Why?
(That you don't see any of them in official publications doesn't count for much in my opinion. Official publications try to avoid all negative emotive language.)
Once an unfashionable euphemism falls out of use, people gradually cease to recognise the offensive meaning which made it unfashionable.
If someone gets offended because I was looking for the cheese where it's traditionally been, then they can enjoy the offence that they imagined. Even if I went to the effort of consulting a dictionary before every communication it could not be updated quickly enough.
Its quite useful, means I can safely ignore any opinion they have on the topic at hand.
The absurd part is you are acting like everyone who uses that phrase has casual access to the interior life of absolute strangers: if it isnt a myth and the only reason someone wouldn't point it out is politeness the it follows that you know their motivations.
For example, many thinks that saying "I have many black friends!" is just virtue signaling by someone not very virtuous, and that is often called out. The virtue there is to have those friends, ie not being racist about who you choose to be friends with, the signaling is that you say you have black friends.
See the difference? And I bet you think that someone saying "I have many black friends" is more about signaling than being a virtuous act in itself. Many people signal that way, words are cheap actions are not.
What I don't get is why nobody says "stop virtue signaling" to those people, because that is what they are doing. Virtue signaling is absolutely a real thing and people do it everywhere, regardless of political alignment etc.
Of course, people can try to smear genuine virtue by calling it mere virtue signalling. Philanthropy might be called mere virtue signalling by some, even though it does materially benefit people. But I think most cases are more clear-cut.
Ah ha! The misunderstanding is on your end!
Speaking of an incredibly negative and gross "virtue"—this growing trend of people actively seeking to identify members of an out group who they can safely ignore is disturbing.
Once upon a time we actually tried to understand even our opponents, if only so we could beat them in the debates. Now we're so confident that we're right, they're wrong, and right makes might that we don't feel the need to attempt to understand them even to debate them—we just throw meaningless insults at each other and win elections based on who can drum up the most fear of the "incredibly negative and gross" other.
I have to say though, when I see people using popular buzzwords, it shows me they're not really thinking and are just LLM-like regurgitating what they've been exposed to.
It depends, some people are radicals. For example, if you think climate change isn't real that's not even an opinion. That's just... not true.
Someone who's perception of reality and reality itself are so misaligned can't be understood. Because their position doesn't come from understanding, it comes from emotions. Typically fear of the unknown, hatred, or maybe they're just dumb (dumb is the least likely).
After a certain point, it crosses to the delusional. After a certain point, they're just crazy.
I don't listen to the man on the corner yelling about the bugs under my skin that signal to aliens. Because that's crazy.
Nor do I listen to "5G microchip in the vaccine!! Plandemic!!" type people. Because they're just crazy people.
The problem is, and I don't know exactly why, but that category of person is expanding. Rapidly. My own family has fallen victim to it. And now I can't ever reason with them because their minds are so forgone they're living in an alternate reality.
If you are like, "oh, shoot, didn't know, I'll try to remember that" then most folks are pretty chill.
It's only when someone is like, "it's too fucking hard to remember the current term every decade I just want to use the term that offends people because I refuse to update a pointer in my memory!" That people generally get edgier over.
I don't know if the above statement is parody or reality in this ever changing political correctness climate.
The only moderately strong objection I'm posing is to the characterization of language evolving as a shibboleth.
My grandad used to use a bunch of WW1 era slurs. Constantly. They were just language to him. I never got angry, I just let him know that if he used those slurs, people would have a perception that he was unwilling to believe in equality. He didn't realize and he tried, not because I said he was bad, but because he wanted to.
If you want to not keep up, that's fine! But language always changes. Whether it's yeet, sus, aura, brat, or disabled, the use of words is going to change.
So, if you choose not to change with it, you will eventually, accidentally, make someone who is keeping up feel hurt. That's not evil or bad. But at that moment, how you respond is something you can control -- talk to the person, share with them how it was unintentional, listen about how they felt. Explain to them how you feel about trying to keep up. Learn from one another.
Getting angry because inter generational language gaps exist is like getting angry because someone bumped you accidentally. Accidents are gonna happen, it's how we get together and give each other grace and listen that matters. Don't assume every bump of a passing stranger is an assault.
I think you might be reading my posts believing that I'm disagreeing with you, or that I'm insisting the new language is the only acceptable language. I'm really not.
