It's true that insults generally require intent, but that's different from being aware that other people find the expression insulting and continuing to use it while arguing that your use in particular isn't an insult.
Por supuesto que siempre van haber personas que tienen malas intenciones cuando dicen palabras como "maricon", pero la diferencia entre nosotros y los de paises mas estables, es que a ellos no les vale la intencion de uno, solo ven a las propias palabras como que si usar esas partes del lenguaje fuera pecado. Como que no tomaran en cuenta la realidad que el lenguaje y las definiciones de palabras son construidas por la gente que las usa, y que cambian todo el tiempo. He vivido en los estados por muchos anos ya, y todavia no entiendo por que la cultura es asi, pero ni modo, asi es la vida.
I've always wondered if people here were to live in true hardship for just one month as truly deprived people did, then magically transported back to their privileged life, would they come to realize how truly petty their squabbling over language is? And perhaps even be grateful for their station.
I'd even like to indulge a bit and say there's too much focus on how the system 'fails' while being blind to the unimaginable good it has produced by the very fact that they can sit in comfort and complain. Not enough gratitude for the suffering of others (contemporary and historical) that has brought them to this point.
I think respect as expressed via language matters.
Hardship has given me more sympathy for the suffering of others and made me somewhat more patient with certain things. But it hasn't convinced me that arguing about language is too petty to bother with.
Quite the contrary. I think demanding respectful language is a gateway to demanding equal rights.
If people in a culture say that they are using terms as a means of expression and don't believe they are actually homophobic, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume they are? Maybe they are, but if they otherwise don't exhibit homophobic behavior, I tend to believe they are not. Words and actions are entirely different.
Also, who should judge whether the word is 'good' or 'bad'? You? A committee? Language evolves organically, and a small cadre of privileged Westerners don't get to decide how a culture uses them. Especially if that culture otherwise doesn't condone violent or homophobic behavior.
I was merely disputing the idea that if privileged people knew real suffering, they wouldn't bother to argue about language.
My maternal grandmother came from a low level noble family. The family sold the title when they fell on hard times, which is why I am not nobility. I was homeless for about a year before I finally grasped how upper-class my mother's expectations are.
I think I fully qualify as someone from a very privileged background who has experienced real hardship, and for far more than a mere month.
I still think it's telling that an entire people that come from a country where the system functions much more poorly and suffer from a relative lack of privilege can look on in bemusement at our language games.
I think external perspectives do really make us take a step back and help us see what we are really doing.
For example, since I moved to the US ages ago, I've regularly found a lot more in common between myself (a central american) and the world views of immigrants from china, vietnam, and russia, than I have with people from the US, and it wasn't because my american friends were all super well off (most of them live paycheck to paycheck, and more than a few have dealt with homelessness, drug addiction, or involvement with other dubious activities). It's hard to describe, but it encompasses a sort of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" type of outlook that seems to form the basis of much of the thinking in these cultures. At least in my experience.
And in the case of slurs in spanish in particular, it's actually part of a broader context that includes the casual use of words that would be considered blunt insults in the west (though not necessarily slurs), as expected parts of conversation, and often times even as terms of endearment. Like, getting someone's attention by calling them the spanish equivalent of "fatso", "bastard", or "idiot" would be considered normal and non-offensive by the person receiving the remark. It's viewed in the same vein as calling someone skinny/short/tall/black/white/asian/etc, which is to say, it's treated as light-hearted mocking that doesn't really mean anything other than something to get your attention by. If a person wants to take a mild jab at you, they might call you one of the more infamous "slur" words like puto/pendejo/maricon/idiota/etc, but the terms in this group vary wildly by region, and they're generally not considered to be any more severe than calling someone an ass here. If you really want to get under the skin of someone in spanish, you have to basically insult their mothers or physically threaten them somehow. Basically, so long as you aren't literally threatening a person's family or physical safety, it's not really taken seriously very much, and I believe this is largely because your physical safety can very realistically be in serious danger in those parts of the world. For example, it's been several years, and I still find it odd to not hear gunshots going off outside my house at night every now and then; which is weird because it's not something you'd normally associate with a comforting sound that would remind someone of "home".
That being said, latin-america is huge, and I don't claim to speak for all the countries there, but there is a decent amount of overlap in the cultures.
My father grew up in the Great Depression and fought in two wars. My mother grew up in Germany during WW2 and it's aftermath.
