So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value. But what if it does? What if the way people talk publicly about other people does impact behavior? Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights? What about slurs against gays, or Jews? Maybe there is some value in policing language after all?
Language policing is a form of control used by totalitarian regimes. If you are seeing changes they will be short lived after the controlled gets tired of the controllers forcing a particular outcome. It happens time and time again. It’s like we don’t even learn from history anymore.
> So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value.
That's not my point. I think they're both true.
> But what if it does?
Why are corporations dropping it as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so if it is providing value to them?
What value is yelling at people who don't include their pronouns in their bio providing to society? What about education consultants who have a stated goal of assuring equal outcomes for all students (this happened in my very large, progressive district and parents lost their minds)?
> What if the way people talk publicly about other people does impact behavior?
There are much more effective and efficient ways to accomplish this than what the people in question are doing if that's the case.
> Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights?
Not particularly
> What about slurs against gays, or Jews?
Not particularly
> Maybe there is some value in policing language after all?
Feel free to share any evidence you have, I'm open to hearing about it
>> Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights?
>Not particularly
>> What about slurs against gays, or Jews?
>Not particularly
Honestly, if you're having a hard time seeing the harm that ethnic and racial slurs do, particularly from public officials or community leaders, you're not going to understand any of this.
This is the second time you've reframed a question you asked to present my response in an inaccurate light, presumably because you weren't able to move to your next talking point from my actual response. This might work on people who don't notice it, but it's extremely dishonest and unproductive.
Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful. Adding social stigma to specific words just causes the people who would use them to use different terms if they care about the stigma, and the change does very little to contribute to equal rights.
>Adding social stigma to specific words just causes the people who would use them to use different terms if they care about the stigma, and the change does very little to contribute to equal rights.
So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows.
I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through. You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful, but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power. Do you see the contradiction there? You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society. That just isn't plausible.
> So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows.
Yes, that is my "hypothesis", having a basic familiarity with history where this has happened repeatedly. It's obviously not that hard to get a word into general usage, and it's also not a mystery when someone is attempting to insult you even if you aren't familiar with the word in the moment.
> I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through.
You asked a question, then changed the phrasing of that question in your next question. I would say that failing to ask the question you actually meant to ask (which is a generous reading of our discussion) is indicative of failing to think things through.
Again, your behavior has been consistently antagonistic and obnoxious (the comment above is another example).
> You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful
Yes
> but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power.
Never said anything close to that.
> Do you see the contradiction there?
I get that you'd like it if I said what you are claiming as that could be contradictory and you could expand on that while asking leading questions and contributing little else, but I didn't and frankly have no interest in continuing a conversation with an insufferable prig.
> You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society.
No I'm not. Go have your imaginary conversation elsewhere.
How is this exchange imaginary? It's right above, five comments up:
>> Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights?
>Not particularly
>> What about slurs against gays, or Jews?
>Not particularly
How else should someone interpret your response, other than as stating that you don't see any connection between ethnic slurs and equal rights? If you misspoke, or I'm somehow misinterpreting, maybe you should elaborate, if only for the sake of others coming across this thread.
> Why are corporations dropping it as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so if it is providing value to them?
Goalposts are moving quite a bit here. Companies are dropping some affirmative action, but I don’t see anyone dropping things such as pronouns or unisex restrooms, vegetarian/halal/kosher meal options, and so on.
I don't think I'm moving the goalposts. Things like accessible restrooms and additional food choices are good and meaningful improvements. They aren't being dropped because they add value to people's lives for little to no cost.
It seems like the pronoun push has passed (the performative part about chastising people for not wearing a pin or updating an email signature, not correctly using someone's preferred pronouns), but I'm also largely removed from the portion of society that cares a lot about at it at the moment.
I believe PG's essay is intentionally trying to separate the two, and nothing you mentioned as remaining would be considered affirmative action (which largely would fall under what PG is criticizing imo).
> the performative part about chastising people for not wearing a pin or updating an email signature
I'm sorry, but I can't recall a single time it actually happened. Expressing support is important, but I never heard of it being mandatory. And since pronouns are a big part of someone's identity, I'd say one should try to get them right, especially now that most of us made it easy to do (mine are he/him, BTW).
> I'm sorry, but I can't recall a single time it actually happened. Expressing support is important, but I never heard of it being mandatory.
I'm sorry, but it does happen. I've personally experienced it and witnessed it.
> And since pronouns are a big part of someone's identity, I'd say one should try to get them right, especially now that most of us made it easy to do (mine are he/him, BTW).
We should absolutely get it right, but they are not a big part of everyone's identity, which is a point missed by the people who feel it is an extremely large part of theirs and want everyone to know about it.
Pronouns are not a big part of any cis person’s identity because everything matches their identity. Trans people need to affirm their gender against what nature and society afforded them since they were born. It’s inconsiderate to ignore that.
That's their problem to deal with. And as we have seen repeatedly demonstrated in recent years, calling a male "she" is more likely to encourage him to violate women's boundaries and to give this an air of acceptability. This is why it's important not to accede to "preferred pronoun" requests, as it becomes a slippery slope to the erosion of women's rights.
I think this is a good example of what annoys people about "wokeness" (not speaking to the larger social dynamics nor the larger political atmosphere.)
