choosing language carefully – being considerate
I make no claims to be a ‘nice’ person who is aware of every social nuance, nor am I a calm person who doesn’t enjoy flying off the handle now and then.
What I do try to be is a considerate human being who doesn’t take my social conditioning for granted. Going against social conditioning has been a key part of removing myself from Christianity, a key part of choosing not to eat other animals, and a key part in my enthusiasm for modifying my socially conditioned language when it’s brought to my attention that it not only offends, but is and has been used to further marginalise minority groups who are discriminated against within society.
So it always comes as a great shock to me when people who I know are generally enthusiastic free thinkers, who view the world and other people through a lens of logic and compassion, insist on continuing to use out-dated terms that are proven to harm other people.
Most of us have been socially conditioned at this point in time to never use the word ‘nigger’. Even letting this word linger on screen seems somehow repulsive. We know it represents an attitude of foul racism and discrimination that sought to place people into groups of superior and inferior based on the colour of their skin.
Most of us have also been socially conditioned by now to never use the word ‘poof’ or ‘faggot’. We know it represents an attitude of foul hatred and discrimination that sought to place people into groups of superior and inferior based on perceived levels of femininity.
But many of us still say ‘retard’ and other words like it on a regular basis, as a throwaway insult designed to make someone we perceive as ‘normal’ to feel as if they are ‘less then normal’. It is used to express that we are in a superior group, while others are in an inferior group. The only people we insult when we use this word is people with learning disabilities – we tell them that when we hate how someone else thinks, we give them a hate label that puts them in the bin, along with people with learning disabilities.
There’s a campaign to stop people using this word, to make people stop and think about their linguistic conditioning, and how the way they choose to express themselves can hurt other people. Please read it:
http://www.r-word.org/r-word-effects-of-the-word.aspx
If you have never spent time with people with learning disabilities, find a suitable place to volunteer in your local community, so that you can overcome any small-minded and ignorant ‘them and us’ attitudes you may be harbouring. The more people you meet, the more you realise that people are simply people, and that hate labels serve no-one’s best interests.
Really great post! So spot on.
LikeLike
Thank you. Unfortunately it’s one of those subjects that only seems to resonate with the already converted. There’s a surprising barrier in place for people to recognise this kind of thing, perhaps with many of those in denial that only seeing a loved one being harmed before their eyes could make them reconsider their attitude. In the meantime, people are content with their arrogant sense that how they ‘choose’ to express themselves (in denial of their linguistic conditioning) has no direct harmful intent and therefore magically isn’t harmful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree. There’s those that seem to understand, and those that go on about ‘left-wing apologist political correctness’. It’s ridiculous. I wish more people understood it. Hopefully your post reaches at least one person! Even if it’s one person who’s converted, that’s a huge difference. Keep it up – you’re doing a great job x
LikeLike
I always consider faggots as something one uses to start a fire and retarred usually means something the council do to roads when they are of a mind.
LikeLike
That’s so unfair. I stopped starting fires years ago! 😛
LikeLike
You missed your calling as a comic. But it’s nice to see these skills on display when you disagree with a post (or you know your blogging buddies do) and are too afraid to say anything that might make you unpopular. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s gay or you’re gay is another one. Good post and I totally agree.
LikeLike
Thanks, and thanks for the link too. I hope your sense of understanding of the issue will give others with blind spots pause for thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This post is an ode to political correctness and is thus a disgusting insult to the free exchange of ideas.
In a discussion, the goal is not to see who can least offend the other.
The goal is to seek the truth.
Royals like Her Majesty Queen Violet must somehow find it in their hearts to be tolerant enough to overlook language She deems unclean…
…and somehow maintain enough rationality to actually understand and to address the arguments presented to Her that are couched in the language of those irritating plebes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting, and yet,I wonder why a number of Christians get so upset when one labels Jesus of Nazareth a literary construct, which is, of course, an accurate and quite truthful description?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
Christians like most people except for atheists, get upset at stupidity aimed their way.
