interpret it as a meaningless slur against people you disagree with, because you want it to be unacceptable to disagree with you. Any other interpretation needs far more context. It's not unacceptable to disagree with me personally. It is unacceptable to hold bigoted positions against other people in our society though. It's like if we were roommates in a small apartment together with some other people and you were being a jerk to them so I called you out for being a jerk.... That's not you and I disagreeing, it's me calling you out for being a jerk to our roommates who we're trying to get along with while we all enjoy our lives in this tiny apartment to the best of our abilities. You do make a good point though. If I wanted to maintain my relationship with said hypothetical roommate I would probably say that they are "being a jerk" rather than call them a jerk outright. So I guess I'll say that well informed Republicans are being bigots. I would love it if they stopped being bigots.
cudgy 4y ago
> Calling someone "homeless" reduces them to that thing and implies it's a permanent identity, but calling someone a "person experiencing homelessness" at least invites the possibility of seeing that experience as temporary. This is an obvious form of virtue signaling. It sends a message that you care … a tiny bit, but only in a meaningless way that distracts from the truly complicated problems facing homeless people and the pathetic attempts to help them.