Let me suggest that cultural misunderstanding and difficulty adequately translating a word is universal and not simply a rich versus poor thing.
Let me also suggest that if language mattered so very little to you because your hardships have made it clear to you that this is trivial and not worth arguing over, then you would have dropped it already. You yourself disprove the idea that people who have really suffered wouldn't bother with such a minor detail as it's unimportant.
Also: love your handle.
And if in a bit of irony, I'm misinterpreting you, then please do clarify, cause I might be fairly assimilated, but I'm still not perfect. I can't even begin to describe how many egg shells I regularly walk on trying to talk with americans to this day still.
Let me suggest this is a misunderstanding.
I haven't said anything was taboo. I merely said that people who have suffered can still believe use of language is worth arguing over and that your willingness to continue this argument aligns better with that assertion than with the assertion that if you've known real suffering, you wouldn't bother to argue such a thing.
I don't believe I've put words in your mouth. Yet, you feel disrespected at the idea that I might do so. Disrespected and affronted. And you feel compelled to defend your words.
FWIW, I did run your comment through Google translate since I can only pick out a few words here and there. I think it likely butchered it and I believe it also cut it off somewhere in the middle.
It struck me as both impassioned and compassionate. I wish I had a proper English version of it to consider. But my desire to enjoy your thoughts seemed too trivial to remark upon and it struck me as egomaniacal hubris to impose upon you with such a request, so I didn't bother.
Peace.
I'm cool with that. Misunderstandings happen more often than people like to admit, even when speaking the same language; the interpretation of language seems to be universally subjective and particular to the person interpreting it. You never know for sure how something will be received until you throw it out there.
> your willingness to continue this argument aligns better with that assertion than with the assertion that if you've known real suffering, you wouldn't bother to argue such a thing
I agree with that, because I never argued to the contrary, like the person that first responded to me might've. I believe it's most likely the product of an entire country/population suffering without any sources of comparison nearby that can produce a certain cultural cynicism/stoicism that habitually overlooks a lot of things. There will always be exceptions when it comes to individuals from these cultures, but I think it's at least worth exploring why some debates that are popular in the US right now likely wouldn't rise up to the level of national discourse in countries like china/russia/colombia/guatemala/etc anytime soon (dubious political regimes aside).
> I don't believe I've put words in your mouth.
The notion of word translations ever being suggested as a "rich vs poor thing" was a pretty notable one, but since I just explained my position a bit more, it's fine. Hopefully it's clear that it's a far more nuanced observation than "americans are spoiled" or something like that.
> Yet, you feel disrespected at the idea that I might do so. Disrespected and affronted
One thing I've learned in interacting with people from a variety of different cultures, is that their ideas of what's considered "respectful" or "disrespectful" are often quite different from each other. In this case for example, I would never use the word "disrespected" to describe myself in this situation. I actually think "confusion" would suit my interpretation of the whole language debate a lot better, which is why I usually try to respond with clarifications of some sort (which I can see how that can come off as "defending my words", but I'm usually much more concerned with being understood than I am with defending any particular point of view). In my mind, "disrespect" is something I associate mostly with gang members getting upset and overreacting about trivial nonsense. But that could just be me!
That's a completely different sentiment from (roughly) "Hey, brother, the truth is that folks in privileged countries simply can't comprehend the lived experience of those from poor countries where corruption is the norm."
I would say that you need a certain amount of cultural capital and baseline material wealth to have the resources to spare for certain things that might be deemed luxuries or trivial details when you are really struggling to simply survive. That doesn't mean they actually are trivial.
There is also the complicating detail that sometimes people argue about trivialities because it is vastly less threatening than wrestling with the real problems.
We can discuss such further if you like. But I'm not interested in being perceived as arguing it in the sense of fighting about it or being confrontational.
the question is, which definition of "equality" are we even aiming for: equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? In reality, most people would likely agree with you that we should aim for "equality", but there are some pretty big fundamental differences about what people mean when they say that. Equal opportunity inherently means that we have to be ok with accepting less than equal outcomes if the process is the same for everybody; while equal outcomes mean we have to be ok with the possibility of favoring more opportunities for some people over others. These two interpretations of the same exact word are as close to mutually exclusive as you can get, so it's no surprise that there's so much tension around it. Doesn't mean people don't want "equality" though, it just means that the way they view the world led them to a different (equally defendable) interpretation of what it should mean.