There are at least a dozen or so common insult words, that at one point in time or another were medical terminology for mental retardation.
Whenever you have a term for something sensitive or disadvantaged, there's a tendency to rapidly cycle terms. Attempting to "outrun" the baggage is easier than solving it.
I mean, there is also the option of politely refusing to have the definitions of words changed from under our feet. I have no trouble using the word "retarded" to indicate a mental deficit. Why do you? Why does anyone? So what if some people used it as an insult? Why do they get to control the narrative?
I think it's fine to use "retarded" like that if that's your culture and how you learnt it. People will know you're from a different background, maybe very old or foreign, or whatever. But if you're just trying to force an old meaning onto it, people will misunderstand you since you're not using the common "protocol".
I guess the problem is it's hard to pinpoint when precisely the "current" meaning becomes the "old" one. This is doubly difficult for meanings which contradict each other (see "woman").
What happens when a substantial portion of the population refuses to adopt the new meaning? It seems like the language gets forked then. This doesn't seem to do any good at all, increasing polarization and creating obstacles to clear communication.
At this point the vast majority of everyone alive has only ever heard 'retarded' used as an insult, few people today ever had it applied to themselves in any legitimate context. For that reason I think there's not much point in trying to police its use as some kind of special case -- at this point it is exactly like calling someone a dumbass.
Indeed, but is that really what's happening here? Is it really collective if all these changes are being pushed by american fortune 500 companies, and most people who abide by them are doing so out of fear?
Okay, fine, if I take away that last bit, would you acknowledge my main point? If this is all just a natural evolution of language, why does it all come from american academic institutions and corporations?
That's one way of looking at it. Language can also be looked at as a communication protocol - a way of transferring thoughts and ideas from one mind to another.
With this perspective, it is extremely important for all users of the protocol to agree on the definitions of the primitives (words). If they don't, they're basically forking the protocol, forcing overhead to clarify terms on every interaction with people who speak a different version.
It's also not how all language works - French for instance has a prescriptive dictionary. Many useful languages do in fact.
It's literally how language works. Words are wholly invented things, whose meaning is completely derived from usage and context. We make up sequences of sounds and over time we get each other to accept what ideas those sequences of sounds represent.
Yes, the Académie Française exists, but fun fact … it's reactive to usage. And it's by no means an absolute authority on the language as it's used colloquially.
I'm not sure the wider speaking public is driving a lot of this politicization of English, particularly in the US. It seems to be a small minority with an outsized influence.
I'm not sure you should discard the perspective of language-as-protocol so readily either. Computing protocols are also languages, specified to a necessary degree of precision, and maintained by a standards body. These also evolve with usage, and there are many instances of common usage being added to the protocol specification for things like HTTP.
All I'm suggesting is that we evolve our language consciously, and all together, and not allow a fringe group to hijack the process.
How many new words are minted by a single speaker, or song, or movie, or pop culture moment? How many from a single group who merely entered the zeitgeist at the right time? How many come entirely from corporations, and advertising?
Language is always an "all together" process but it is also always a process that starts in the fringe, and spreads out.
I agree that many words are created and spread as memes. But I struggle to come up with examples (outside of religion) where the meanings or usages of words are prescribed by a small group, and great offense is taken when the words are not used according to the prescriptions.
I don't believe language prescriptivism has any merit. Words have value because they imply a meaning and if I can use a word, and you understand my meaning when I use that word, the word has value.
Prescriptivism doesn't "work pretty well in programming languages". It's a frustrating requirement of current programming languages and runtimes.
If someone were to release a runtime that could reliably do "what a programmer means" instead of "what the programmer types" that runtime would be heralded as one of the greatest advancements in computer science in history.
Thankfully, the human mind is not as limited in its ability to parse context.
Ah yes, but how do you interpret "what the programmer means" besides "what he types"? If what he types is open to various interpretations, it becomes impossible to divine what he means without asking him for clarification. This is the case with spoken language, especially to audiences with differing contexts. That's exactly why having a maximally simple and clear reference to the meanings of words is important. It's in order to avoid having to clarify what you mean when you say "women's swimming competition", for instance.
>Because language is a collective action. Definitions evolve with usage.
>That's just how language works.
I'd call language a social construct. Whereas Using language is an action.
The former is a noun (person, place or thing -- in this case, a conceptual thing) and the latter is a verb (word describing an action) phrase relating to that thing.
And except for group chants (e.g., "Let's Go Mets!"), choirs, etc., using language is definitely an individual not collective action
That said, as a social construct, languages change all the time, exactly as you pointed out, based on usage.
You'll never catch me calling an SO (significant other -- which is a decades-old attempt to be more inclusive -- and private) 'bae', nor will you hear me say 'very unique', no matter how many other people use those terms.
Am I a bad, evil human being because I won't use various terms that are in broad use? I say 'no'.
Why? Because I (my brain/consciousness) control my communication systems, not popular usage.
I do my best to be kind and empathetic to those around me, not because I'm being forced to do so, but because I believe that doing so is a trait common to decent human beings, one of whom I aspire (and usually succeed) to be.
I'll go even further and say that context matters. There are many things I might say while down the pub with friends that I'd never say in a professional context or among strangers.
There's actually a term for that. It's called "code switching"[0].
And that brings up an odd, but widespread, change in our social discourse.
The online world, and especially social media, has (unless one takes steps to avoid doing so) comingled our personal, private and professional lives. Which is why I took/still take to heart advice I got nearly 30 years ago:
Don't put anything online that you wouldn't want
to see on the front page of your local newspaper
(back then, local newspapers were still a
thing).