When I showed up at my most recent job I used "you guys" once and immediately regretted it. Things got awkward for a second and then someone in the group constructed a sentence that allowed them to use "folks" and place the emphasis.
I adapted, but if that's not a shibboleth I don't know what is.
How do you reckon that they were judged here at all? This is a level of transgression roughly equivalent to mispronouncing someones name for the first time, I can't imagine anyone else even remembering this incident aside from OP and even they may only remember because the human brain reserves 10% of its space for reliving minor faux pas.
Using the word 'head' to refer to the bathroom would be a shibboleth.
Side note: I find that preference odd because I come from a context where 'you guys' is neutral, but ultimately view it as a deficiency in the english language.
If someone is using a term maliciously to express real prejudice, I'll call them out on it. If they are just communicating using the terms they know for the same concept that a newer term now exists for, that doesn't strike me as a reason to dock any points.
I'm disabled. Do not call me differently abled. I'm sorry if you had a textbook that taught you to do so, and I will gently gently correct you.
Language always evolves. If you can learn what "yeet" means, you can practice using words people prefer for their groups.
If I can manage not to forget your username, hungie, then I will try to remember not to call you "differently abled". But please be patient and forgiving of my confusion if, between now and our next conversation, I encounter a third individual who insists that I never refer to them as "disabled" and instead call them "differently abled", and my memory for which of you preferred which term fails me. Forgive me doubly if you're both in the audience at the same time when I'm giving a presentation about installing a wheelchair ramp, and struggling to come up with a mutually-satisfactory term. I already struggle enough with names alone, such that I often decline to use them out of anxiety of making a mistake!
I don't think most groups are unanimous in self describing, but I do think there are general trends. We know, generally, that certain words aren't ok! Plenty of slurs we avoid, even ones used by in groups in a reclaimed way.
I don't think most reasonable people expect perfection. I spend a lot of time in disabled and queer (and disabled queer) circles, and I've primarily observed people expressing preferences, not anger.
Some people will cheerfully adapt their language and continue without missing a beat; others will feel deeply ashamed and embarrassed, and simply shut down out of the fear of making a mistake again. There are all sorts of people, and the burden of language weighs differently on each.
There's not a great one size fits all solution, so I push for grace and I push for understanding. Two people might have mutually impossible to reconcile experiences with language. I believe if we assume good intent from others and attempt good intent towards others, we'll clear many, many situations with a minimum of harm to all.
(Anyway, cheers! You seem like the kind of person I'd enjoy hanging out with in person, even if we disagree on things. Sorry if I seem like I'm just posting rebuttals; text is a hard medium).
I don't always succeed, but at least I felt likewise: you disagreed, but didn't resort to obvious flame bait or straw person arguments. Appreciate it!
The more time goes on and the more experience I get the more cemented this becomes. The best example is the expression you guys. Nowadays that expression is fully gender-neutral and is routinely used to refer to a group of mixed gender individuals. Some people can feel excluded by the term, and for that reason I do often try to substitute a different term for it, but many of the women I work with use the same expression of you guys even when referring to a group of entirely women. I strongly wish that most people would hear that and not think of a gendered reference. I think that would radically improve communication.
If there is doubt about what the person meant, sometimes a clarifying question can be extremely useful. For people that are trying to use offensive or exclusive terms, it is good to push them on that a bit and ask for clarification and such. But I don't think I've met anyone who was using the term that way in many, many years.
I absolutely never assume ill intent. But it does cause a cd-skip mentality for me, so I usually privately tell people. "Hey, heads up, you guys causes me an unfortunately unavoidable mental hiccup. It's not major, and I recognize it's common language. If it's low cost to you to use an alternative, awesome, but I don't want to cause an even bigger hiccup for you."
My goal is always to share the impact, and to be open to solutions that might include "nothing changes". I assume people would want to know they are unintentionally having that impact and also that I'm not going to roast them for using a very very common expression.
Really like how you worded that, that also perfectly captures how I feel about it! Thank you :)
I get a big mental hiccup when trying to reference a group and am fearful to use the wrong terminology in case it causes offence / hurt / outrage.
I never mean malice, and it’s especially bad when a term changes and isn’t even fully agreed on by the group it refers to.
