Every once in a while I read something that underscores the absurdity of taking “political correctness” or whatever you want to call it to extremes. That list is one of those events. Not just for “American”. Sanitizing language in the extreme, or attempting to, based on some persons notion of being more “sensitive” is, in the end counter productive. Because it’s absurdity allows folks (can I use that word or is it Human Centric) to slough off real issues of language, and action.
Obviously there are words - slurs - that should not be used. But this…?
BC perfectly describes the issue of “micro aggressions “. So often situations where the listener reacts based on a meaning ascribed to the statement that was not meant by the speaker. No one’s “fault “, btw. Just different perspectives.
The sum total of this is further division. Further triabilism. Ideological segregation. Because it’s safer.
That list is absurd. Can I say that? Or, does that make me an as-hole. I know I can use that word. We all have one….
If you want to take this to it’s illogical (wait - is the root “logic” “abelist”.) extreme make a list of words that, should somebody decide to do so, can be similarity listed. Perhaps then you will have the foresight (whoops that can’t be used - denigrates the visually challenged) to understand there is almost no end to the absurdity.
As an exercise think of all the uses of master. Wonder when the cry will be to change the name of Mastercard.
This is a fascinating and I think important topic. Not sure how far we can go here without breaking The Rule. Words matter, of course. Perhaps more today than ever. Yet, the attempt to sanitize language is so often taken to the extreme. The latest euphemism that apparently now must be used by all people with sensitivity is “unhoused”. Why? Does that help solve the horrific situation? Do those living on the streets feel better if referred to as “unhoused”. To me, it’s less descriptive. And softer in this and many other instances isn’t better. It only serves to make those who aren’t in such a dire situation feel better about themselves. Homeless is so harsh. Unhoused sounds nicer. Well, there is nothing nicer about it. Not in reality.
Obviously there are words - slurs - that should not be used. But this…?
BC perfectly describes the issue of “micro aggressions “. So often situations where the listener reacts based on a meaning ascribed to the statement that was not meant by the speaker. No one’s “fault “, btw. Just different perspectives.
The sum total of this is further division. Further triabilism. Ideological segregation. Because it’s safer.
That list is absurd. Can I say that? Or, does that make me an as-hole. I know I can use that word. We all have one….
If you want to take this to it’s illogical (wait - is the root “logic” “abelist”.) extreme make a list of words that, should somebody decide to do so, can be similarity listed. Perhaps then you will have the foresight (whoops that can’t be used - denigrates the visually challenged) to understand there is almost no end to the absurdity.
As an exercise think of all the uses of master. Wonder when the cry will be to change the name of Mastercard.
This is a fascinating and I think important topic. Not sure how far we can go here without breaking The Rule. Words matter, of course. Perhaps more today than ever. Yet, the attempt to sanitize language is so often taken to the extreme. The latest euphemism that apparently now must be used by all people with sensitivity is “unhoused”. Why? Does that help solve the horrific situation? Do those living on the streets feel better if referred to as “unhoused”. To me, it’s less descriptive. And softer in this and many other instances isn’t better. It only serves to make those who aren’t in such a dire situation feel better about themselves. Homeless is so harsh. Unhoused sounds nicer. Well, there is nothing nicer about it. Not in reality.