3 ms·

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 reference

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.

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.