Like a Pavlovian dog, this kick of anxiety actually feels like it estranges me from groups rather than brings me closer (my intention) because of the fear I have of making a miss-step.
The problem of "determine what group X wants" gets even worse when we go online and the people whose words we read are now not randomly sampled from the group, instead being the tony minority who care enough to campaign about it online (or those who arent even group members but campaign for them).
We're talking about using words. I have never used that word.
Rizz, zhuzh, doggo, sus, cromulent, phishing, nerf, npc, gram/grammable, etc etc.
The point isn't about yeet, specifically.
Also, 'nerf' and 'grammable' are obvious? I know what nerf means but neither are in any way obvious. I think you've got some unexamined ideas about language that have more to do with the words you learned as you were coming up than any principled or aesthetic reason.
Which part of what I said was unwarranted?
> Also, 'nerf' and 'grammable' are obvious?
If you know the brands, the verbs/adjectives can stick easily.
> I think you've got some unexamined ideas about language that have more to do with the words you learned as you were coming up than any principled or aesthetic reason.
I think you have problems understanding why people say what they do.
If you see someone performatively policing language feel free to call them out on it. Unless I missed something though I don't think anyone is asking you to pull a shift as a language cop, or otherwise 'dock points'.
Can you explain why this struck you as disingenuous? ESL struggles are a daily concern for me and the people I know.
As for being a language cop, I have no interest in doing so; I'm more concerned about the people who find themselves on the receiving side of feeling policed. When I say "that doesn't strike me as a reason to dock any points" I'm talking about my ideal that everyone will behave in a non-language-policing way. In order to avoid sounding lecturing or critical, I often refer to myself when expressing how I hope other people will behave too. ("When crossing the street, you should look both ways" --> "When crossing the street, I should look both ways"). It seems you interpreted it rather differently than I meant, which just goes to show again how clear communication is already hard for all of us.
Certainly! In essence because shifting euphemisms are a drop in the bucket of learning a language, the challenge is already present because words are always shifting in meaning (do you remember when 'figuratively' and 'literally' swapped?) and in my experience people give a lot of grace to non-native speakers. This made it feel like concern trolling to me.
As for your other point I believe I understood you, but in the absence of a specific example of language policing to analyze I think I should let it drop.
Okay. Stop policing[0] the language of others! Is that about right?
I'm very clearly not policing anyone's language there. Did you mean to link a different comment?
It's a useful lesson, once learned.
Edit: Fixed punctuation.
I object to the word cishet that you used early, strongly. From my point of view it seems one particular crew is declaring that there need to be all these new words, and I don't agree that these are the people who get to decide that. Consider me a Blood, and I'm not accepting words created by the .... wait, respecting your wishes, I mean, consider me a Crip, and I'm not accepting words created by the Bloods. Come talkin that trash, we'll pull your card, knowin' nothin' in life, but to be legit, don't quote me, boy, 'cause I ain't said shit. Thanks, Eazy-E, couldn't have said it better myself
For others, who may not be aware, cishet is a portmanteau of cisgender heterosexual. Cis being the opposite of trans, Latin prefixes for "the side of" and "the opposite side of". Transgender is therefore just "the opposite gender" and cisgender is "the same gender". (These prefixes are commonly used across science.)
Most folks are aware of homosexual (same sex attracted) and heterosexual (opposite sex attracted), which are the Greek prefixes for same and opposite.
Maybe you are one of today's lucky 10,000 who didn't know where that term originated! (https://xkcd.com/1053)
I'm half convinced the parent isn't serious, but since you asked: I prefer to not be labeled at all. If you have to pick one, I'd prefer something closer to "neurotypical"—a word that effectively communicates that my sexual identity is defined by existing comfortably within the herd of the 90%+, not something that I've actively shaped or given much thought to.
Aside from the fact that the pronunciation is... hard... "cishet" doesn't fit me because it labels aspects of myself that I never stopped to notice until well into adulthood and seems to give them greater importance than I actually assign to them. It feels a bit like putting a name tag on my left elbow introducing it as "Bob".
I've seen people use "gender or sexual minority" to describe lgbtq+ folks, so maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"? (Which I think is a judgement free expression of percentage?)