Atheists see pure stupidity like, “Jesus of Nazareth was a literary construct,” and think they just had a brain fart.
Farts feel good but they stink to high heaven.
LikeLike
Ah, so you actually believe the character in the bible, the Lake Tiberius pedestrian who was conceived without any normal sexual intercourse, thus implying supernatural conception, who later on in life drove out demons, (god-rape) turned water into wine,cured blindness with spit, rose from the dead, was a genuine real historical person?
As you are wont to champion evolution and DNA and maths and lots of other clever things as ”proof” of your god, maybe you would like to explain to us, without using you usual hand-waving acerbic style of rhetoric, how any of the above supernatural biblical examples is remotely possible?
LikeLike
Ark,
As I have explained to you many times, the Bible is a book about the nature of God, man and universe.
It isn’t a science book or a math book or a book on engineering.
The Bible is a book of faith, which I believe with all my heart.
LikeLike
Ah … faith. Well, in that case one can take it with a pinch of salt, not so?
LikeLike
Ark,
You have faith that everything just happened all by itself.
That notion is so ridiculous even a pinch of salt is of no help at all.
LikeLike
Do not preempt anything you consider I believe, without asking me first.
If you consider the bible must not be taken on faith alone and there is evidence to support some of its claims then please answer whether you consider these examples have evidence to support them or must be taken solely on faith:
1.Adam and Eve as the original first human couple:
2. Global flood:
3. Egyptian Captivity, Exodus and Conquest of Canaan as per biblical tale:
4: Virgin Birth:
5: Yeshua walking on water:
6: Yeshua coming back from the dead:
7: Yeshua being the creator of the universe.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
If you are an atheist, I know what you believe.
Similarly, since I am a Christian you know what I believe.
So why the dodge?
It is a simple fact that as an atheist you must believe through 100% faith that everything just happened all by itself.
Or, if you are the even stupider type of atheist, you believe that you are like a cat, dog or cow and possess no belief in God whatsoever.
Either way, what you believe is so stupid, that you don’t have the intellectual aptitude or tools needed to question Christianity.
LikeLike
No dodge, , and once again you ignorant dipshit, want to know what I believe then you damn well ask me. I hope that is clear enough for you?
Now you fraudulent piece of hand- waving trash, are you going to step up to the plate and show us all your ” Christian” integrity once and for all and answer the questions I asked or are you simply going to continue to piss in the wind as you always do?
LikeLike
Ark,
Also, I don’t need to ask you what you believe because you puke out the vomit of your beliefs for all to see…
…and smell.
Yes, atheism stinks terribly.
LikeLike
Thanks SOM, a valuable addition to the discussion. So you find insulting others by maligning people with learning disabilities to be valuable in a ‘free exchange of ideas’. Yes, I’m sure the character Jesus would have been right with you. Just keep shining your light for Christianity, you’re doing a great job. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
violet,
Your response leads to the core of good communications.
We don’t use language so as not to offend.
We use language that conforms to human nature.
Therefore, we must tune our language to the individual human being we are addressing.
That means when I address you, I must use language that is sure not to awaken the rage and self-loathing within you.
Otherwise, as you indicated, you feel outrageously insulted and miss the point completely.
And then you beat me over the head using the name of His Majesty as your club of shame.
The philosopher simply seeks the truth and isn’t disrupted by the language commonly used by the barbarian.
LikeLike
Yeah, all the WORST things about human nature.
You talk about philosophers and seeking truth. It is funny because most philosophers talking about seeking truth have argued that it is found in virtue. And you know what virtue they include? Courteous speech. Plato and Aristotle actually argued that uncouth speech was the product of a lack of truth. No real philosopher is unbothered by offensive language.
LikeLike
Plain,
The philosopher understands that crude speech speaks to the emotions, the passions, and as such greatly reduces irrationality.
