3 ms·

If you're going to use etymology as a reason to censor words, then I hope you never use the word 'bad'.

by vmind 13y ago

logn 13y ago
Interesting. Had to google it: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad 'Bad' is a pretty fundamental word in our language not easily removed. 'Barbaric' is different. We also don't sling around 'gay', 'retard', and 'ching chong'.
- omonra 13y ago
  We don't call Asian homosexual mentally-challenged 'retarded ching chong fag' because a) those qualities are something a person is born with b) they do not cause grievous harm to others Meanwhile certain actions (such as practice of FGM) are both done by choice and cause harm to innocent victims. Which is why it is our right to call them barbaric. Is there any human activity that you would not call barbaric - cannibalism? Slavery?
  - logn 13y ago
    That's not quite the same thing. A better comparison would be calling FGM 'retarded'. A more apt comparison would be, say, that sex slavery is so 'gringo' (although gringo doesn't really have a negative definition so it's not the best analogy). Anyhow, I don't truly care one way or another. I'm just saying I see where Amnesty is coming from. Generally I don't modify my language until there's a group specifically offended. That might not even be the case here and I might not mind offending FGM practitioners. But Amnesty is not trying to dehumanize people, because doing so in general leads to worse treatment of people.
    - omonra 13y ago
      I think your mistake is to suppose that we use the adjective 'barbaric' to somehow demean or dehumanize its practitioners. Ie - because they are black/brown/muslim that we allow ourselves to use this language. That's 100% wrong (and is well addressed in the OP). Barbaric refers to the act itself. If Hungarians or Swedes decide to chop their girls' labia off, I will call that barbaric. And if it offends someone - I don't give a flying fuck. Just like we do not care if slave-owners are offended because we consider their practice barbaric.

If you're going to use etymology as a reason to censor words, then I hope you never use the word 'bad'.

by vmind 13y ago

If you're going to use etymology as a reason to censor words, then I hope you never use the word 'bad'.

logn 13y ago

Interesting. Had to google it: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad 'Bad' is a pretty fundamental word in our language not easily removed. 'Barbaric' is different. We also don't sling around 'gay', 'retard', and 'ching chong'.

omonra 13y ago
We don't call Asian homosexual mentally-challenged 'retarded ching chong fag' because a) those qualities are something a person is born with b) they do not cause grievous harm to others Meanwhile certain actions (such as practice of FGM) are both done by choice and cause harm to innocent victims. Which is why it is our right to call them barbaric. Is there any human activity that you would not call barbaric - cannibalism? Slavery?
- logn 13y ago
  That's not quite the same thing. A better comparison would be calling FGM 'retarded'. A more apt comparison would be, say, that sex slavery is so 'gringo' (although gringo doesn't really have a negative definition so it's not the best analogy). Anyhow, I don't truly care one way or another. I'm just saying I see where Amnesty is coming from. Generally I don't modify my language until there's a group specifically offended. That might not even be the case here and I might not mind offending FGM practitioners. But Amnesty is not trying to dehumanize people, because doing so in general leads to worse treatment of people.
  - omonra 13y ago
    I think your mistake is to suppose that we use the adjective 'barbaric' to somehow demean or dehumanize its practitioners. Ie - because they are black/brown/muslim that we allow ourselves to use this language. That's 100% wrong (and is well addressed in the OP). Barbaric refers to the act itself. If Hungarians or Swedes decide to chop their girls' labia off, I will call that barbaric. And if it offends someone - I don't give a flying fuck. Just like we do not care if slave-owners are offended because we consider their practice barbaric.