5 ms·

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

• 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.
        • lolinder 2y ago
          > the characterization of language evolving as a shibboleth. When I showed up at my most recent job I used "you guys" once and immediately regretted it. Things got awkward for a second and then someone in the group constructed a sentence that allowed them to use "folks" and place the emphasis. I adapted, but if that's not a shibboleth I don't know what is.
          • hungie 2y ago
            What was the negative consequence you experienced from that interaction (genuine)? Did you follow up afterwards to understand why someone chose both the language they did?
            • DangitBobby 2y ago
              They were made to feel awkward in that interaction for no reason, and possibly judged unfairly.
              • burnished 2y ago
                You gotta be pretty sensitive to consider momentary awkwardness a consequence when someone blamelessly and passively corrects you. How do you reckon that they were judged here at all? This is a level of transgression roughly equivalent to mispronouncing someones name for the first time, I can't imagine anyone else even remembering this incident aside from OP and even they may only remember because the human brain reserves 10% of its space for reliving minor faux pas.
          • burnished 2y ago
            That isn't a shibboleth because it doesn't mark you as a member of their group. It sounds like a simple preference against gendered language (or maybe the default masculine, idk). Using the word 'head' to refer to the bathroom would be a shibboleth. Side note: I find that preference odd because I come from a context where 'you guys' is neutral, but ultimately view it as a deficiency in the english language.
    • concordDance 2y ago
      What about "this is not worth trying"? One thing people in bubbles like this forget is that for them, learning is easy and effortless, but there's a giant cognitive underclass (often aged) who have limited mental resources that they are much better off dedicating to real problems like dealing with that mold problem they've allowed to fester in their bedroom. Imposing a new norm on your engineering team is a very different thing to imposing a new norm on say, all of McDonalds or an entire society.
• mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  It can be pretty hard for non-native speakers to keep straight even the outdated term that they studied in their textbooks. Let's not make things harder for the people who are already struggling with language, just for the sake of showing off that we are all up to date on the same memos. If someone is using a term maliciously to express real prejudice, I'll call them out on it. If they are just communicating using the terms they know for the same concept that a newer term now exists for, that doesn't strike me as a reason to dock any points.
  • hungie 2y ago
    Yep! You are right that it's hard. But also, when a group says, "please stop calling us X", it's not just in group signaling. I'm disabled. Do not call me differently abled. I'm sorry if you had a textbook that taught you to do so, and I will gently gently correct you. Language always evolves. If you can learn what "yeet" means, you can practice using words people prefer for their groups.
    • mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      I've never once met a group. I've only met people who are members of groups, and they are rarely unanimous about the words that should be used to refer to members of the groups to which they claim membership. If I can manage not to forget your username, hungie, then I will try to remember not to call you "differently abled". But please be patient and forgiving of my confusion if, between now and our next conversation, I encounter a third individual who insists that I never refer to them as "disabled" and instead call them "differently abled", and my memory for which of you preferred which term fails me. Forgive me doubly if you're both in the audience at the same time when I'm giving a presentation about installing a wheelchair ramp, and struggling to come up with a mutually-satisfactory term. I already struggle enough with names alone, such that I often decline to use them out of anxiety of making a mistake!
      • hungie 2y ago
        You've got my forgiveness in that situation! That would be a tough one! I don't think most groups are unanimous in self describing, but I do think there are general trends. We know, generally, that certain words aren't ok! Plenty of slurs we avoid, even ones used by in groups in a reclaimed way. I don't think most reasonable people expect perfection. I spend a lot of time in disabled and queer (and disabled queer) circles, and I've primarily observed people expressing preferences, not anger.
• fsckboy 2y ago
  >How do you handle being corrected? I object to the word cishet that you used early, strongly. From my point of view it seems one particular crew is declaring that there need to be all these new words, and I don't agree that these are the people who get to decide that. Consider me a Blood, and I'm not accepting words created by the .... wait, respecting your wishes, I mean, consider me a Crip, and I'm not accepting words created by the Bloods. Come talkin that trash, we'll pull your card, knowin' nothin' in life, but to be legit, don't quote me, boy, 'cause I ain't said shit. Thanks, Eazy-E, couldn't have said it better myself
  • hungie 2y ago
    Sure. What word do you prefer to mean "heterosexual, non transgender person". The word cishet is just a combination of some (Latin? Greek?) prefixes, but if you'd prefer a different descriptor I'm happy to make the effort on your behalf. For others, who may not be aware, cishet is a portmanteau of cisgender heterosexual. Cis being the opposite of trans, Latin prefixes for "the side of" and "the opposite side of". Transgender is therefore just "the opposite gender" and cisgender is "the same gender". (These prefixes are commonly used across science.) Most folks are aware of homosexual (same sex attracted) and heterosexual (opposite sex attracted), which are the Greek prefixes for same and opposite. Maybe you are one of today's lucky 10,000 who didn't know where that term originated! (https://xkcd.com/1053 https://xkcd.com/1053)
    • dgfitz 2y ago
      It’s not much of a leap to go from cishet to shithead verbally. Very strange choice people seem to have latched onto.