That doesn’t mean that the philosopher is personally bothered by crude speech so as to loose his own rationality.
But what constitutes crude is a matter of taste and present company.
LikeLike
“That doesn’t mean that the philosopher is personally bothered by crude speech so as to loose his own rationality.” If the philosopher is concerned with truth and crude speech is lies, then the philosopher is necessarily opposed, in all cases, to crude speech.
“But what constitutes crude is a matter of taste and present company.” Oh dear!? You mean you might have to *gasp* EMPATHIZE???? What sort of bleeding radical came up with THAT idea?!
LikeLike
Violet,
Here is what your beloved Black Lives Matters was up to last night in Milwaukee, Ohio:
http://www.infowars.com/video-black-lives-matter-rioters-target-whites-for-beat-downs/
LikeLike
Was it a Black Lives Matter protest? Or was it a riot on the back of a black person being killed by the police? I think there’s a difference, don’t you?
LikeLike
Violet,
Black Lives Matter doesn’t protest.
They instigate racial hatred and murder.
Here are more articles chronicling their latest race hatred rampage:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2016/08/13/report-1-dead-officer-involved-shooting/88689152/
https://twitter.com/hoodsonco/status/764711433506394112
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-milwaukee-agitators-shout-black-power-attack-white-drivers/
It’s so bad, even black people are amazed at BLM racial hatred.
LikeLike
Violet,
And now, after having destroyed Milwaukee, Ohio, Black Lives Matter is going after Elvis!
http://www.fox13memphis.com/news/black-lives-matter-protesters-released-plans-to-shut-down-graceland/421640114
Have they no shame?!
LikeLike
Or how about language that is just unclean? Honestly, trying to argue that something is wrong with her because she has moral standards for speech is just hilarious. It is wanton hypocrisy on your part, not to mention totally irrational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welcome to the world of SOM! 🙂
LikeLike
Plain,
I am not arguing that something is wrong with good Violet because she has moral standards for speech.
That is your private hallucination that you are trying to assign to me with the demand that I explain your hallucination.
People like Violet have moral standards but they force their standards on everyone else.
And that is the same exact complaint that Violet has about Christians and those dastardly conservatives.
Then instead of recognizing her own hypocrisy, she assigns it to people who she feels are beneath her…
…people like me.
LikeLike
Am I forcing standards on anyone or am I suggesting people reconsider their habitual use of harmful vocabulary?
LikeLike
“People like Violet have moral standards but they force their standards on everyone else.” From the article above, I really don’t see how you can get that. She says you shouldn’t call the mentally challenged retards because it is offensive to the mentally challenged.
LikeLike
That’s not quite right. I said you shouldn’t use the term ‘retard’ as an insult for anyone.
LikeLike
Also, I don’t need to ask you what you believe because you puke out the vomit of your beliefs for all to see…
…and smell.
Yes, atheism stinks terribly.
You truly are a revolting human being and a coward.
LikeLike
“If you have never spent time with people with learning disabilities, find a suitable place to volunteer in your local community”
Good advice, Violet. Nothing like a little hands on experience, whether learning disabilities or any other handicap, to instill a little compassion.
My husband was talking with another guy after a bible study and the guy looked away briefly during the chat so he asked him to repeat something. The guy looked at him and said “What are you, deaf?” You see, the hubby is indeed deaf and puts a lot of effort into reading lips. It wasn’t deliberate just words thoughtlessly spoken. Needless to say the guy was embarrassed and apologized however those four little words had already done the damage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, people can be so rude. I’m sure I thoughtlessly do similar things all the time, so it’s useful to know how words and attitudes affects others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Don’t Be a Testicle | Godless Cranium
I don’t care much about language- intent is what really matters. Just note how the average racist these days carefully circumnavigates political correctness, Nigel Farage, for example, is a master of not being *technically* racist.
