08 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidA prison guard is protecting society at large from the inmates confined to the penitentiary, some of whom may be violent murderers. They also serve to protect inmates from each other. It seems fairly obvious to me that the word "guard" is appropriate in this context. Your thinking is completely upside-down here.
Again, the term is misleading; prisons are places where people are being punished, not being "protected".
You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
08 Mar 23
@soothfast saidNo, your thinking is. The US incarcarates at a rate unheard of in the rest of the developed world and many, if not most in jail and prison, would not be there in a rational, well-ordered society with less racism, poverty and punitive penal laws. See The Rich Get Richer and The Poor Get Prison if you are unaware of this.
A prison guard is protecting society at large from the inmates confined to the penitentiary, some of whom may be violent murderers. They also serve to protect inmates from each other. It seems fairly obvious to me that the word "guard" is appropriate in this context. Your thinking is completely upside-down here.
Your post is a perfect example of language justifying a system that progressives understand must be radically reformed.
08 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidOh, that's crazy. To warp the language, and make it less precise, in an endeavor to fashion some socio-psychological gestalt that is hoped will reform the US criminal justice system is quixotic in the extreme.
No, your thinking is. The US incarcarates at a rate unheard of in the rest of the developed world and many, if not most in jail and prison, would not be there in a rational, well-ordered society with less racism, poverty and punitive penal laws. See The Rich Get Richer and The Poor Get Prison if you are unaware of this.
Your post is a perfect example of language justifying a system that progressives understand must be radically reformed.
Frankly, I think "guard" has more bite. "Prison officer" makes prisons feel less forbidding. It's like calling a prison a "correction facility." It sanitizes the very real problem with those US imprisonment statistics that you mention. Such euphemisms have been a stock in trade of despotic governments for centuries.
08 Mar 23
@wildgrass saidBe careful, Wildgrass. "African American" is now "out." We're back to black.
No I don't but I also didn't look it up in a style guide before talking to an African American.
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 ...[text shortened]... me and how that would make me feel. I think many individuals within marginalized groups would agree.
And good thing, too, because I personally have yet to knowingly meet a black person who particularly liked the label, and met one who absolutely hated it with a passion.
We're all walking on egg shells now.
08 Mar 23
@soothfast saidIt's hilarious how you are trying to "spin" your own post where you approved of the term "guard" because they supposedly perform the wonderful service of protecting society and the people in prison. Not a hint of any "problem" with the US criminal justice system and incarceration rates there.
Oh, that's crazy. To warp the language, and make it less precise, in an endeavor to fashion some socio-psychological gestalt that is hoped will reform the US criminal justice system is quixotic in the extreme.
Frankly, I think "guard" has more bite. "Prison officer" makes prisons feel less forbidding. It's like calling a prison a "correction facility." It sanitizes ...[text shortened]... that you mention. Such euphemisms have been a stock in trade of despotic governments for centuries.
A "prison" should be called what it is i.e. a prison and those who work there should be referred to as what they are "a prison officer". They don't "guard" in a sense of a marine guarding an embassy; they are there to serve the interests of the State, not the prisoners.
It makes my head spin to see you claim in one paragraph that language essentially makes no difference and then in the next think you made the seemingly triumphal argument that "euphemisms have been a stock in trade of despotic governments for centuries"! Do you even realize how much of an internal contradiction that is?
Language matters and your first post, no matter how much you later backtrack from it, is a perfect example of supposedly neutral language supporting a repressive and unjust system.
08 Mar 23
@athousandyoung saidThey're referred to as "Correctional Officers" by those who believe that prisons are "correctional facilities", not by progressives who know better.
Prison “guards” are usually referred to as Corrections Officer or CO and “colored” means mulatto in South Africa as contrasted with pure blood Blacks.
08 Mar 23
@wildgrass saidLanguage, like any other human invention, progresses in ways that humans chose to progress it. You and Soothfast are doing little more than stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue rather than addressing the points those like the authors of A Progressive's Style Guide are making. It is beyond cavil that much terminology that is presently used was based on past bigotry and outdated concepts and beliefs and continued use of such terminology inhibits fresh thinking and change.
No I don't but I also didn't look it up in a style guide before talking to an African American.
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 ...[text shortened]... me and how that would make me feel. I think many individuals within marginalized groups would agree.