I'm POC. Many people, even some really close friends of mine, don't know the primary language that I grew up using even though I speak, read, and write in English with an American accent. Some folks have used invented names to describe my primary language. Others don't know that someone who looks a lot like me doesn't speak the same primary language. It's annoying, sure. Sometimes it feels vaguely discriminatory. But I'm not going to get extremely angry about it, rant about it, or launch into attack over it. I generally smile a bit, correct them, and move on. I might then laugh at them a bit (gently) with some friends of the same ethnic background. Again I don't mind that much. It's the price we pay of living in a multicultural society, that to some extent we always understand yet misunderstand everyone else.
Now obviously some people use these styles of microagressions to discriminate or throw hate or prejudice at others. If you're reading a small snippet (like Twitter-alikes) or if you read something out of context, it can be hard to tell whether this person is prejudiced against you or is simply unaware. But generally in long-form online conversation or in face-to-face conversation, it becomes very obvious when people are prejudiced vs unaware. And sometimes there are borderline cases where you can't tell. This line is ill-defined, varies by situation, and often varies by person. Part of participating in a multicultural society is to find your line. For some folks it's a quick one: small microaggressions and you disengage. Others are fine to forgive and are open to more of these microaggressions.
I'm not saying this in the abstract. I have definitely gotten weird vibes from folks in conversations who kept tiptoeing around ethnic slurs. I trust my gut. I usually walk away from those conversations IRL or block the person online. I've also been racially harassed before in person, both as bullying when I was younger and just plain anti-ethnic behavior as an adult.
Constantly trying to be considerate to every minority group for every perceived grievance is exhausting and creates a chilling effect on speech. This is the problem with this form of "wokism." There's a different category of issues when this gets extrapolated into politics and large social issues that requires a much longer answer than this, but I hope my answer offers some insight.
Language policing costs a lot, but its invisible since its the cost of everyone updating themselves and spending time rethinking what to say. That is worth many billions of dollars in lost time, and since its a moving target like we see with other words constantly getting updated it will never stop, its an ongoing cost we constantly pay for this.
>Language policing costs a lot, but its invisible since its the cost of everyone updating themselves and spending time rethinking what to say.
How often do you think the average person actually has to change their language? It seems like it would be a pretty tiny fraction for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of circumstances. On the other hand, if you're a professor of history or a public official, it probably does cost some of your time. But in those cases, doesn't it also provide value?
Is the same true of other forms of manners, table behaviour say, or are they actually encoding something useful and pro-social?
My guess is, if I'd had to learn to use a knife and fork and typical Western table manners at 35, it'd remain a small stone in my shoe for life.
Which is to say, not using certain language might always grind our gears a little. I notice it, certainly don't always use the words my brain first reaches for, but not so much as to bug me. There's so much other self-censorship that we automate subconsciously or almost, it's not a big deal.
For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur.
> For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur.
That's because they replaced the r word with autistic, which I presume will be the a word in about 20 years and some other term will be used to describe autism.
They describe quite different phenomena, both in terms of the actual state of being and how they're deployed as a slur? "autistic" seems to be more like "nerd" used to be a slur (but also sometime identity badge) before the rise of SV billionaires.
I've never heard "autistic" applied to anything other than people (and possibly animals, for humour) for example, in the way the r word was used as a stronger version of "dumb".
Anyway, I think people having to be a little careful with their words is a small price to pay to breaking the linguistic and stereotypical link between people with learning difficulties, Downs etc. and dumb, annoying situations.
It's called spelling a word because words are spells, which is why it's ok to place some of them off-limits.
> They describe quite different phenomena, both in terms of the actual state of being and how they're deployed as a slur? "autistic" seems to be more like "nerd" used to be a slur (but also sometime identity badge) before the rise of SV billionaires.
Not what I'm talking about at all. Teens in the US use autistic in the exact same way the r word was used 20 - 30 years ago. It's an insult that is a stronger version of dumb.
> I've never heard "autistic" applied to anything other than people (and possibly animals, for humour) for example, in the way the r word was used as a stronger version of "dumb".
You're just not exposed to it then. Which is fine, but doesn't mean it isn't commonplace. I am guessing you don't live in the US based on your spelling of humour, which would be one explanation of why you aren't tuned into this.
> Anyway, I think people having to be a little careful with their words is a small price to pay to breaking the linguistic and stereotypical link between people with learning difficulties, Downs etc. and dumb, annoying situations.
People being considerate is good. But banning specific words doesn't accomplish what most of the word police claims it will.
> It's called spelling a word because words are spells, which is why it's ok to place some of them off-limits.
> Not what I'm talking about at all. Teens in the US use autistic in the exact same way the r word was used 20 - 30 years ago. It's an insult that is a stronger version of dumb.
Well that's... <searches mental Rolodex> the actions of a bunch of people with the intellect of a grape, the empathy of a stale French fry, and the collective odour of a sack of dead badgers.
(See how much more fun this whole insult business is with just a little more effort?)
> You're just not exposed to it then. Which is fine, but doesn't mean it isn't commonplace. I am guessing you don't live in the US based on your spelling of humour, which would be one explanation of why you aren't tuned into this.
Yep. I'm in the UK. Have teenage kids, if I caught them using autistic in that way, they could say goodbye to wifi access for a month.
> People being considerate is good. But banning specific words doesn't accomplish what most of the word police claims it will.
Eventually it does, or helps to at least, but over a much longer timeframe. Generations, realistically - many middle-aged people don't have the mental plasticity to absorb big shifts in how race, gender, sex, sexuality are addressed.
Changing minds takes a lot longer than changing manners, but the latter can make a positive difference in the meantime.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but that doesn't change anything about how little language changes impact the lived experiences of the targets of the slur du jour.