LikeLike
You don’t care much about language except when it harms you or someone you love. If you were sitting in a public place and a group of people were playfully or otherwise taunting someone for being useless at something by calling them ‘gay’ or ‘faggot’, you would care about language. You would care that a label that is used to define you is being used as a derogatory insult (even though you are in a privileged set of that label). Imagine if your ability to integrate seamlessly into the crowd was hampered by the fact that your ‘label’ was clearly part of your physical make-up. I’m quite frankly disgusted that anyone would object to this post. Have you ever spent time with people with learning disabilities, or are you quite happy for them to be in the ‘other’ corner of no concern to you? Intent matters, of course, but language is powerful, flexible and we can easily modify it – we naturally modify it when it suits us.
LikeLike
I’m not objecting to the post, I’m noting that language can be easily manipulated- and often carefully worded phrases serve as cover for genuine prejudice. In that sense the word is less important than the speaker’s intent.
I’ve heard the words gay and faggot being used in a derogatory way my entire life. You speak as if something magical happened and that’s no longer the case. I’m not heartbroken by it. It’s one of those things we learn (or should learn) to deal with.
I think it’s great that you’re kind and considerate, but I don’t think people should walk around expecting the world is going to be as thoughtful because it isn’t.
LikeLike
Well of course! But the socially acceptability of maligning any group of people leads to a tacit understanding that they are somehow ‘less than’. Each feeds the other. And working on changing what language we choose to use and why, feeds that chain that changes attitudes. There’s a big change already in how people use homosexual terms previously used to insult on a regular and open basis. The process may seem slow, but I’m amazed at the rate of change in (very young!) lifetime. The same (over here at least) in terms of labels used to insult people with learning disabilities, or people we classify as ‘stupid’ by using those labels – it’s socially unacceptable in many areas. And yet, in the USA and other countries, it seems to be routinely accepted that ‘retard’ is a great insult. It’s not.
Maybe one day we can all recognise that when we resort to any kind of insult, we are essentially admitting we can’t express our argument well enough, and we won’t have to unintentionally stomp over any group of people to make our point.
LikeLike
Sorry to be devil’s advocate, but the point of an insult is to bump someone down the social hierarchy scale. In that sense there’s always going to be some level of offence. Most words used to question a person’s intelligence are related to some variety of learning disability.
LikeLike
Okay, so let’s accept you want to insult people, not have an adult discussion. Let’s accept that you can’t simply discuss facts and opinions without resorting to personal attacks, and you deem this to be acceptable, nay, necessary. (I don’t accept any of that, it’s nonsense but as a starting point for the rest of your tripe, we’ll go there)
The point of an insult is to bump someone down the social hierarchy scale, so we’re always going to offend someone. In previous times, most words used to question a person’s ability to reason likened them to women, who can’t think logically, or men who think like women, people like you. We were the insult, and we’re only starting to overcome being the insult. So does that mean we want to perpetuate these social heirarchies that measure people based on ‘manliness’, based on IQ, based on skin colour, based on social class and based on anything that isn’t the prevailing ruling class? I don’t want to, but you can take your fragile step up the social hierarchy and use it to trample on another underclass if you like. Which you might feel comfortable doing until you know and love a real person who has learning disabilities and can relate this whole discussion to reality. Until then, you’re just another fool who can’t see beyond their social conditioning. 🙂 (Yes, I’m questioning your intelligence.)
LikeLike
You’re looking at it as if it pertained specifically or uniquely to *me* wanting to insult someone. What I’m saying is there will always be a person wanting to insult another person. We’re animals living in a pack structure. Competition, hierarchy and brutality are part of the way life works on this planet.
Again, I find all these notions of a world where people don’t insult each other (or where animals don’t consume other animals) quite lovely, whimsical even- but entirely divorced from plausibility. There’s still starvation, there are honour killings, there’s rape, Isis throw (allegedly) gay men off buildings- the language is a reflection of the mindset, and changing the language alone doesn;t change the mindset. Or have you missed the rise of Trump and Brexit?