      • hungie 2y ago
        Sure, I haven't heard that before but I could see it. I wouldn't be surprised if others made that connection too. Would hetero cisgender person be better for you?
        • 2y ago
• YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
  Since you used the rather telling term ‘corrected’: You have several comma splices, just as many missing commas, some dubious capitalisation and a missing full stop or two. I personally find sloppy punctuation offensive but I don’t usually point it out. How do /you/ handle being corrected? These rules change a lot less often than once a decade. Now, you may not like prescriptivist grammar, but if you don’t, I’d like to see how you justify one form of prescriptivism and not another. And if you don’t like how I picked on your choice of a single word in your post: That is the behaviour you’re defending.
  • hungie 2y ago
    I type on my phone, apologies. I try to take corrections with grace. If you've got suggestions that would clarify or corrections to my language that would remove understandings, please share them. I'm not bothered by your post! Genuinely. I find it takes all types, and if there's a way I can improve to be better understood, that's a language win for me. I level up when corrected.
  • tux3 2y ago
    I get the point you're trying to make, but I'm fairly sure you don't normally get this offended at punctuation, you're playing it up to prove a point. Quoth the Wiki: >When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. You're trying to apply prescriptivism consistently to the point of absurdity. In turn this causes you to reply to people who hold genuine views with a bad faith exaggerated offense at punctuation, just so you can illustrate your point, and that turns a genuine discussion into a something much less interesting. In wiki culture, they call this POINT-y behavior: Taking rules too far in bad faith just to prove a point. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT) TL;DR: Please don't do that, it makes the discussion very annoying!
• Scarblac 2y ago
  At first, that new term is not just the "updated term" that everyone knows is now considered less offensive. At first it's partly activist, and when you adopt it it means that many people won't understand you, think you're criticizing their use of the previous term, or think you're probably activist on other topics too, when you think you're using a normal, neutral expression. So most people are sceptical and wait with adopting new terms until they're widespread.
• ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  > heads up, that term is more considered offensive The passive voice thing always gets me here. It omits who is doing the considering. It's not like some word suddenly is offensive. A small group of people decides the word is offensive and then they either succeed or not at dragging everyone else along with them. "Is considered offensive" lends it a gravity that it doesn't deserve if you translate it: "some people whose opinions you may or may not value consider xyz offensive".
  • burnished 2y ago
    Agreed. Speak for yourself or speak for your community.
    • hungie 2y ago
      That's a good call out. I do try this in practice, e.g., "some members of the Inuit community are pushing back against the term Eskimo, because it's an exonym" By I do sometimes fall back to the passive voice.
• starspangled 2y ago
  Excuse me but I don't feel I can be a courageous and outspoken ally while remaining silent on this issue, so this is just a polite lesson since you appear to have some internalized ignorance. Using the term "shoot" as an exclamation is very insensitive and triggering particularly to people of color and refugees. I'm almost certain this was not intentional on your part, so in future be better, like me. The morally virtuous new term that the experts have decided is the correct replacement is "golly gee willikers". Please use it.
  • hungie 2y ago
    I know plenty of folks who do object to the use of shoot in this way. And, in their company, I do try to avoid it. Your suggestion suggests you are not discussing in good faith.
    • starspangled 2y ago
      > I know plenty of folks who do object to the use of shoot in this way. And, in their company, I do try to avoid it. And yet you used it anyway, a microaggression which betrays your privilege. Be kind. Above all, be kind. > Your suggestion suggests you are not discussing in good faith. Too fucking hard to remember the current term, is it? Seems like you don't handle being corrected very well.
      • hungie 2y ago
        I'm sorry someone hurt you. And I'm sorry you think I am the same as whoever they are. I think your anger is aimed at the wrong person, but I hope you are able to introspect and examine these feelings and find peace in the future.
        • starspangled 2y ago
          You simply can't cope with taking my correction without making a fuss. Which is very ironic.