...then just ignore it and do whatever you think is more important. Don't fight against inclusive language, inclusivity, and cultural appropriation because not only is that a very fucking bad look but it creates spaces where reactionaries can start to pull the left apart.
Also, all feelings are valid. If you post something that upsets someone because of the language that you use, they are not overreacting. Even if you don't exactly understand why they're upset, you should still extend some basic empathy to them.
This isn't really directed at anyone or at anything I saw, but I feel like it bears repeating in any left space.
I hope everyone is having a lovely December, love you all.
I have seen people use language policing and being upset over language to literally bully people l, garner attention and create a messed up horrible environment on multiple occasions. You can support inclusive language and at the same time oppos me toxic language policing.
Language in general is ultimately vague, weird and fuzzy and shouldn't be taken too seriously when possible. It is not this or that word and it's history that shape our worldviews and ideas and concepts, but it's the ideas and talking about them themselves.
Except language impact how you move through and perceive the world. Some language is used to enforce stereotypes or to other people, so understanding how language effects people and what we can do to build inclusivity is important.
language is forced upon the people who use it too, communists have to take the position of supplementing those who aren't quite at the same level of consciousness
if we're writing people off before attempting to offer more inclusive & broad-based alternatives, then I think we are losing sight of what our critiques are supposed to accomplish
A language is used to reinforce stereotypes about other people only in the sense that if you want to communicate a stereotype, language is one of the ways you do that. What you're proposing sounds to me like a strong interpretation of Sapir-Whorf, which is something that modern linguistics does not support
The weak form of Sapir Wharf is though. And things like people first language or not using slurs helps. Especially if oppressive language is rooted every day vernacular, like using gay as an insult, or the r word to mean not intelligent.
The main point of all of language is to express ideas, if people are purposely expressing anti inclusive ideas then by all means take offense, however if their intent was obviously not to express those ideas and simply happened to use words you don't like maybe try not to get to upset by it. Also language changes, words that used to be acceptable, and were used with out any intent of being offensive/insensitive, are now extremely offensive. Words we use today are rapidly changing but it takes time for everyone to catch up, I think attacking someone over word choice when they clearly meant nothing by it only serves to alienate.
But asking people to be aware of the effect language has on people isn't attacking them. And some words were always meant to be offensive, they were just more accepted because the group they were used against were unable to fight against it. At the end of the day language still has power with how you use it.
Yeah I'll agree its perfectly fine to ask some one to be more thoughtful when they speak, and I agree people feel what they feel. I'm just saying if you're one of those people who honestly gets upset by the words other people use try temper your feelings by keeping in mind that it wasn't actually an attack on you.
It can be difficult to discern who's doing on purpose and who's just unaware that it can hurt people, especially over the internet. To people who are in marginalized groups, it would make perfect sense to get defensive because they're used to being attacked, or be argued with in bad faith. That's why it's important to understand that their feelings are valid.
if their intent was obviously not to express those ideas and simply happened to use words you don’t like maybe try not to get to upset by it. Also language changes, words that used to be acceptable, and were used with out any intent of being offensive/insensitive, are now extremely offensive
:100-com:
But I'm not talking about policies. I'm talking about language that specifically excludes people or groups of people, or reinforces stereotypes about them.
The language in policies is an entirely different conversation.
I understand your point of view, but it's impossible to ignore.
- These arguments are indeed easy for reactionaries to twist. That doesn't mean the basic arguments are inherently wrong.
- "inclusive language, inclusivity, and cultural appropriation" are three separate things, only one is based in language.
- A major problem in leftist circles is that we start to create a language that nobody outside the circles can understand, much less identify with. of course this goes both ways! We have to ask, do we want to organize the normies or the college kids? Do we want to be the HR wing of capital?
- It's one thing to be upset over slurs, but another thing to be upset over pronouns, that are such an ingrained, basically reptile brain use of language.
- Rapists can use shibboleths too, proper language is no guarantee for equality.
Inclusive language, inclusivity, and cultural appropriation are all linked though. Language defines how we understand and move through the world, as well as what ideas and stereotypes are enforced. Asking people to refrain from using certain language that impacts marginalized people is hardly only the language of college students. Not to mention the implication of saying that asking people to be kind and inclusive is somehow exclusive to students?
Also, pronouns are very important to some people (namely trans people) and they should be respected. Pronouns are hardly ingrained in the the reptile brain because some languages don't even have pronouns. Languages are a construct that can be altered and changed.
What I meant with the difference between slurs and pronouns is that with slurs, it's easy to solve by just shutting up, while with pronouns, you have to make an active effort to create certain speech, which means keeping track of who is trans vs cis vs queer (which is hard to remember unless you are already friends).
I made a point of differentiating language from inclusion. It is mostly student adjacent groups who focus in on language, which is to be expected considering it's the place where you read.
It shocked me to discover that most people don't mull over every single word before they speak it. Some people are more "language brained" than others, just like others are more "number brained" or "music brained" for lack of better words. Whether this is genetic or socially constructed is irrelevant, it's pretty slow to change.
It's interesting that you bring up languages without gendered pronouns, since those languages are still spoken by cultures just as sexist as ours. Maybe there are more important things to change than language, and organizational time is valuable. [insert materialist vs idealist conflict wall of text here]
Absolutely agree, love and compassion are our strengths.
"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy"
- Comrade Mao Zedong
This is a fake and counterrevolutionary quote. Where did you find that?
(i know that comes across very accusing, but disentangling that mess to prove my point will take quite some time)
an old image in my quotes folder. Perhaps I should have done more research.