LikeLike
Pink, we’ve been here before. I’m not sure what this angle you enjoy is all about. I’m well aware of our animal origins and what base motives drive us. I’m also aware we have the ability to modify our behaviour as and when it suits us, and that we are building an ever more complex picture of ourselves and how we fit into existence.
I personally believe that part of our development as a species is a tightening of the socialisation/co-operative bonds that have been key to our survival, as we understand more about the differences that used to feed base tribalism (which used to protect us). We can easily live in a world where we don’t insult one another, where we don’t routinely malign traditionally disadvantaged groups. Human societies have made a lot of progress, and I don’t view areas or periods of retrogression as a general direction changer. Ups and downs can be charted across every century, but the general direction is still towards understanding and accepting each other more.
But even if it did all fall apart, and humans spiraled into disinterested self-obsessed aggression and violence, it wouldn’t make any of my points moot. It’s still not okay to personally insult people for the sake of it, particularly using vocabulary that harms others.
LikeLike
The angle (not mine) is there’s idealism, and then there’s the brutality of reality. I agree with you that there’s unprecedented progress, but we’re talking about progress in what’s nothing but pockets of the world. Homosexuality is still illegal in +70 countries. Prohibiting the use of the word fag doesn’t change that. Changing how people think changes that 😉
LikeLike
Again, you’re off on an irrelevance. Encouraging people to think about how using the word ‘fag’ harms people round about them improves quality of life within society for gay people – it changes attitudes. Language is powerful. How that echoes out to other societies is another matter, but I’m sure it can make a difference.
LikeLike
As a gay man I imagine I’m in a position to feel the impact of that particular word in a way non-gay people don’t; so it’s not an irrelevance.
The language debate acts as a substitute for the ideological debate. Is it okay to be gay (now) or is it (more) okay to be bourgeois gay married?
LikeLike
I never call anyone with learning disabilities retarded. That I keep for those who will not learn.
As Pink says, intent is what should matter. Or else, soon enough, most adjectives will be found to be politically incorrect
LikeLiked by 1 person
Disgusted with you Makagutu, did you read the post I linked to? Did anything about what the people express there mean anything to you? Our choice of language is exactly that. When people tell us that our choice of language harms them, and we continue to use it because we’re too arrogant or blind to change it, we are using it with intent.
You may sweep rudeness and harm under the carpet by pretending being considerate is *negative label* ‘politically correct’, but if you truly believe calling someone a retard is nothing more, then explain to me why you have no regard for what people with learning disabilities are clearly saying. Explain to me why their feelings on the use of a word that describes them matters less than your blind arrogant desire to use whatever word you feel like. You are blinded by your social conditioning, just like the Christians who plod on against all logic and compassion, calling abortion murder and homosexuals evil sinners. Words matter – Christians at least believe they are talking with love. You believe you use ‘retard’ with what? No intent? Is that the best you can do?
(Sorry to take it all out on you. This post is for John, and he seems to be avoiding it.)
LikeLike
I didn’t check the link. And I said clearly I would not call anyone with a learning disability a retard. If on the other hand, someone is acting like they can’t learn when they actually can, I will call them retards.
People with learning disabilities do not have monopoly on who uses the word retard. It doesn’t always have to refer to them. That would be like a cow taking offence because some idiot was called a cow. I don’t think that’s what you are advocating? Unless I misunderstood you.
Or are you saying I can no longer ask my friend are you retarded? Is this it? I am lost here Violet.
LikeLike
You didn’t check the link. So, you’re here arguing with me that it’s perfectly okay to use a label attached to people with learning disabilities as a disparaging insult, and you have no interest in understanding what people with learning disabilities think about this? The problem here is clearly your attitude to people with learning disabilities in that you think they it makes sense to use a label for them to attack and insult people generally. That’s why say in the post:
“If you have never spent time with people with learning disabilities, find a suitable place to volunteer in your local community, so that you can overcome any small-minded and ignorant ‘them and us’ attitudes you may be harbouring. The more people you meet, the more you realise that people are simply people, and that hate labels serve no-one’s best interests.”
