6 ms·

It can be useful to cycle through words for concepts that are stigmatized, if only so you can use the new shibboleth that means "I have no ill will or prejudice

by zjp 2y ago

It can be useful to cycle through words for concepts that are stigmatized, if only so you can use the new shibboleth that means "I have no ill will or prejudice against the concept", but it's still annoying to see no progress be made on destigmatizing the underlying concepts. That's where my ire lies. Not with the new euphemism per se but the admission of defeat.

YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
Well, what the new shibboleth actually means is “I have expended more effort keeping up with the current vocabulary than other people. And those people are bad for not having spent that effort.” The intent is not destigmatisation but counter-stigmatisation.
- smogcutter 2y ago
  If you frame changing vocabulary as a shibboleth that point of view is inevitable, but that doesn’t make it accurate. This is a view of other people on the same spectrum as accusing them of “virtue signaling”, and is equally worth ignoring.
  - saghm 2y ago
    Not only are accusations of "virtue signaling" generally a sign of a conversation not being worth my time, I'll even go a step further; I think there's a genuinely useful phenomenon where some takes are so common from people I consider to be trying to discuss in bad faith that someone not even being willing to pretend not to have them is a legitimately useful way for me to filter out conversations that wouldn't end up having any value for either side, and this honestly does seem to fit the meaning of "virtue signalling". If I'm tacitly asking for "virtue-signalling" by not being willing to discuss politics with, say, relatives who have binged too much Fox News over the past decade, then so be it.
    - girvo 2y ago
      I know its a bit of a tangent, but its wryly humorous to me that someone referring to something else as "virtue signalling" is, in itself, a way of signalling some specific "virtue" (an incredibly negative and gross one) wrt. the way they think about the world. Its quite useful, means I can safely ignore any opinion they have on the topic at hand.
      - togib 2y ago
        It's not merely useful, it's mandatory. There's a real risk of contamination when interacting with bigots!
        antihipocrat 2y ago
        Is this a joke? The irony is overwhelming
        concordDance 2y ago
        Oddly, despite probably disagreeing with you on many things, I think you might be right here. Interacting with people with very different world views does tend to make maintaining a simple black-and-white world view a lot harder and bits of grey will start to contaminate it.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        Are you suggesting the phenomenon is a myth? Or when it does occur, it is impolite to point it out?
        burnished 2y ago
        The phrase itself discredits the very idea of someone acting virtuously by implying any such thing is simply done to fulfill an ulterior motived. It is used with great frequency because it is a simple and easy way to discredit someone who says something you dislike. The absurd part is you are acting like everyone who uses that phrase has casual access to the interior life of absolute strangers: if it isnt a myth and the only reason someone wouldn't point it out is politeness the it follows that you know their motivations.
- hungie 2y ago
  How do you handle being corrected? It's ok to not keep up, if someone is like, "heads up, that term is more considered offensive. You might not have known, but here's the updated one" If you are like, "oh, shoot, didn't know, I'll try to remember that" then most folks are pretty chill. It's only when someone is like, "it's too fucking hard to remember the current term every decade I just want to use the term that offends people because I refuse to update a pointer in my memory!" That people generally get edgier over.
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    That's because those people are ageist. It's hard to keep re-learning things when you grow older. I don't know if the above statement is parody or reality in this ever changing political correctness climate.
    - hungie 2y ago
      I mean, ageism is absolutely real. As is cognitive decline (which is a legitimate disability). But also, there's a difference between "I'm trying and failing" and "I'm not trying". I give the former camp way way more leeway.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        How about "it's truly unfair of you to expect me to try to keep up with the latest language changes into my 70s, and you're at least as capable of learning to understand generational language gaps as I am of keeping up with the latest shibboleths?"
