3 ms·

> heckling people about the term used to describe the people is not going to move the needle on that issue I disagree with this; this is the primary means by w

> heckling people about the term used to describe the people is not going to move the needle on that issue I disagree with this; this is the primary means by which dehumanization occurs. I like to think of "police officer" as the perfect dehumanizing term because it showcases that dehumanization is not always negative. Some people will hear the term and automatically think good things and some will automatically think bad things. Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with. The point is that dehumanization makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
But that's true of every term. "Computer programmer", say. People hear that term and automatically think certain things. " Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with." It "makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person." So I think that dynamic is present in every term we use to refer to humans as something other than "human". I don't need people to refer to me as "human who programs computers" so that I'm not dehumanized. (In fact, once "human that programs computers" becomes the accepted term, that term would also have the dynamic of dehumanizing those it covers. Having the word "human" in it wouldn't save it once it became a recognized term.)
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  Your whole first paragraph is actually offering another example of a dehumanizing term. The point of “human who does a thing” is to be a naturally-chosen phrase, not a term. Think, “Joe programs computers”, not, “Joe is a computer programmer”. You are correct that it would similarly be dehumanizing if it simply became another term to replace “computer programmer” like “Joe is a human-who-programs-computers” but that is because the statement is about what Joe supposedly “is” rather than being a description of things they’ve done.
hcnova10 1y ago
In that case the most dehumanizing terms I can think of are blacks, Asians, Latinos, and to a certain extent, white.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  Well, I mean, I don’t disagree; those are all racist terms. The dehumanizing aspect of those terms (and more generally with racism) is that they are reducing a person to their physical characteristics. “They’re black” is different from “they have a dark skin color”. One is talking about “what someone is” holistically (dehumanizing), while the other is talking about a specific aspect of their physical appearance.
  - hcnova10 1y ago
    That seems a bit of a stretch. The idea will evolve into, “Since racial labels are bad let’s just ignore them altogether and be color blind”. But we all know that’s not how the real world works. Three male programmers with same qualifications, the black man is going to have a different experience with the police than a white man. And the Asian man is going to deal with different stuff when it comes to dating.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      I don’t necessarily disagree with this comment but I also think the things you mention are examples of how society-wide dehumanization can affect real-world decision-making when it comes to certain demographics.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

But that's true of every term. "Computer programmer", say. People hear that term and automatically think certain things. " Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with." It "makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person." So I think that dynamic is present in every term we use to refer to humans as something other than "human". I don't need people to refer to me as "human who programs computers" so that I'm not dehumanized. (In fact, once "human that programs computers" becomes the accepted term, that term would also have the dynamic of dehumanizing those it covers. Having the word "human" in it wouldn't save it once it became a recognized term.)

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
Your whole first paragraph is actually offering another example of a dehumanizing term. The point of “human who does a thing” is to be a naturally-chosen phrase, not a term. Think, “Joe programs computers”, not, “Joe is a computer programmer”. You are correct that it would similarly be dehumanizing if it simply became another term to replace “computer programmer” like “Joe is a human-who-programs-computers” but that is because the statement is about what Joe supposedly “is” rather than being a description of things they’ve done.

hcnova10 1y ago

In that case the most dehumanizing terms I can think of are blacks, Asians, Latinos, and to a certain extent, white.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
Well, I mean, I don’t disagree; those are all racist terms. The dehumanizing aspect of those terms (and more generally with racism) is that they are reducing a person to their physical characteristics. “They’re black” is different from “they have a dark skin color”. One is talking about “what someone is” holistically (dehumanizing), while the other is talking about a specific aspect of their physical appearance.
- hcnova10 1y ago
  That seems a bit of a stretch. The idea will evolve into, “Since racial labels are bad let’s just ignore them altogether and be color blind”. But we all know that’s not how the real world works. Three male programmers with same qualifications, the black man is going to have a different experience with the police than a white man. And the Asian man is going to deal with different stuff when it comes to dating.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    I don’t necessarily disagree with this comment but I also think the things you mention are examples of how society-wide dehumanization can affect real-world decision-making when it comes to certain demographics.