3 ms·

> In the same way it would sound pretty insensitive to call someone "cancerous" rather than say they have cancer, it also dehumanizes someone to call them obese

> In the same way it would sound pretty insensitive to call someone "cancerous" rather than say they have cancer, it also dehumanizes someone to call them obese, said Joe Nadglowski ... What? No, it's because "cancerous" means behaves like cancer. It doesn't make lexical sense to call a patient "cancerous" unless they themselves are somehow growing and multiplying rapidly, consuming the hospital that hosts them. Unlike that example, rearranging the usage of adjectives like "obese" does not change the actual meaning at all. "Joe is a blue-eyed, left-handed, obese, mild-mannered man" does not imply that Joe is defined by his obesity any more than he is defined his mild manners, his blue eyes, or his left-handedness. Changing that sentence to "Joe is a man with blue eyes, left-handedness, obesity, and mild manners" is just exactly the same. Movements to enforce language usage changes like this are usually well-intentioned and can sometimes have positive impacts. But equally often they merely spread needless anxiety among English-as-a-second-language learners, while creating an unnecessary divide between those who get the memo early and those who get it late, with the former group perceiving and accusing the latter of deliberate offense and insensitivity where in fact none was intended.

MrYellowP 3y ago
Did you just assume Joe's gender? I'll have to report you to the scottish police for HateCrime. Furthermore, I find your use of "obese" offensive, so I'll report you twice.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  I was confused for a bit but now I understand what you mean. It's too late to edit my post, but I didn't intentionally name my example character "Joe" after the quoted person from the article. That's an accident; it wasn't meant to be Joe Nadglowski. I have no idea if Nadglowski is blue-eyed, left-handed, obese, or mild-mannered, let alone male.
  - MrYellowP 3y ago
    Mate. It was pure sarcasm. Furthermore ... > Movements to enforce language usage changes like this are usually well-intentioned and can sometimes have positive impacts. No. It can never have any positive impacts whatsoever, because enforcing language usage means that you are being forced to speak, thus think, in a specific way. The correct course of action is changing society and culture back into a society of people who don't give a fuck about words. A society of sane people who don't have imaginary pain because of words they read, or hear. Emotionally mature people. There is no positive impact from enforcing speech patterns, ever, and you even considering the possibility makes you an extremely questionable person.
everforward 3y ago
I really only find it significant when used to refer to a group in aggregate; "the obese" vs "people with obesity". I agree with you on single-person references, but I do think there is a semantic difference between the sentences: The obese are a growing demographic in America. People with obesity are a growing demographic in America. Referring to a group purely by an attribute does feel de-humanizing to me. The first sentence certainly sparks less empathy with me. I've seen similar suggestions for "the homeless" and "the mentally ill" (preferring "people suffering from homelessness" and "people suffering from mentally illness"). I think it's more significant there because they're minority groups and more likely to be primarily identified by their membership in that group. I'm more concerned by the underlying issue: that we're having to play semantic games to trigger people's empathy for their fellow country person or person in general.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Interesting observation. I'm not convinced it's because it's referring to a group per se. In that example, I think it's the "the" which creates that sense of other-ness. Contrast: Jews are a growing demographic in America The Jews are a growing demographic in America The first seems neutral, while the second seems critical. With the latter, I get the distinct impression that the writer has negative views of Jews and doesn't count themselves among that group, but with the former, I don't get any impression either way. Here's another example. "Study: Blacks in U.S. remain at higher heart disease risk than whites" (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2021/study-blacks-us-remain-higher-heart-disease-risk-whites https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2021/study-blacks-us-remain-h...). This sentence feels neutral, at least for a headline, and not dehumanizing of either black people or white people. At any rate, my belief is that playing semantic games doesn't help to improve peoples' empathy. I think whatever empathy exists was already there, and semantic games are at best a filter to detect which people were empathetic already, and which people were not. Unfortunately, this filter has a high false-negative rate that mis-classifies empathetic people who just can't keep up with ever-evolving language trends.

MrYellowP 3y ago

Did you just assume Joe's gender? I'll have to report you to the scottish police for HateCrime. Furthermore, I find your use of "obese" offensive, so I'll report you twice.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
I was confused for a bit but now I understand what you mean. It's too late to edit my post, but I didn't intentionally name my example character "Joe" after the quoted person from the article. That's an accident; it wasn't meant to be Joe Nadglowski. I have no idea if Nadglowski is blue-eyed, left-handed, obese, or mild-mannered, let alone male.
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  Mate. It was pure sarcasm. Furthermore ... > Movements to enforce language usage changes like this are usually well-intentioned and can sometimes have positive impacts. No. It can never have any positive impacts whatsoever, because enforcing language usage means that you are being forced to speak, thus think, in a specific way. The correct course of action is changing society and culture back into a society of people who don't give a fuck about words. A society of sane people who don't have imaginary pain because of words they read, or hear. Emotionally mature people. There is no positive impact from enforcing speech patterns, ever, and you even considering the possibility makes you an extremely questionable person.

everforward 3y ago

I really only find it significant when used to refer to a group in aggregate; "the obese" vs "people with obesity". I agree with you on single-person references, but I do think there is a semantic difference between the sentences: The obese are a growing demographic in America. People with obesity are a growing demographic in America. Referring to a group purely by an attribute does feel de-humanizing to me. The first sentence certainly sparks less empathy with me. I've seen similar suggestions for "the homeless" and "the mentally ill" (preferring "people suffering from homelessness" and "people suffering from mentally illness"). I think it's more significant there because they're minority groups and more likely to be primarily identified by their membership in that group. I'm more concerned by the underlying issue: that we're having to play semantic games to trigger people's empathy for their fellow country person or person in general.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Interesting observation. I'm not convinced it's because it's referring to a group per se. In that example, I think it's the "the" which creates that sense of other-ness. Contrast: Jews are a growing demographic in America The Jews are a growing demographic in America The first seems neutral, while the second seems critical. With the latter, I get the distinct impression that the writer has negative views of Jews and doesn't count themselves among that group, but with the former, I don't get any impression either way. Here's another example. "Study: Blacks in U.S. remain at higher heart disease risk than whites" (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2021/study-blacks-us-remain-higher-heart-disease-risk-whites https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2021/study-blacks-us-remain-h...). This sentence feels neutral, at least for a headline, and not dehumanizing of either black people or white people. At any rate, my belief is that playing semantic games doesn't help to improve peoples' empathy. I think whatever empathy exists was already there, and semantic games are at best a filter to detect which people were empathetic already, and which people were not. Unfortunately, this filter has a high false-negative rate that mis-classifies empathetic people who just can't keep up with ever-evolving language trends.