3 ms·

You can easily tell whether it is objectively bad when some concept applies to someone or something or whether the concept is merely used as an insult. For exam

You can easily tell whether it is objectively bad when some concept applies to someone or something or whether the concept is merely used as an insult. For example "retarded". Expressed as an euphemism this would be "very low IQ" or perhaps "mentally challenged". Now the test: How much money would you pay in order to avoid becoming mentally challenged / very low IQ yourself? (Due to some avoidable medical issue perhaps.) I guess most people would pay a lot of money. Losing much of your intelligence is one of the objectively worst things that can happen to you. It would e.g. mean having way worse job opportunities. Which would mean earning less, and having generally a much more unpleasant job, if one gets a job at all. This confirms that it is pretty objectively bad to fall under this concept, regardless of whether people express it with an euphemism or not.

pxc 2y ago
You're missing the difference between something that is regarded as contemptible vs. merely unfortunate. It is 'objectively bad' to have cancer, but there is no comparable drive for a euphemistic designation for cancer patients, because cancer patients are not regarded with contempt the way that disabled people are. There is generally a kind of hostile and personal judgement involved in the regard of referents of terms on euphemistic treadmills that goes beyond the judgment that the associated traits, afflictions, situations, etc., are undesirable. Your method of analysis here does not do a good job of explaining the thing at issue, or at least, it leaves crucial elements unexplained.
- cubefox 2y ago
  Let's agree there must be an explanation why some concepts are affected by the euphemism treadmill while others (like cancer) are not, only we don't know the explanation. Though someone probably knows it. One thing I noticed is that (for some reason) nobody has an interest to make cancer seem less bad than it is, while such interests exist for euphemism treadmill concepts. Though I'm not sure where this difference comes from.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pxc 2y ago
    Yes. I do think that a form of denialism plays a role in why some efforts to reshape language euphemistically fail. I just wanted to emphasize that there are some other factors in play, and also suggest that there are ways of seeking respect and dignity (esp. for the disabled) that don't involve denialism. It is also super common for people to assume that disabled people can't do things they genuinely can (if often through extra time, effort, or special techniques). So there's a real underestimation phenomenon that disabled people often try to push back against politically, in addition to strategies (often from outside disability communities but sometimes, imo, from within) that seek equal dignity and rights through an erasure of real differences. Both are going on. I've honed in on disability here because I think it's one case (of many) of at least one kind of thing that's likely to get put on a euphemism treadmill: traits whose bearers are seen as making up a certain kind of person. Cancer I think we tend to see as incidental to who someone is, as opposed to some other things like reading ability, the capacity to walk, criminality, maybe certain aspects of personality, etc.

pxc 2y ago

You're missing the difference between something that is regarded as contemptible vs. merely unfortunate. It is 'objectively bad' to have cancer, but there is no comparable drive for a euphemistic designation for cancer patients, because cancer patients are not regarded with contempt the way that disabled people are. There is generally a kind of hostile and personal judgement involved in the regard of referents of terms on euphemistic treadmills that goes beyond the judgment that the associated traits, afflictions, situations, etc., are undesirable. Your method of analysis here does not do a good job of explaining the thing at issue, or at least, it leaves crucial elements unexplained.

cubefox 2y ago
Let's agree there must be an explanation why some concepts are affected by the euphemism treadmill while others (like cancer) are not, only we don't know the explanation. Though someone probably knows it. One thing I noticed is that (for some reason) nobody has an interest to make cancer seem less bad than it is, while such interests exist for euphemism treadmill concepts. Though I'm not sure where this difference comes from.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pxc 2y ago
  Yes. I do think that a form of denialism plays a role in why some efforts to reshape language euphemistically fail. I just wanted to emphasize that there are some other factors in play, and also suggest that there are ways of seeking respect and dignity (esp. for the disabled) that don't involve denialism. It is also super common for people to assume that disabled people can't do things they genuinely can (if often through extra time, effort, or special techniques). So there's a real underestimation phenomenon that disabled people often try to push back against politically, in addition to strategies (often from outside disability communities but sometimes, imo, from within) that seek equal dignity and rights through an erasure of real differences. Both are going on. I've honed in on disability here because I think it's one case (of many) of at least one kind of thing that's likely to get put on a euphemism treadmill: traits whose bearers are seen as making up a certain kind of person. Cancer I think we tend to see as incidental to who someone is, as opposed to some other things like reading ability, the capacity to walk, criminality, maybe certain aspects of personality, etc.