this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
26 points (81.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1838 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
26
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Copernican@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
 

The words [Equity-language] guides recommend or reject are sometimes exactly the same, justified in nearly identical language.

...

Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above. They haven’t emerged organically from the shifting linguistic habits of large numbers of people.

...

Prison does not become a less brutal place by calling someone locked up in one a person experiencing the criminal-justice system.

...

The whole tendency of equity language is to blur the contours of hard, often unpleasant facts. This aversion to reality is its main appeal. Once you acquire the vocabulary, it’s actually easier to say people with limited financial resources than the poor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The main issue I have with this sort of thing is that in going to such great lengths to avoid offense, the plain meaning of words are often ignored. We have elevated the feelings that these words conjure above their intended use, to the point where words can be ~~blacklisted~~ rejected simply because someone else uses something that sounds similar in a bad context.

(Humans have equated "black" with "darkness" and bad things before they were even aware that other humans came in different skin tones. That connotation existed long before some humans decided they were better than others based on their skin tone. Why does every expression involving color have to be evocative of race now? Don't we call it a "brown bag" lunch because the bag is, literally, brown?)

"Felon" is a good example, directly cited in this article. Felon simply means one who is convicted of a Felony offense. Why do we have to qualify or sugarcoat that? By trying to avoid any baggage that has built up regarding the term over the years we are making language imprecise.

I believe that the further we go down the rabbit hole of changing the plain meaning of words to avoid offense, that only serves to give more power to people who purposely offend.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While it would be great to be able to use these words without the subtext and context, that's not how people operate. So while your way would be ideally better, it's also literally impossible.

When we recognize it's impossible, because you can't change how people think, then we ask people to change how they act instead. I.e. what words they choose.

This is the only other solution, and at least it is slightly possible, as opposed to impossible.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wait, are you seriously arguing that it's impossible to think of the word "brown bag" without racial subtext? I mean, the bag is literally brown. That's it's color. All I want to do is eat lunch.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I'm saying that there are plenty of things where context matters.

I'm also saying that I don't always know all the context. I'm not omniscient. So if someone who DOES know tells me about the context, I learn and adjust. For example, I no longer use the phrase "gypped" to mean ripped off. I didn't know it was a slur against the Romania, I learned, I adjusted.

Life is full of changes and it's really not hard to make small adjustments if it lessens other people's pain.

As for the brown bag thing, if African American leaders that I trust explain that it's somehow offensive, I'll look into it. They haven't, so I haven't.