In all ways I am how I was born, and I have no desire to have that impact who or what I associate with or how I associate with it. I have to deal with these things when it is obvious to peoples eyes how or what I might be, I have no desire to add to it with intangibles. This feeling should hopefully be familiar to you: It should be the feeling you have when you are in the minority in any way considered important by those around you or those you care about, but especially so when it is not relevant to most of anything.
My relationship with non-gender-related aspects of myself follows this same pattern: Autistic or not, ADHD or not, I have no desire to be categorised as neurodivergent, neurotypical, neurospicy, or any such term. These are epithets all and the use of them when discussing specific others, even when benevolent, is almost always in a way that serves to other. And they are terms that will almost inevitably be used as deliberate insults.
Downthread, you mention that you call yourself queer but you would reject that label when applied to you by others. I cannot help but think that your feeling there is similar to a number of other people's feelings about the parts of their identity that they do not wish to label; I do not wish to label myself, so please do not label me.
There are others who may wish to identify with a group or a label because it is a part of their identity, and because that label comforts them or softens the edges of how society may treat them or whatever it might be. For most of those who are objecting to the cishet label, I suspect you may find that it has almost always only been used in their presence to discount them or their opinions. This is not the fault of the label, but its intent, for many. There is no trick of semantics that you can pull to strip the label's fundamental semiotic purpose, which will inevitably be used for scorn, as always.
What you are asking, in this case, is to put people on the treadmill.
I can't (and wouldn't attempt to) speak for anyone else, but the label I use is Nobody9999 (okay, I use my actual name, which isn't any of your business -- consider that, as it's important here).
I don't broadcast my gender, sexual identity or personal sexual proclivities unless it's relevant in some way. This conversation, for instance -- my gender identity (whether it matches the hardware I have or not), what sorts of people/animals/objects/concepts hold my sexual interest, and/or what sorts of things I like to do with those, are completely irrelevant to you in this context.
And they're not relevant because my use of language doesn't depend on what sort of anatomy/identity I may have, nor does it depend on who or what I want to exchange bodily fluids with (assuming that's something I find sexually satisfying -- and I'm not saying that at all, just using it as an example) and in what way I wish to do so.
If we meet down the pub/on a dating site/at the laundromat/museum/washboard concert/etc. and I chat you up or vice versa, perhaps those things might become relevant.
But until that time, it's none of your damn business and I find your focus offensive. Please don't.
People objected to the word I used for non queer people, so I asked for alternatives that people would prefer.
So it is directly related to the topic and the linked article, but only from the standpoint of in vs out group.
It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view).
As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it) may well have objected.
I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me, and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself in this context.
You specifically asked (as I quoted, so it would clear, but I guess not) "maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"?"
And I explained that such labels/terms aren't relevant in this context, and that I find your focus on those labels/terms in this context to be irrelevant and your continued demands for folks to participate in your verbal strip tease (i.e., acquiescing to being outed -- which is what you were doing), when someone's gender identity and/or sexuality is irrelevant to the discussion.
IMHO, it was an offensive and obnoxious thing for you to do.
If you're still not clear, I'd be happy to explain (again) why invading the privacy of others (in a public forum, no less!) is objectionable.
Not you, specifically, but the aggregate group who are not lgbtq+?
No. You clearly don't.
I said:
It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you
(or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I
have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view).
As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it)
may well have objected.
I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those
terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me,
and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself
in this context.
Your own identity is not necessary not germane to this. I had used the term cishet, without any judgement intended, and some objected to that.
A Venn diagram exists, people told me not to label one section cishet, and I'm asking "if not that, what label should I use instead?"
The set exists. How do we describe that set?
It's like saying, what type of Christian are you: practising or non-practising? A question that disregards the fact that many people don't consider that religion to be an accurate model of the world in the first place.
The correct analogy would be, "I'm a practicing Christian, but you don't call yourself that. What would you call the group that doesn't call themselves practicing Christians?"
I'm not asking "are you a twink or a bear" I'm asking if you belong to a group that doesn't identify as homosexual. If you think homosexuality is evil, you probably can still acknowledge that some people do identify themselves as homosexual.
Your point only exists for an extremely narrow group of people who deny that people identify as trans or homosexual. And for those folks, I'd probably have a separate conversation about, "you might consider it amoral, but you know there are people who call themselves gay, right?"
What do I call people? Steve or Helene or Bobby or Samuel.
Because they are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.
