4 ms·

It seems to be the dynamic between two entirely different sets of people, with diametrically opposed aims. One group wishes to spread awareness of afflicted pe

It seems to be the dynamic between two entirely different sets of people, with diametrically opposed aims. One group wishes to spread awareness of afflicted people, in the belief they can improve the empathy shown to such people by society, even though it's at odds with human fear of disease and disfigurement. It's one thing to be crippled, it's another to crippled and society finds you repulsive and treats you like shit. This group reckon that the afflicted need a good marketing campaign. This is why they're coming up with media strategies, slogans, and of course euphemisms. Why it's National Unfortunate Bugger Day today! Let's take a look at the plight of these poor bastards and be quietly relieved we don't have their problems. The other group is the rest of humanity, and when they feel the need to insult their peers, they reach for the strongest words they can muster. As you say, it's inevitable. In the words of Professor F. J. Lewis: See that <horrible thing>? That's you, that is. That's you trying your best. The UK's Blue Peter and the National Spastics Society found this out the hard way when in 1981 they broadcast a story on Joey Deacon, a man with cerebral palsy. Blue Peter wanted children to learn about how Joey was intelligent, but his condition made it very hard to communicate that. What actually happened after the broadcast is that "joey" and "spastic" became the hot new playground insults, along with impersonating Joey's speech mannerisms. It was so bad that the National Spastics Society renamed itself to "Scope" to avoid the negative connotations the word had picked up. Of course, UK children then adopted "scoper" as an insult too. This didn't reach the USA at all, which is why "spaz" is a mild insult in US English, while in the UK it's a grave insult.

smeej 2y ago
I think the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault. I want you to be in the wrong. I don't want to admit that I'm responsible for my reactions even when you are doing something wrong. It's much harder work to master myself than to complain that you haven't mastered yours. I know someone who has resorted to, "This displeases me," as his condemnation of choice to combat this tendency, to keep right in front of himself the reality of the situation, that he doesn't like something, but his displeasure is his responsibility. I think that recognition has to happen to make space for a response to the situation, rather than a reaction to it. Does my displeasure motivate me to take action? If so, what kind? Are other people pleased by the situation? Can I see it their way? Is their response measured, or reactionary? It buys time, and inserting a beat between the event and the response makes all the difference.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault If someone does something blazingly stupid, I should be able to calmly and legitimately point that out.
  - groby_b 2y ago
    It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.
      - groby_b 2y ago
        Even then, it's possible to talk about the person not possessing the necessary skill set, instead of resorting to an insult. It's not about euphemism - an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem. Note, I'm not saying you should never insult - it's a tool that's sometimes useful - but you should carefully choose if you want to use that tool. And it's definitely a different tool than "calmly and legitimately pointing out". You cannot, in this case, have your cake and eat it too.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem If you're insulting to feel good, that's on you. But if you're insulting to be sure your point came across clearly, that has utility. I'm simply challenging the claim that the "desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions." It can also be from a desire to avoid miscommunication. Strong language is strong because it demands strong interpretation. If what you need is a strong interpretation, strong language is legitimate. > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem Most of the time, the process is fucked. But sometimes, a person is unqualified. Or a liar. In those cases, the person is the problem. The fact that it displeases someone is secondary, and honestly, totally irrelevant. Trying to re-frame that in a form that pretends the person isn't the problem is the point of euphemism. It's more polite to say "ABC is having difficulty with their workload" than "ABC is a moron; these are not difficult asks."

smeej 2y ago

I think the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault. I want you to be in the wrong. I don't want to admit that I'm responsible for my reactions even when you are doing something wrong. It's much harder work to master myself than to complain that you haven't mastered yours. I know someone who has resorted to, "This displeases me," as his condemnation of choice to combat this tendency, to keep right in front of himself the reality of the situation, that he doesn't like something, but his displeasure is his responsibility. I think that recognition has to happen to make space for a response to the situation, rather than a reaction to it. Does my displeasure motivate me to take action? If so, what kind? Are other people pleased by the situation? Can I see it their way? Is their response measured, or reactionary? It buys time, and inserting a beat between the event and the response makes all the difference.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault If someone does something blazingly stupid, I should be able to calmly and legitimately point that out.
- groby_b 2y ago
  It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.
    - groby_b 2y ago
      Even then, it's possible to talk about the person not possessing the necessary skill set, instead of resorting to an insult. It's not about euphemism - an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem. Note, I'm not saying you should never insult - it's a tool that's sometimes useful - but you should carefully choose if you want to use that tool. And it's definitely a different tool than "calmly and legitimately pointing out". You cannot, in this case, have your cake and eat it too.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem If you're insulting to feel good, that's on you. But if you're insulting to be sure your point came across clearly, that has utility. I'm simply challenging the claim that the "desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions." It can also be from a desire to avoid miscommunication. Strong language is strong because it demands strong interpretation. If what you need is a strong interpretation, strong language is legitimate. > an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem Most of the time, the process is fucked. But sometimes, a person is unqualified. Or a liar. In those cases, the person is the problem. The fact that it displeases someone is secondary, and honestly, totally irrelevant. Trying to re-frame that in a form that pretends the person isn't the problem is the point of euphemism. It's more polite to say "ABC is having difficulty with their workload" than "ABC is a moron; these are not difficult asks."