09 Mar 23
3 edits
@no1marauder saidI'm afraid my cursory passes through this forum these past two days have resulted in my making fragmented arguments that are ill-posed. While I believe I have formulated the ingredients for a more coherent argument during the course of my day's duties, I haven't the drive at this moment to compose it.
It's hilarious how you are trying to "spin" your own post where you approved of the term "guard" because they supposedly perform the wonderful service of protecting society and the people in prison. Not a hint of any "problem" with the US criminal justice system and incarceration rates there.
A "prison" should be called what it is i.e. a prison and those who work there ...[text shortened]... m it, is a perfect example of supposedly neutral language supporting a repressive and unjust system.
But I will address what you perceive to be a contradiction in regards to my statement about euphemisms as they are employed by despotic governments. Though a despotic (or authoritarian) state may choose to call an extermination camp a "work camp," I do not believe such linguistic chicanery, by itself, fools the citizenry to any significant degree; however, such a state generally has no compunction about telling its citizens that those who work at its "work camps" can eventually gain release ("Arbeit macht frei"). The state may even make those sent to such camps do actual work to make the lie more lifelike, though no one is ever released. This kind of propaganda, wrought with calculated lies, history has shown to be efficacious at least in the medium run, if not the long run.
Why did I say euphemisms have been a stock in trade of despotic governments for centuries? Definitely not because I think it works! My point was that the euphemisms are used as the first step toward sanitizing truths that are damaging to the government's image. But it's usually not the last step.
Language often matters, but not all language matters equally, and some language does not matter at all. Calling guards "prison officials" is a shell game that I believe fools no one, and therefore does not matter.
You could sell me on one thing, though, which is that it is probably no longer the case that someone who works at a prison does nothing but standing around guarding a door all day every day. Duties are probably rotated hour to hour, day to day. But I would contend that, during the time that a "prison official" is standing by a weapons locker or walking the perimeter of the prison yard, that official is doing what may legitimately be called guard duty.
09 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidPlenty of things in the style guide I do agree with. I never said every item in it was nonsense. I agree that the elderly should not be called "geezers."
Language, like any other human invention, progresses in ways that humans chose to progress it. You and Soothfast are doing little more than stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue rather than addressing the points those like the authors of A Progressive's Style Guide are making. It is beyond cavil that much terminology that is presently used was bas ...[text shortened]... dated concepts and beliefs and continued use of such terminology inhibits fresh thinking and change.
09 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidI'm a bit disappointed by the rancor of this paragraph. I am very much dismayed by the high imprisonment numbers in the US, to an extent that compelled me to join the ACLU years ago. I did not think I had to prove to you that I am aware of the problem, nor did I feel it necessary to tell you anything about the problem since I know you are well aware of it.
It's hilarious how you are trying to "spin" your own post where you approved of the term "guard" because they supposedly perform the wonderful service of protecting society and the people in prison. Not a hint of any "problem" with the US criminal justice system and incarceration rates there.
09 Mar 23
2 edits
@no1marauder saidI don't think anyone's stamping feet. This has been a thoroughly civil discussion so far. I understand and appreciate your point that there is value in rethinking language, terminologies, as culture changes. I do not understand the current iteration of that rethinking, which appears to be similar to the way store fronts swap out the latest monthly fashion trends. It is excessive and unnecessary. I am sure some people enjoy switching to describing the homeless as the unhoused, but there's no discernible difference and it does not help anyone.
Language, like any other human invention, progresses in ways that humans chose to progress it. You and Soothfast are doing little more than stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue rather than addressing the points those like the authors of A Progressive's Style Guide are making. It is beyond cavil that much terminology that is presently used was bas ...[text shortened]... dated concepts and beliefs and continued use of such terminology inhibits fresh thinking and change.
There is harm done by the excessive progress in terminology. It alienates, confuses and obscures real problems. It is not helping anyone in any substantive way. It's a waste of time and energy.
09 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidWhat are you suggesting about MiniLuv?!
They're referred to as "Correctional Officers" by those who believe that prisons are "correctional facilities", not by progressives who know better.
09 Mar 23
@shavixmir saidThe reverse is true. Changing culture requires new language.
The basic question being posed, if I may, is: “Does changing language change culture?”
Language that works to explain new things or concepts are broadly adopted.