This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To some degree, it's the euphemism treadmill. But it originated with the well-intentioned desire to treat mentally retarded people more humanely. Telling children not say "retard" did not, of course, cause children to become kinder, especially to retarded people, but since you asked for a steelman, it is now much more widely accepted in society that insulting and abusing the disabled is a shitty thing to do and the status of the mentally retarded is better now than it used to be.
That obviously didn't happen because we made "retard" a no-no word, but it can be argued that the mindset that tabooed the word contributed to greater awareness and sympathy.
I still think tabooing words is retarded, lame, and stupid (no shit, I've been lectured by SJs that "stupid" and "dumb" are offensive and ableist) but you asked for a steelman.
We had a small discussion last week about "Negro" and "Chinaman." Both of those words used to be perfectly acceptable. Now they are considered rude at best. Why? Mostly arbitrary shifts in usage, but those shifts came with improved racial conditions. The one didn't cause the other, but they are associated. Now "Retarded," "Negro," and "Chinaman" to describe a person all sound reductive and dehumanizing.
The advantage, of course, is now you have a power word to use when you really want to be offensive.
Is it? Concern for the less fortunate was not invented in the sixties.
More options
Context Copy link
There is huge irony in all this and as usual, this language is self-defeating. In the old days every dumbass was retarded - except of course mentally retarded people. It was low class and retarded behavior to tell your local 70IQ Timmy that he is a retard - unless you were funny and creative with it of course. Banning this word actually brought the spotlight onto literal retards as the only ones who subconsciously own that moniker, they are now the only retards around.
In a strange way telling your neighbor that he is a retard humanized mentally retarded, it blurred the lines. It is by the way a common evolution of "power words". Take an example of how the world literally evolved due to its usage for heavy emphasis to such an extent, that it became synonym with figuratively. Example: "he is literally retarded" means that he did something really, really dumb such as microwaving his cell phone to test if it was a hoax or dumb shit like that. It does not mean that he suffers from "intellectual disability" which is the correct current word of the day as replacement for mental retardation.
More options
Context Copy link
Is this actually true? I don't think believe that insulting or abusing the mentally disabled was ever considered non-shitty. Like calling a gay guy a "faggot," or an obese person a "fatass" or "Michelin man" or something, it was probably seen as rude, unnecessary, and low-class in 20the century America before the language taboos were introduced. Also, I think most people have a visceral horror or revulsion towards signficant mentally and physically deformity. None of that has really changed IMO. The only difference is now is that somebody can pull out a phone a record you saying the no-no words and post it on Twitter or report it to HR, so people have learned to self-censor.
More options
Context Copy link
Good luck explaining why 'Aborigine' is now frowned upon, while 'Aboriginal' is fine.
I have heard people explain something about how 'Aborigine' is a noun and 'Aboriginal' is an adjective, and a clipping of 'Aboriginal person' is better because it acknowledges their humanity in a way that 'Aborigine' supposedly does not. Or sometimes you just get vague waffle about how somehow 'Aborigine' has racist connotations from the colonial past that 'Aboriginal' does not. Now as Amnesty's own link some want to move the treadmill again to 'First Nations', a term borrowed from Canada (and not, contra the article, actually supported or used by a large number of Aboriginals).
It's all just... extraordinarily tiresome, petty language policing as if the letter E does some sort of psychic harm that AL does not, all as a substitute for any policy that might actually improve anybody's lives.
That is similar to the debates regarding “colored person” vs. “person of color” and “Jew” vs. “Jewish person,” where the first is often considered offensive, while the second is preferred. There was also an amusing debate in the autism world, now largely settled, on whether “autist” and “autistic person” are offensive. Advocates declared the terms demeaning, scolding anyone who didn’t say “person with autism.” The autists themselves found that view retarded and continued to use the older and simpler terms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would have slighly more tuck for "Chinaman" being an ethnic slur, if the Chinese themselves weren't so intent on making "Chinese" a perfect synonym for "ethnically Han".
I’d also have more patience if “Englishman,” “Irishman,” and “Frenchman” were also considered offensive—especially “Irishman.” Given that the argument against “Chinaman” is that the term dates from a time when the Chinese were considered inferior, the fact that “Irishman” is still okay just highlights the hypocrisy.
More options
Context Copy link
I also find it odd. They call themselves 中国人 and 黄种人, literally "China-person" and "yellow-race people." Whitey didn't make it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see what you did there. All derogatory words function as an outlet for strong emotions. I very rarely use them except when among very close friends and family when we're getting a little belligerent and too humorous.
The funniest and most insulting uses I've ever witnessed has been using the terms in unconventional ways you very rarely see. Calling someone a "retard," yeah; alright. But I remember observing an interaction between two people having an argument where one of guys said something stupid (perhaps intending to be sarcastic) and the other man replied with a counter-argument, saying "you 'actual' fucking retard..." The rejoinder to that was to say "you clearly missed the irony," followed by the comeback to his retort. It made me laugh.
More options
Context Copy link
I did ask for a steelman. Thank you for providing it!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link