At the very least read the link, and consider what the people there are saying about their experiences. I’d be interested to hear if properly considering how it affects real people can give you glimpse into the ignorance you’re spouting here.
LikeLike
Violet, I wasn’t arguing with you. In fact, I have said then and now that I have no problem with people with disabilities. No. I. Don’t.
I will read the link.
But I don’t think it will change my feeling that they cannot have a monopoly on how words are used. What is the world coming to?
Can I use the word stupid without offending someone? Or dull?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and when I insult someone by calling them a ‘poof’, I can say with hand on heart that I have no problem with gay people. It’s just a word! What’s the world coming to?
I hope you do read the quotes in the link. Watch a few of the videos too. It’s about seeing people.
LikeLike
Of course, what’s the world coming to. Students in US universities are calling for a rewriting of history. You don’t think that’s a problem?
As I said, I will read the link and maybe watch the videos.
LikeLike
Let’s see the link, sounds like an interesting topic.
LikeLike
http://europe.newsweek.com/yale-keep-calhoun-master-pauli-murray-453555?rm=eu
LikeLike
Where in that link is anyone calling for history to be rewritten? They are asking for a historical figure who actively supported slavery not to be honoured by the university. Sounds sensible. I have followed some of this discussion in the past, the reaction from the anti-PC movement is ridiculous. If any of the student demands don’t make sense they can be combated on that level.
LikeLike
Now I have read the link.
What attitude do you think I have towards people with learning disabilities? You seem to know something about me that I am blind to. Maybe you could enlighten me.
LikeLike
Thanks for reading the link. So their words that using ‘retard’ in that context affects them and hurts them, means nothing to you because you think you’re right to insult people by giving them that label is more important? Or what? I can’t understand what justification you’re using in your head.
LikeLike
In this case I think they are taking offence where there should really be none. They have owned the word, taken it to be a reference to them.
In all my school days, retard could refer to slow growth, slow in learning, among many others. It wasn’t in my view an us vs them as you see it. And well you could call me anti-pc though I think you will be wrong on that.
When you think of it, I have no recollection of calling anyone retard maybe idjits or numbskull but not retard.
LikeLike
It is a reference to them, that’s what the word means, in the USA and UK at least. Maybe there’s a cultural difference in usage.
In any case, I can’t believe you’re suggesting that they are taking offence where they should be none, you’re a lost cause on this one. When hundreds of thousands of people who share a particular characteristic are offended by something, it’s arrogance in the extreme to say they are ‘wrong’ to be offended. “I don’t share that characteristic and I don’t find it offensive (or I do but I’m not personally offended) therefore they are wrong.” Interesting way to view things.
LikeLike
I didn’t say they are wrong. Well, there is nothing wrong with being wrong once in a while. I will find my way
LikeLike
Greetings. I was raised in an era where slinging personal insults was severely frowned upon and countered with stern rebuke (including corporal punishment). The adage was that if you can’t say anything nice you probably shouldn’t say anything at all.
Sadly, civil conversation (especially on the Internet) has fallen by the wayside. We’re now at the point where even broaching the topic generates howls of protest in favor of maintaining the status quo.
Rather than debate the issue, my approach has become to politely engage those who return the favor and disregard those who don’t.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, that’s an interesting observation. I think I’m as guilty of it as anyone else, but I do realise neither constructive nor clever. What I don’t understand is people screeching that any request to be considerate to others somehow threatens their free speech. Thankfully I haven’t got into Twitter, I guess that’s a whole other platform of open insulting …
LikeLike
I personally disagree with you on this issue, but it inspired me to write a blog post responding to it: http://www.justine-rebecca.com/2016/08/15/coddling-vs-consideration/
LikeLike