That’s a path to inequality, not equality. Trying to silence people because you don’t like certain words is a bit of fascism in itself, which these people claim to be against.
Telling people not to use a word, whatever might be said about it being a good idea or not, is not fascism. “Fascism” is a specific social phenomenon that has emerged from the decay of capitalism as reactionary popular movements that seek to offload their poverty onto social minorities. “Taboo words” have existed for about as long as language has existed for an endless variety of reasons. Whether having some words be taboo is good or bad, calling it fascism is completely ridiculous.
Isn’t that just a fact? Like, I get why words such as “removed” should be avoided due to it being an insult et all, but wheelchair bound?
English is a funny language so I might be missing something.
It is a foolish path, but to call it “oppressive” is to tip your hand that you have no real notion of what oppression is if you’re worried about what amounts to a slightly different set of etiquette on a semi-anonymous internet forum.
This isn’t just a problem on the internet. I run into people in real life who think this way, often.
How many times have comedians or other entertainers come under fire for jokes or other bits they’ve done? It’s a lot. Comedians will all tell you that they can’t perform in places like New York the same way anymore, because half the things they say get booed from the crowd.
“Why should I care about Dave Chappelle, or anyone else, getting slammed for some offensive thing they said?”
Because entertainer’s acts are one of the ways that people come to understand the world around them. Their satire is an important tool for democracy to unravel the bullshit that surrounds them. It’s supposed to be the opposite of sterile.
And if “dirty language” means that you’re okay silencing those guys, along with everyone else, you are engaging in oppression on a far wider scale than you realize.
who care much more about whether what you said is polite than whether it’s actually a good thing to say.
This is a great point. So much of the talk around equality is nothing more than pandering to gain social approval.
And when you see people getting their entire careers ruined over saying the wrong thing once, or even something they said decades ago, it just drives people into the political margins.
People are more interested in attacking their neighbors for “bigotry” than they are in building a more just society.
I’m putting bigotry in quotes, because the words and ideas that are considered hateful are constantly changing. If someone doesn’t keep up with the latest fashion in acceptable speech, they may suddenly find themselves opposite to an angry mob.
The social climate surrounding us is not an accident. The way people respond to their perceived political rivals is not an accident. It’s a result of how unprepared our society is in dealing with social media algorithms that promote engagement through division. And a result of bad actors capitalizing on that division to sow greater unrest.
This isn’t new. The evidence has been on full display for years. And yet, the damage has been done. There’s simply no social appetite for those who support slow and steady (durable and stable) policy reform.
The recent political climate on “sides” can be summed up with “You’re either 100% with us, no discussion, or you are our enemy” and that’s where true oppression begins.
That page has to be satire… right?
The whole “police your language, so there’s no chance anyone could ever be offended” idea is such an oppressive path to a more equal society.
That’s a path to inequality, not equality. Trying to silence people because you don’t like certain words is a bit of fascism in itself, which these people claim to be against.
Telling people not to use a word, whatever might be said about it being a good idea or not, is not fascism. “Fascism” is a specific social phenomenon that has emerged from the decay of capitalism as reactionary popular movements that seek to offload their poverty onto social minorities. “Taboo words” have existed for about as long as language has existed for an endless variety of reasons. Whether having some words be taboo is good or bad, calling it fascism is completely ridiculous.
I mean I hope so? One of the top offensive terms was wheelchair bound…
Isn’t that just a fact? Like, I get why words such as “removed” should be avoided due to it being an insult et all, but wheelchair bound? English is a funny language so I might be missing something.
They want to be called "wheeled individual " as being wheelchair bound denotes that they’re restricted /s
It is a foolish path, but to call it “oppressive” is to tip your hand that you have no real notion of what oppression is if you’re worried about what amounts to a slightly different set of etiquette on a semi-anonymous internet forum.
This isn’t just a problem on the internet. I run into people in real life who think this way, often.
How many times have comedians or other entertainers come under fire for jokes or other bits they’ve done? It’s a lot. Comedians will all tell you that they can’t perform in places like New York the same way anymore, because half the things they say get booed from the crowd.
“Why should I care about Dave Chappelle, or anyone else, getting slammed for some offensive thing they said?”
Because entertainer’s acts are one of the ways that people come to understand the world around them. Their satire is an important tool for democracy to unravel the bullshit that surrounds them. It’s supposed to be the opposite of sterile.
And if “dirty language” means that you’re okay silencing those guys, along with everyone else, you are engaging in oppression on a far wider scale than you realize.
deleted by creator
This is a great point. So much of the talk around equality is nothing more than pandering to gain social approval.
And when you see people getting their entire careers ruined over saying the wrong thing once, or even something they said decades ago, it just drives people into the political margins.
People are more interested in attacking their neighbors for “bigotry” than they are in building a more just society.
I’m putting bigotry in quotes, because the words and ideas that are considered hateful are constantly changing. If someone doesn’t keep up with the latest fashion in acceptable speech, they may suddenly find themselves opposite to an angry mob.
The social climate surrounding us is not an accident. The way people respond to their perceived political rivals is not an accident. It’s a result of how unprepared our society is in dealing with social media algorithms that promote engagement through division. And a result of bad actors capitalizing on that division to sow greater unrest.
This isn’t new. The evidence has been on full display for years. And yet, the damage has been done. There’s simply no social appetite for those who support slow and steady (durable and stable) policy reform.
The recent political climate on “sides” can be summed up with “You’re either 100% with us, no discussion, or you are our enemy” and that’s where true oppression begins.