4 ms·

> "unhoused person" instead of "homeless person" > "enslaved person" instead of "slave". Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a per

> "unhoused person" instead of "homeless person" > "enslaved person" instead of "slave". Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity. But 'unhoused person' and 'enslaved person' make the negative sound like a very changeable state of affairs you have power over. > But I think it is more offensive to affected people to play these linguistic games instead of taking measures that actually make a difference. They aren't linguistic games. It's the same reason you tell your kid "you'll get them next time" instead of "you are a loser" if you value their mental health. The second one is technically true, but you know there is danger they'll feel like being a loser is their identity if they hear that too much.

wonderwonder 4y ago
"Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity." No they don't. There was an entire civil war that established that regarding slavery. People go from homeless to not homeless all the time. These are very much linguistic games being played and the stakes are the careers of people that make the grevious mistake of not adhering to the made up rules.
mecha_ghidorah 4y ago
> Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity. ... How so? Imagine these two sentences: "The slave poured wine from an amphora" and "The waiter poured wine from an amphora" ... These are the same sentence aside from the word used to describe the one doing the pouring. The word, in this context, describes a current mode of existing for the person doing the pouring but I cannot see at all why "slave" as a word implies an inherent/permanent state of affairs in a way that "waiter" doesn't. "John was a slave in 113BC" vs. "John was a metalwoker in 113BC"... Seriously please explain to me where on earth you are getting an implication it's permanent, I am so confused EDIT: I do kinda get the "is their identity part", but no more than referring to someone by their occupation or by their hobby (i.e "David is a bird watcher") does

wonderwonder 4y ago

"Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity." No they don't. There was an entire civil war that established that regarding slavery. People go from homeless to not homeless all the time. These are very much linguistic games being played and the stakes are the careers of people that make the grevious mistake of not adhering to the made up rules.

mecha_ghidorah 4y ago

> Both 'homeless person' and 'slave' make the negative sound like a permanent unchangable state of affairs... as if that is that persons identity. ... How so? Imagine these two sentences: "The slave poured wine from an amphora" and "The waiter poured wine from an amphora" ... These are the same sentence aside from the word used to describe the one doing the pouring. The word, in this context, describes a current mode of existing for the person doing the pouring but I cannot see at all why "slave" as a word implies an inherent/permanent state of affairs in a way that "waiter" doesn't. "John was a slave in 113BC" vs. "John was a metalwoker in 113BC"... Seriously please explain to me where on earth you are getting an implication it's permanent, I am so confused EDIT: I do kinda get the "is their identity part", but no more than referring to someone by their occupation or by their hobby (i.e "David is a bird watcher") does