        hungie 2y ago
        I think you'll find I'm consistently willing to be forgiving of people across my comments here. The only moderately strong objection I'm posing is to the characterization of language evolving as a shibboleth. My grandad used to use a bunch of WW1 era slurs. Constantly. They were just language to him. I never got angry, I just let him know that if he used those slurs, people would have a perception that he was unwilling to believe in equality. He didn't realize and he tried, not because I said he was bad, but because he wanted to. If you want to not keep up, that's fine! But language always changes. Whether it's yeet, sus, aura, brat, or disabled, the use of words is going to change. So, if you choose not to change with it, you will eventually, accidentally, make someone who is keeping up feel hurt. That's not evil or bad. But at that moment, how you respond is something you can control -- talk to the person, share with them how it was unintentional, listen about how they felt. Explain to them how you feel about trying to keep up. Learn from one another. Getting angry because inter generational language gaps exist is like getting angry because someone bumped you accidentally. Accidents are gonna happen, it's how we get together and give each other grace and listen that matters. Don't assume every bump of a passing stranger is an assault. I think you might be reading my posts believing that I'm disagreeing with you, or that I'm insisting the new language is the only acceptable language. I'm really not.
- zjp 2y ago
  It's very funny when it comes full circle, like for 'moron', which no one thinks is a slur anymore.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    No one seems like a sweeping generalisation; it's far from normalised and you will not see it used in official publications like it used to.
    - akoboldfrying 2y ago
      "Moron", "idiot" and "imbecile" are all terms which at one time had specific medical definitions concerning intelligence -- and none of them are nowadays considered remotely as offensive as the word "retard". Why? (That you don't see any of them in official publications doesn't count for much in my opinion. Official publications try to avoid all negative emotive language.)
      - komadori 2y ago
        Moron, Idiot, and Imbecile were coined as precise medical terms by Dr Henry H Goddard in the 1900-10s. Retard(ed) was devised as a euphemism to replace them in the 1960s. Once an unfashionable euphemism falls out of use, people gradually cease to recognise the offensive meaning which made it unfashionable.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  I don't speak English everyday. When I'm speaking with someone, I usually don't care what their disability is, or their sexual preference, or their mental illness. I don't have the ability to learn all the new euphemisms every time somebody decides to move the social cheese. If someone gets offended because I was looking for the cheese where it's traditionally been, then they can enjoy the offence that they imagined. Even if I went to the effort of consulting a dictionary before every communication it could not be updated quickly enough.
tbrownaw 2y ago
Might be kind of hard to "destigmatize" the underlying concept behind the various ways of saying someone isn't very smart. The general tendency of most people to favor the in-group probably also provides enough of an underlying reality to make it hard to "destigmatize" the various ways of calling someone part of the out-group.
kloop 2y ago
I think a lot of the frustration comes from people being asked to make an effort for something they know won't reduce the stigmatization.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Not if only they do it, no, but concerted and widespread effort has destigmatized things. For example, how much did TV shows and films depicting interracial relationships (I'm thinking e.g. Star Trek) do to normalize interracial relationships? Gender, sexual identity, racial issues, etc are all actively considered and discussed nowadays in most layers of society; if it was still stigmatized, there wouldn't be a discussion about it.
consteval 2y ago
> but it's still annoying to see no progress be made on destigmatizing the underlying concepts I think this is just not true - the underlying concepts are constantly being destigmatized. I mean compare now to 50 years ago. Whether the words helped this or not - not sure.

