5 ms·

It's pretty well understood language is defined by its use, prescriptivism is a fantasy, and "I'd like to oppose change as long as it doesn't single me out too

It's pretty well understood language is defined by its use, prescriptivism is a fantasy, and "I'd like to oppose change as long as it doesn't single me out too much" isn't exactly new human behavior. It's neither a wrong stance, nor is it a right stance. We all like changes in some circumstances, and we're all OK with not conforming in some circumstances - and then we choose which ones matter to us. This happens well beyond slurs, too. Few people call somebody they consider stylish with edgy elements a "hep cat" anymore. We're not asking folks "How's tricks" to ask about their day. And though I do wish we'd resurrect “barmy on the crumpet", probably not going to happen either.

quantified 3y ago
It's a two-way street. You might intend a slur but have it not heard as one, you may not intend but have it heard as one. Who says it makes a difference. "Queer" was reclaimed, I think, no longer a slur. The "n-word" is or is not a slur based on the speaker being of black African descent. "Oppose change" is really sort of a social morphing. Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it? If so, that means you have to change when I do too, right?
- groby_b 3y ago
  "Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it?" If it comes to shared language, it kinda does. I mean that not as a moral obligation, but as a matter of practical usage. If everybody but you has agreed on a meaning, your intent no longer matters. If usage is split... it's hard. "Queer" is still considered a slur by some LGBTQIA+ folks. (I was going to say "gay folks", but even that isn't entirely clear - is it the entire community, or is it men only). It leads to a good bunch of heated debate, still. And yes, of course context matters. The n-word is a prime example, but it's true for all language. But ultimately, when it comes to language hurting people? Intent doesn't matter that much. Impact does.
  - quantified 3y ago
    This all about the process of going from nobody agreeing to everybody agreeing. In HR policies, impact is all, intent nothing. However, you're kind of saying that once one person feels slurred, everybody must pivot. It can be addressed by the feeler changing how they feel, too.
    - groby_b 3y ago
      I am saying that if you hurt somebody, and you can not hurt them just by using a different word, yeah, my expectation is that you try not to hurt other people. If that's asking too much of you... well, it's helpful info.
      - quantified 3y ago
        ? That sounds like you make some inference about how I treat others based on how I view the process of assigning interpretations to words. That's kind of arrogant, this isn't Reddit. I take a lot of care to follow people's preferences, because I don't want people hurt, I rather have more comfort and happiness overall in the world and I prefer more friends and good relations rather than fewer.
mrkeen 3y ago
> It's pretty well understood language is defined by its use, prescriptivism is a fantasy, But that's the heart of the conflict. Some people are prescribing language, and other people are unhappy about having language prescribed to them.

quantified 3y ago

It's a two-way street. You might intend a slur but have it not heard as one, you may not intend but have it heard as one. Who says it makes a difference. "Queer" was reclaimed, I think, no longer a slur. The "n-word" is or is not a slur based on the speaker being of black African descent. "Oppose change" is really sort of a social morphing. Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it? If so, that means you have to change when I do too, right?

groby_b 3y ago
"Just because you change doesn't mean I have to, does it?" If it comes to shared language, it kinda does. I mean that not as a moral obligation, but as a matter of practical usage. If everybody but you has agreed on a meaning, your intent no longer matters. If usage is split... it's hard. "Queer" is still considered a slur by some LGBTQIA+ folks. (I was going to say "gay folks", but even that isn't entirely clear - is it the entire community, or is it men only). It leads to a good bunch of heated debate, still. And yes, of course context matters. The n-word is a prime example, but it's true for all language. But ultimately, when it comes to language hurting people? Intent doesn't matter that much. Impact does.
- quantified 3y ago
  This all about the process of going from nobody agreeing to everybody agreeing. In HR policies, impact is all, intent nothing. However, you're kind of saying that once one person feels slurred, everybody must pivot. It can be addressed by the feeler changing how they feel, too.
  - groby_b 3y ago
    I am saying that if you hurt somebody, and you can not hurt them just by using a different word, yeah, my expectation is that you try not to hurt other people. If that's asking too much of you... well, it's helpful info.
    - quantified 3y ago
      ? That sounds like you make some inference about how I treat others based on how I view the process of assigning interpretations to words. That's kind of arrogant, this isn't Reddit. I take a lot of care to follow people's preferences, because I don't want people hurt, I rather have more comfort and happiness overall in the world and I prefer more friends and good relations rather than fewer.

mrkeen 3y ago

> It's pretty well understood language is defined by its use, prescriptivism is a fantasy, But that's the heart of the conflict. Some people are prescribing language, and other people are unhappy about having language prescribed to them.