My boss/colleagues/clients/customers don't need to know what I do when I'm not working unless they happen to also be a part of my personal life. And those in my personal sphere don't need to know what's going on in my professional life.
That's not to say there's never any overlap, but different facets of our lives don't need to intersect. Nor, in many (most?) cases, should they.
What's more, It's my choice as to what words I choose to express. And it's absolutely the choice of other folks to call me out if they feel that those words I choose aren't appropriate.
I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable (e.g., in professional situations).
And if some folks don't appreciate me or my sense of humor and shun me as a result, that's just fine. No one is required to be subjected to me or my language.
I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those either.
I don't require anyone's approval with regard to what I say or when. But if I misjudge the context of a situation, I may find myself (and I have) facing judgement, and sometimes consequences, for my speech.
Fortunately for me, at least in the US, I can say pretty much (with certain exceptions) anything I want without legal consequences. But that doesn't stop anyone from taking issue with what I say.
I'd ask that you go back and re-read my comment (several times, if necessary) and let me know if I'm not being inclusive or empathetic. That should be amusing.
I have no problem with what you said, as there's an acknowledgement that your choices can face consequences.
Every generation leaves behind huge numbers of individuals who do not evolve their usage of certain words. And every generation struggles with the previous' generation's collection of those people.
>Every generation leaves behind huge numbers of individuals who do not evolve their usage of certain words. And every generation struggles with the previous' generation's collection of those people.
Fair enough. But it seems to me that as long as people can make themselves understood and aren't actively engaging in douchebaggery, why should anyone care?
While I encourage and respect others' ability to speak their mind, I'm amazed at how invested some folks (and they are of all stripes, too) are in telling other people what to say, do or think.
We used to call such folks "busybodies"[0].
And there used to be a stock phrase to use when interacting with such people:
Mind your own fucking business.
Which usually didn't work, but made one's position pretty clear.
How is that word doing anything other than standing in for the concept above?
A quick google search for the phrase "x is doing a lot of work there" netted just this one "relevant" result[0].
That link appears to think it's roughly similar to "that requires some unpacking."
If that's the sense in which you used that phrase, I'd be very interested to hear what, exactly you think needs to be "unpacked."
Especially since there was no hidden/obfuscated meaning in my use of "actively." In fact, I meant it exactly, no more, no less than the the definition above.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd elucidate on that. Thanks!
>By your own admission, you use words with the intent to give offense as a form of humor.
I think you're talking about me (nobody9999) not thegrimmest.[3]
With that in mind, what I said was "I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable"
Let's "unpack" that. I am "deliberately[0] inappropriate[1]" in this sense:
deliberate (adj.)
2. characterized by awareness of the consequences
inappropriate (adj.)
not appropriate
which is useless without defining the term that's being negated[2]:
appropriate (adj.)
especially suitable
There is certainly intent, but inappropriate doesn't mean "giving offense," it means not especially suitable.
As you've implied and I agree, words have meanings. But you're ascribing a meaning to a word that isn't accurate.
Why is that? Are you unfamiliar with the word? Or are you simply making an assumption as to my motives and/or thought processes?
In either case, I'd ask that you reassess your statement.
>The rest of your comment is bad faith condensation.
Is it? I (unlike you) didn't quote me out of context.
I (unlike you, despite being asked to do so several times) responded with specific informattion to clarify my point.
I (unlike you) assumed good faith on your part and attempted to more clearly explain my thoughts. You did nothing of the sort and made a point of putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied, and don't believe.
It's unfortunate, but it seems I've been caught not taking my own advice[0]. Again. More's the pity.
>You're claiming that you're deliberately inappropriate but only when it's appropriate and never when it would give offense.
Yes. That is almost exactly what I said and definitely captures my meaning. I'm glad I could (after a fashion) get my point across to you.
>Why isn't "people of color" as offensive as "colored people"?
Great question. I was surprised when "people of color" came into the lexicon given the history of its similar sounding term. I wonder who decides what is offensive and what isn't? Who gave "people of color" a pass while being so close to the other?
Not zmgsabst, but: It's like calling someone a homosexual. The phrasing reduces someone to that characteristic. People of color emphasizes they're whole people with a characteristic. Also be aware there is no more unity of thought among people of color than there is among other demographics, so this is just one person's understanding based on listening to comrades of color.
There's also history in geography. What's offensive to people in one city, county, state, country, etc won't hit the same everywhere. In the UK, a fag is a cigarette, and queer was the more popular pejorative. I don't have a good view on how terms for ethnicity/race/etc evolved elsewhere, but there's probably lots of variety.
> The phrasing reduces someone to that characteristic. People of color emphasizes they're whole people with a characteristic.
If it were just that you would see a lot more pushback against phrasing like "LGBTQ+ people", "Black people", etc.
I think it's mostly the history: this is one of many terms we have moved away from, and using an obsolete term marks you as likely having obsolete views.
People wanted a generic word that collectively refers to all people who aren't white. They didn't want to use "non-white" because they wanted a positive word that emphasises what people are rather than what they're not. And they didn't want to use "colored" because that word has too much historical baggage (at least in the US.) So "people of color" was born.
I’ve heard it said people with disabilities is better than disabled people because you should put people first, rather than define them by what’s different. I’m not American or a minority, and coloured people has been a bad phrase all my life. We’ve stopped using BAME apparently.