Fuck off asshole.
On a personal level, this reminds me of my own struggle to identify with the term "agender". At best, it's not incorrect. But it describes an aspect of myself that feels irrelevant to whatever context it's brought up in, almost to the point of being a category error. I am currently wearing a black shirt. Does this make me a black-shirt-wearer? Well, yes, but this tells you nothing about who I am. Better to describe me on a relevant axis: I am an engineer. I try very hard to be kind to everybody no matter what I think of them. I am an optimist. I enjoy sour beers. All of these are more relevant than asking what gender I identify with, because the fact of the matter is, I don't.
Extrapolate that to the disagreement between you and nobody9999 if you find it useful; I may have misunderstood the debate or nobody9999's point entirely and make no claim to represent their views.
I'm not interested in asking nobody9999 to share any details about their own identity, just asking them how they'd label that section of the Venn diagram.
Either label is probably wrong, of course. That said, I understand why labels / identifiers are used and needed. One thing to point out though, rejecting labels like cishet can easily be construed as "I'm normal, no need to label me", which in turn means you see other gender- and sexual identities as abnormal, which is the core of the problem.
(I'm making loaded and generalised statements, nothing personal to the commenter I'm replying to)
The main issue isn't the label, but that people perceive a label as a slur or an "othering", which is hurtful.
Cisgender, straight is commonly used.
Isn't a new word. It's just the sort of most prolific, "default" position of human so we don't really use it because it isn't relevant.
Heterosexual is a word, cisgender is a word, and both are 100% accurate descriptions of MOST people. Since MOST people are both of those things, we have cishet.
"Why does this exist?" you may ask.
Because sometimes we need to refer to the minority - as in, people who ARE NOT both cisgender and heterosexual. Or sometimes we need to refer to people who don't face societal challenges around their gender/sexuality - those people are cishet.
I think the fact you think gays don't have the authority to "create" words is weird. Um, why not? Why don't you want to use them? Will something... bad happen to you or is it more so an out of spite thing?
Also neither cisgender or heterosexual were created by the gays. Both created by cishet people. People just put them together, boom, cishet, easy. Not a new thing or cause for concern IMO.
You have several comma splices, just as many missing commas, some dubious capitalisation and a missing full stop or two. I personally find sloppy punctuation offensive but I don’t usually point it out. How do /you/ handle being corrected? These rules change a lot less often than once a decade.
Now, you may not like prescriptivist grammar, but if you don’t, I’d like to see how you justify one form of prescriptivism and not another.
And if you don’t like how I picked on your choice of a single word in your post: That is the behaviour you’re defending.
I'm not bothered by your post! Genuinely. I find it takes all types, and if there's a way I can improve to be better understood, that's a language win for me. I level up when corrected.
>When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
You're trying to apply prescriptivism consistently to the point of absurdity. In turn this causes you to reply to people who hold genuine views with a bad faith exaggerated offense at punctuation, just so you can illustrate your point, and that turns a genuine discussion into a something much less interesting.
In wiki culture, they call this POINT-y behavior: Taking rules too far in bad faith just to prove a point. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT)
TL;DR: Please don't do that, it makes the discussion very annoying!
At first it's partly activist, and when you adopt it it means that many people won't understand you, think you're criticizing their use of the previous term, or think you're probably activist on other topics too, when you think you're using a normal, neutral expression.
So most people are sceptical and wait with adopting new terms until they're widespread.
The passive voice thing always gets me here. It omits who is doing the considering. It's not like some word suddenly is offensive. A small group of people decides the word is offensive and then they either succeed or not at dragging everyone else along with them.
"Is considered offensive" lends it a gravity that it doesn't deserve if you translate it: "some people whose opinions you may or may not value consider xyz offensive".
By I do sometimes fall back to the passive voice.
The morally virtuous new term that the experts have decided is the correct replacement is "golly gee willikers". Please use it.
Your suggestion suggests you are not discussing in good faith.
And yet you used it anyway, a microaggression which betrays your privilege. Be kind. Above all, be kind.
> Your suggestion suggests you are not discussing in good faith.
Too fucking hard to remember the current term, is it? Seems like you don't handle being corrected very well.
Responding as strongly and as angrily as you have suggests that someone in your past was needlessly rude or over correcting, and it's made you put up some walls.