by zjp 2y ago

YurgenJurgensen 2y ago

Well, what the new shibboleth actually means is “I have expended more effort keeping up with the current vocabulary than other people. And those people are bad for not having spent that effort.” The intent is not destigmatisation but counter-stigmatisation.

smogcutter 2y ago
If you frame changing vocabulary as a shibboleth that point of view is inevitable, but that doesn’t make it accurate. This is a view of other people on the same spectrum as accusing them of “virtue signaling”, and is equally worth ignoring.
- saghm 2y ago
  Not only are accusations of "virtue signaling" generally a sign of a conversation not being worth my time, I'll even go a step further; I think there's a genuinely useful phenomenon where some takes are so common from people I consider to be trying to discuss in bad faith that someone not even being willing to pretend not to have them is a legitimately useful way for me to filter out conversations that wouldn't end up having any value for either side, and this honestly does seem to fit the meaning of "virtue signalling". If I'm tacitly asking for "virtue-signalling" by not being willing to discuss politics with, say, relatives who have binged too much Fox News over the past decade, then so be it.
  - girvo 2y ago
    I know its a bit of a tangent, but its wryly humorous to me that someone referring to something else as "virtue signalling" is, in itself, a way of signalling some specific "virtue" (an incredibly negative and gross one) wrt. the way they think about the world. Its quite useful, means I can safely ignore any opinion they have on the topic at hand.
    - togib 2y ago
      It's not merely useful, it's mandatory. There's a real risk of contamination when interacting with bigots!
      - antihipocrat 2y ago
        Is this a joke? The irony is overwhelming
      - concordDance 2y ago
        Oddly, despite probably disagreeing with you on many things, I think you might be right here. Interacting with people with very different world views does tend to make maintaining a simple black-and-white world view a lot harder and bits of grey will start to contaminate it.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      Are you suggesting the phenomenon is a myth? Or when it does occur, it is impolite to point it out?
      - burnished 2y ago
        The phrase itself discredits the very idea of someone acting virtuously by implying any such thing is simply done to fulfill an ulterior motived. It is used with great frequency because it is a simple and easy way to discredit someone who says something you dislike. The absurd part is you are acting like everyone who uses that phrase has casual access to the interior life of absolute strangers: if it isnt a myth and the only reason someone wouldn't point it out is politeness the it follows that you know their motivations.
hungie 2y ago
How do you handle being corrected? It's ok to not keep up, if someone is like, "heads up, that term is more considered offensive. You might not have known, but here's the updated one" If you are like, "oh, shoot, didn't know, I'll try to remember that" then most folks are pretty chill. It's only when someone is like, "it's too fucking hard to remember the current term every decade I just want to use the term that offends people because I refuse to update a pointer in my memory!" That people generally get edgier over.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  That's because those people are ageist. It's hard to keep re-learning things when you grow older. I don't know if the above statement is parody or reality in this ever changing political correctness climate.
  - hungie 2y ago
    I mean, ageism is absolutely real. As is cognitive decline (which is a legitimate disability). But also, there's a difference between "I'm trying and failing" and "I'm not trying". I give the former camp way way more leeway.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      How about "it's truly unfair of you to expect me to try to keep up with the latest language changes into my 70s, and you're at least as capable of learning to understand generational language gaps as I am of keeping up with the latest shibboleths?"
      - hungie 2y ago
        I think you'll find I'm consistently willing to be forgiving of people across my comments here. The only moderately strong objection I'm posing is to the characterization of language evolving as a shibboleth. My grandad used to use a bunch of WW1 era slurs. Constantly. They were just language to him. I never got angry, I just let him know that if he used those slurs, people would have a perception that he was unwilling to believe in equality. He didn't realize and he tried, not because I said he was bad, but because he wanted to. If you want to not keep up, that's fine! But language always changes. Whether it's yeet, sus, aura, brat, or disabled, the use of words is going to change. So, if you choose not to change with it, you will eventually, accidentally, make someone who is keeping up feel hurt. That's not evil or bad. But at that moment, how you respond is something you can control -- talk to the person, share with them how it was unintentional, listen about how they felt. Explain to them how you feel about trying to keep up. Learn from one another. Getting angry because inter generational language gaps exist is like getting angry because someone bumped you accidentally. Accidents are gonna happen, it's how we get together and give each other grace and listen that matters. Don't assume every bump of a passing stranger is an assault. I think you might be reading my posts believing that I'm disagreeing with you, or that I'm insisting the new language is the only acceptable language. I'm really not.
zjp 2y ago
It's very funny when it comes full circle, like for 'moron', which no one thinks is a slur anymore.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  No one seems like a sweeping generalisation; it's far from normalised and you will not see it used in official publications like it used to.
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    "Moron", "idiot" and "imbecile" are all terms which at one time had specific medical definitions concerning intelligence -- and none of them are nowadays considered remotely as offensive as the word "retard". Why? (That you don't see any of them in official publications doesn't count for much in my opinion. Official publications try to avoid all negative emotive language.)
    - komadori 2y ago
      Moron, Idiot, and Imbecile were coined as precise medical terms by Dr Henry H Goddard in the 1900-10s. Retard(ed) was devised as a euphemism to replace them in the 1960s. Once an unfashionable euphemism falls out of use, people gradually cease to recognise the offensive meaning which made it unfashionable.
dotancohen 2y ago
I don't speak English everyday. When I'm speaking with someone, I usually don't care what their disability is, or their sexual preference, or their mental illness. I don't have the ability to learn all the new euphemisms every time somebody decides to move the social cheese. If someone gets offended because I was looking for the cheese where it's traditionally been, then they can enjoy the offence that they imagined. Even if I went to the effort of consulting a dictionary before every communication it could not be updated quickly enough.

tbrownaw 2y ago

Might be kind of hard to "destigmatize" the underlying concept behind the various ways of saying someone isn't very smart. The general tendency of most people to favor the in-group probably also provides enough of an underlying reality to make it hard to "destigmatize" the various ways of calling someone part of the out-group.

kloop 2y ago

I think a lot of the frustration comes from people being asked to make an effort for something they know won't reduce the stigmatization.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Not if only they do it, no, but concerted and widespread effort has destigmatized things. For example, how much did TV shows and films depicting interracial relationships (I'm thinking e.g. Star Trek) do to normalize interracial relationships? Gender, sexual identity, racial issues, etc are all actively considered and discussed nowadays in most layers of society; if it was still stigmatized, there wouldn't be a discussion about it.

consteval 2y ago

> but it's still annoying to see no progress be made on destigmatizing the underlying concepts I think this is just not true - the underlying concepts are constantly being destigmatized. I mean compare now to 50 years ago. Whether the words helped this or not - not sure.