07 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidIt divides the Left indeed, which makes it de facto not a nothing-burger. Moreover it provides ammunition to the enemy, which is adept at presenting leftist Newspeak as "proof" that Democrats in general are hostile to the First Amendment. Such Newspeak merely feeds grievance mills both within and beyond progressive ranks, to the extreme detriment of progressive policy-making and reform. And this is all in the name of sensitivity theater, which puts fig leaves over endemic divisions and prejudices without in any way meaningfully ameliorating them.
No guns are being aimed at anybody's head to make them use any particular term. This is a big nothing burger except to further divide the Left by such petty complainers as the author of the Atlantic article.
I did bookmark A Progressive's Style Guide and find it quite useful. You should look it over.
07 Mar 23
@soothfast saidRead my last post and I'll repeat the same question I asked wildgrass:
It divides the Left indeed, which makes it de facto not a nothing-burger. Moreover it provides ammunition to the enemy, which is adept at presenting leftist Newspeak as "proof" that Democrats in general are hostile to the First Amendment. Such Newspeak merely feeds grievance mills both within and beyond progressive ranks, to the extreme detriment of progressive poli ...[text shortened]... fig leaves over endemic divisions and prejudices without in any way meaningfully ameliorating them.
Do you still refer to blacks as "coloreds"?
Anyone who seriously thinks that progressives should wring their hands in concern over what right wing fanatics are going to say about the Left has already lost the war. Language always evolves and I see nothing wrong with trying to nudge it towards more inclusive terms which reject prior characterizations rooted in ancient bigotry and prejudices.
07 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidFrankly I see no substantive difference between the term "coloreds" and the lately-fashionable "people of color." Categorize this under "What was once old is new again."
Read my last post and I'll repeat the same question I asked wildgrass:
Do you still refer to blacks as "coloreds"?
Anyone who seriously thinks that progressives should wring their hands in concern over what right wing fanatics are going to say about the Left has already lost the war. Language always evolves and I see nothing wrong with trying to nudge it towards more inclusive terms which reject prior characterizations rooted in ancient bigotry and prejudices.
That aside, I'm more concerned with how all this is playing out within progressive circles. It does divide, and it squanders energy and political capital on symbolic nonsense. It does not unite workers, nor elevate their status in society. It's mining the field with linguistic boobytraps so those who are not hep to the latest lingo can step on them and find themselves the target of the leftist outrage machine.
It's a damned waste of time, and is just another retread of the political correctness excesses of three decades ago.
08 Mar 23
1 edit
@soothfast saidMaybe you should ask your black friends if they see no difference in being called "colored" or a "person of color".
Frankly I see no substantive difference between the term "coloreds" and the lately-fashionable "people of color." Categorize this under "What was once old is new again."
That aside, I'm more concerned with how all this is playing out within progressive circles. It does divide, and it squanders energy and political capital on symbolic nonsense. It does not unite worker ...[text shortened]... ste of time, and is just another retread of the political correctness excesses of three decades ago.
I can't disagree with you more; the language we use effects the way we think. often in ways we are barely aware of. I can't put it any better than A Progressive’s Style Guide does in its Introduction:
"Language can build bridges and change minds. By
acknowledging the ability of language to shape and reflect
reality, progressive campaigns can become more powerful
vehicles for social change, inclusion, and justice. "
I don't think it is particularly controversial in "progressive" circles, it's more old-school liberals always overly pessimistic about the ability of the American People to embrace positive social change, who are moaning and complaining like the Atlantic article does.
08 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidI'm just flipping through this "style guide" and it is predictably absurd and arbitrary in innumerable instances.
Maybe you should ask your black friends if they see no difference in being called "colored" or a "person of color".
I can't disagree with you more; the language we use effects the way we think. often in ways we are barely aware of. I can't put it any better than A Progressive’s Style Guide does in its Introduction:
"Language can build bridges and change minds. By
...[text shortened]... e to embrace positive social change, who are moaning and complaining like the Atlantic article does.
"Hearing impaired" is out. What's in? "Partially deaf," which sounds worse.
Labeling any food as "natural" is out? What's in? Apparently nothing, and I have no idea whose delicate fee-fees are triggered by use of the word natural in reference to a food. No effing idea.
"Slut" is okay "if this is how a person or group self-identifies," but "prostitute" does not get the same pass.
"Transgender" as an adjective is fine, but as a noun is not. Huh.
