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.
1 Like
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