I agree to a point but say the example of shell shock now coined as ptsd was only taken seriously because of its impact as a striking word. When someone had shell shock it was something we had to treat with intensive care now any old person who was a victim of any circumstance can be diagnosed with ptsd. But it wouldn’t have gotten there without the term shell shock. But I think we all agree on hate speech and derogatory terms in general they’re harmful and that kind of dialog has no place in our society or at least it shouldn’t have a place here.
My hypothesis:
The deeper problem here is not the words themselves, and their meaning. Language is dynamic, and words can change meaning over time, sometimes over surprisingly short periods of time. The actual problem is - as I see it - the reasons people use offensive words and insensitive language. Their usage would have origins such as outright racism and xenophobia; fear of behaviour, culture, language, appearance that is outside one’s daily experiences; lack of empathy and a lack of care for others, or outright egoism. And all these reasons can again originate from basic struggles in life, like having problems making ends meet economically, and/or basically just having a shitty life. Or it could be due to indoctrination by parents, family, peers that are in such a situation. In any case, if you see no reason to treat other people decently, you won’t. The only fix I can see is to repair the basic premises of the life people lead, for example through economic safety, good schooling, instilling a sense of community responsibility in people (as opposed to the tendency we see now towards every man for himself), etc. And of course to talk to others using a polite type of language.
2 Likes
Aside from the fact that I covered some relevant bases above, the following two elementary concepts are apposite here:
[1] Fellow human beings should be treated with respect, until such time as they demonstrate they’re not going to reciprocate in this matter;
[2] Ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever invective the critic thereof, decides best brings into sharp relief, the absurdity or iniquity thereof, provided of course that this is done competently, withour recourse to strawmen etc.
2 Likes
Agreed. Commonly, I will only become terse in language when trying to ascertain what underpins a belief someone holds, or a claim they’ve made.
In my view, it can be a fine line between firm and persistent inquiry, and giving the impression that you’re being annoyingly pedantic even when that isn’t the intention.
Riding that line, in my experience, requires a bit of an ability to read people.
My $.02.
1 Like
sugarcoat language? like what? Newspeak? that’s always a problem for me whenever society wants certain words that aren’t marginalizing people to be removed.
Yeah, sure, the n-word, the i-word, y-word, all the racist and sexist words are unacceptable to a lot, but the word DEATH? SEX? FUCK? SHIT? EJACULATION? Everybody does that unless you’re born different or did something to yourself.
1 Like
I, for one, have NEVER believed in any form of censorship. Instead, I know the truth can and shall hurt badly, but I ain’t going to sweeten it any.
Franklin
Is very interesting to see how this specific thread has developed?I’m fascinated by the poetic tragedy of it. We as humans , when it comes to language are so madly driven by protecting it because it is our way of communicating. To strip the right to speak from someone is inhumane simply. However, hate speech is what strips away The right of someone to speak and , is not free speech at all. I’m very happy that the entire community agrees with this It shows me exactly what the type of community i’ve become a part of and i’m really happy for that. You’re all truly beautiful in every tragic, ugly, fascinating, biological way.
2 Likes
Should we sugarcoat language?
Hell NO. To me, I shall never sugarcoat me language. I will blurt the Truth and not give a damn how bad it hurts. I would rather be hurt with truth, than placated by lies. Because to be placated by lies and finding the truth later hurts even worse.
No. I shall never sugarcoat anything except maybe an unfrosted donut.
Franklin
I agree in the sense that authoritarian Christians (for sure) and other religious folks (often) will be offended pretty much no matter whether or not you sugar-coat. Giving it to them straight might speed up the process, but it won’t change anything on a net basis.
I even had a Unitarian pastor take umbrage at my disbelief in his deity, which is rich given that Unitarian congregations are supposed to happily take people of any or of no religion. In fairness, he WAS from the South.
However I have no desire to purposely cause conflict either. I interact with believers (some nominal, some ardent) all the time and mostly I avoid discussions I feel they probably can’t handle and most of them are content to skim the surface of substantive issues anyway. It’s the true “evangelicals” who are really looking for a fight, and then it’s no-holds-barred.
I am a firm believer that messages need to be delivered in a manner that gets the result intended. That sometimes means being loud, blunt, and obnoxious. Sometimes it means being oblique and indirect.
Sugarcoating? Not the way I use that word. To me the word means disguising it as something only loosely resembling what the message is. My experience is that people sugarcoat things so they can claim to have passed an uncomfortable message along.
Yep, if they are doing harm, call them out, if they’re being an asshole, call them out. Otherwise confine communication to what’s necessary and effective and “don’t be an asshole” (or for our British friends, “don’t be a cunt”).
One principle I try to live by is to be kind and helpful such that if a True Believer eventually figures out you’re godless, they will usually not decide that you’re evil and devious as most people won’t un-form a pre-formed opinion despite what they see as evidence. The ones who are extremist enough to do that, you don’t want in your life, anyway.