"Differently abled," one of the darlings of the political correctness police of a generation ago, is now out. What's in is "disabled person." That's right: "disabled" is back, baby! Throughout my university days and well into my teaching career I was told by my betters that this word was offensive, but what the hell...
Another gem: don't say "in a wheelchair" but rather "uses a wheelchair." Why?
I guess most progressives have not gotten the memo about "gentrification" being a no-no.
All those expats who call themselves expats are apparently insulting themselves and they don't even know it.
Prisons don't have guards anymore. Who knew?
"Multicultural" is out. Curious, because the idea of so-called "multiculturalism" was what motivated much of the political correctness of a generation ago.
08 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidIn Britain it was (before Covid, I don’t know now) politically more correct to use coloured than black.
Read my last post and I'll repeat the same question I asked wildgrass:
Do you still refer to blacks as "coloreds"?
Anyone who seriously thinks that progressives should wring their hands in concern over what right wing fanatics are going to say about the Left has already lost the war. Language always evolves and I see nothing wrong with trying to nudge it towards more inclusive terms which reject prior characterizations rooted in ancient bigotry and prejudices.
“Blacks” being objectively wrong (because most black people aren’t black) and “blacks” being a horrible term, widely associated with South African apartheid.
To be honest, I stay away from most distinctions like either of them. Mostly because, as an old commie, I’m pretty much convinced that poverty is more defining fo behaviour, culture, etc. than skin colour.
08 Mar 23
1 edit
@soothfast saidIf you hadn't already decided before you even looked at it that it would be "arbitrary" and "absurd" and had actually bothered to read the reasoning behind each of those, you'd might have avoided simply sounding stubborn and ignorant.
I'm just flipping through this "style guide" and it is predictably absurd and arbitrary in innumerable instances.
"Hearing impaired" is out. What's in? "Partially deaf," which sounds worse.
Labeling any food as "natural" is out? What's in? Apparently nothing, and I have no idea whose delicate fee-fees are triggered by use of the word natural in refer ...[text shortened]... -called "multiculturalism" was what motivated much of the political correctness of a generation ago.
For an obvious example, it's pretty clear that a person responsible for controlling prisoners and keeping them from escaping isn't primarily "guarding" them in the usual sense of "protecting" them. Thus, "prison officer" is far more accurate.
08 Mar 23
@soothfast saidAs far as "natural" foods:
I'm just flipping through this "style guide" and it is predictably absurd and arbitrary in innumerable instances.
"Hearing impaired" is out. What's in? "Partially deaf," which sounds worse.
Labeling any food as "natural" is out? What's in? Apparently nothing, and I have no idea whose delicate fee-fees are triggered by use of the word natural in refer ...[text shortened]... -called "multiculturalism" was what motivated much of the political correctness of a generation ago.
"A recent poll reinforces corporations' belief that "natural" is appealing to consumers, showing that 63% of consumers prefer products that have a "natural" label. (11) This may be because 86% of the consumers polled expect that a "natural" label means that the processed food does not contain any artificial ingredients. (12) Other studies show that consumers believe that the term "natural" communicates certain characteristics about the product: specifically, that "natural" products are pure, clean, and healthy. (13) Many consumers, however, remain unaware that the term "natural" is currently unregulated and undefined in the food industry. (14)"
https://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/natural-foods-inherently-confusing-665082725
Maybe you should do a minute of Googling before criticizing the Guide's preference that a misleading term not be used.
08 Mar 23
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThat's a problem for the FDA.
As far as "natural" foods:
"A recent poll reinforces corporations' belief that "natural" is appealing to consumers, showing that 63% of consumers prefer products that have a "natural" label. (11) This may be because 86% of the consumers polled expect that a "natural" label means that the processed food does not contain any artificial ingredients. (12) Other studies sho ...[text shortened]... o a minute of Googling before criticizing the Guide's preference that a misleading term not be used.
Just yesterday I read this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/05/fda-healthy-food-sugar/?commentID=d8bf5201-5280-4872-8449-e40c0469c870
The FDA is going to regulate what foods may be labeled as "healthy" on their packaging. "Healthy Choice" frozen entrees, for instance, would fall short of the mark on account of their sugar content, and probably also salt content.
Now, the Sierra Club can go hog wild deprecating the word "natural" as a descriptor for food, but it's a waste of time and energy that could be better spent pushing regulating agencies such as the FDA to come up with a rigorous definition for what constitutes a "natural" food, and then force food manufacturers to refrain from using the word "natural" on the packaging of any product that fails to live up to that definition.
EDIT: The thing about the guideline, though, is that it intimates that "natural" should never be used to describe a food, which is absurd. Organic, non-GMO fruits and vegetables I should think qualify as "natural," even if we do not have a precise definition of the term.
08 Mar 23
1 edit
@no1marauder said"Prison officer" is vague. Is that the warden? Someone in the guard—er, watchtower? Someone who processes paroles?
If you hadn't already decided before you even looked at it that it would be "arbitrary" and "absurd" and had actually bothered to read the reasoning behind each of those, you'd might have avoided simply sounding stubborn and ignorant.
For an obvious example, it's pretty clear that a person responsible for controlling prisoners and keeping them from escaping isn't prima ...[text shortened]... guarding" them in the usual sense of "protecting" them. Thus, "prison officer" is far more accurate.
It's a title that says nothing, like "military personnel." There can be uses for such terms, but there are times when it's necessary to make it clear that someone working in a prison has a job that entails mostly guard duty, as opposed to paperwork or administrative duties.
08 Mar 23
@soothfast saidAgain, the term is misleading; prisons are places where people are being punished, not being "protected".
"Prison officer" is vague. Is that the warden? Someone in the guard—er, watchtower? Someone who processes paroles?
It's a title that says nothing, like "military personnel." There can be uses for such terms, but there are times when it's necessary to make it clear that someone working in a prison has a job that entails mostly guard duty, as opposed to paperwork or administrative duties.
You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
08 Mar 23
@soothfast saidI suppose you think it's impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time. But it's possible to both lobby the FDA AND encourage the discontinuation of the use of terms that are clearly just confusing consumers.
That's a problem for the FDA.
Just yesterday I read this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/05/fda-healthy-food-sugar/?commentID=d8bf5201-5280-4872-8449-e40c0469c870
The FDA is going to regulate what foods may be labeled as "healthy" on their packaging. "Healthy Choice" frozen entrees, for instance, would fall short of the mark on account of th ...[text shortened]... tables I should think qualify as "natural," even if we do not have a precise definition of the term.
As my article makes clear, "natural" as presently used is misleading to the public, intentionally so.
08 Mar 23
1 edit
@soothfast saidAs for "ex pats":
I'm just flipping through this "style guide" and it is predictably absurd and arbitrary in innumerable instances.
"Hearing impaired" is out. What's in? "Partially deaf," which sounds worse.
Labeling any food as "natural" is out? What's in? Apparently nothing, and I have no idea whose delicate fee-fees are triggered by use of the word natural in refer ...[text shortened]... -called "multiculturalism" was what motivated much of the political correctness of a generation ago.
"expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.
Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. However, Europeans are expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities. They are superior. Immigrants is a term set aside for ‘inferior races’.
Don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal, the leading financial information magazine in the world, has a blog dedicated to the life of expats and recently they featured a story ‘Who is an expat, anyway?’. Here are the main conclusions: “Some arrivals are described as expats; others as immigrants; and some simply as migrants. It depends on social class, country of origin and economic status. It’s strange to hear some people in Hong Kong described as expats, but not others. Anyone with roots in a western country is considered an expat … Filipino domestic helpers are just guests, even if they’ve been here for decades. Mandarin-speaking mainland Chinese are rarely regarded as expats … It’s a double standard woven into official policy.”
The reality is the same in Africa and Europe. Top African professionals going to work in Europe are not considered expats. They are immigrants. Period. “I work for multinational organisations both in the private and public sectors. And being black or coloured doesn’t gain me the term “expat”. I’m a highly qualified immigrant, as they call me, to be politically correct,” says an African migrant worker."
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration
08 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidNo I don't but I also didn't look it up in a style guide before talking to an African American.
Do you still call black people "coloreds"?
I don't think it's wasteful to refer to people or groups of people in terms that they prefer and/or are more accurate and less based in outdated bigotry (conscious or not). And I don't think it's that big of a chore for reasonably intelligent people to learn how to do so.
Language progresses naturally. When enough people adopt new terminology then we change with the times. You say they're more accurate, but how useful is accuracy when no one understands what you're talking about? These changes are absurd, unnatural, unncecessary, and alienating to people who aren't reading Language Style Guides Monthly magazine.
Here, I think is my fundamental problem: I would rather have people say, naturally, how they feel about me in their words, as opposed to watching them think about how I would like them to describe me and how that would make me feel. I think many individuals within marginalized groups would agree.