Linguistic tongue twisters about equity isn't good

@no1marauder said
They're referred to as "Correctional Officers" by those who believe that prisons are "correctional facilities", not by progressives who know better.

Yes, indeed, it's the "progressives who know better" that is the crux of the criticism against excessive alterations to correct speech patterns... They're referred to as correction officers because it's their official job title. But then there's an expectation that you all need to keep up-to-date on the latest linguistic trends, and know that you should know better to call someone a prison official even though he has "correction officer" written on his ID badge, lest you fall behind at the cocktail party, notwithstanding any real change in attitude or behavior regarding the use and abuse of prisons and prisoners. As the Atlantic article notes, the progressives seem to think that changing the language is fixing the problem.

The rest of us just call them correctional officers, because people are likely to understand what we mean.

I still haven't seen a good answer to the question in the OP. Who is this helping?

@wildgrass said
Yes, indeed, it's the "progressives who know better" that is the crux of the criticism against excessive alterations to correct speech patterns... They're referred to as correction officers because it's their official job title. But then there's an expectation that you all need to keep up-to-date on the latest linguistic trends, and know that you should know better to call ...[text shortened]... what we mean.

I still haven't seen a good answer to the question in the OP. Who is this helping?

So you think a prison is a "correctional facility"?

Talk about doublespeak ........................................ https://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Doublespeak_Examples/Quiz_2/correctional_facility_4648.[WORD TOO LONG].

More accurate terms which do not protract the use of language based in outmoded concepts and/or latent/blatant bigotry helps those who aren't soooooooooooooooo stubborn and/or ignorant that they insist on thinking in such inappropriate ways.

@no1marauder said
So you think a prison is a "correctional facility"?

Talk about doublespeak ........................................ https://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Doublespeak_Examples/Quiz_2/correctional_facility_4648.[WORD TOO LONG].

No. I do not think that.

Do you think changing the name of a correctional officer to a prison official substantively changes the role of a prison in our society, or the treatment of its prisoners? Who is benefiting here, other than the smug progressive reading the style guides?

@wildgrass said
No. I do not think that.

Do you think changing the name of a correctional officer to a prison official substantively changes the role of a prison in our society, or the treatment of its prisoners?

I think it can change people's perception of them, yes.

@no1marauder said
I think it can change people's perception of them, yes.

It can or it does?

@wildgrass said
It can or it does?

I think people who A) uncritically accept the terms "correctional facility" and "correctional officers" have been manipulated into acceptance of the present system of criminal "justice" in the US.

I think people who B) more correctly use the terms "prisons" and "prison officers" tend to see the entire system as problematic at best.

So if we get more Bs and less As it should tend to increase pressure for reform of said system.

@no1marauder said
I think people who A) uncritically accept the terms "correctional facility" and "correctional officers" have been manipulated into acceptance of the present system of criminal "justice" in the US.

I think people who B) more correctly use the terms "prisons" and "prison officers" tend to see the entire system as problematic at best.

So if we get more Bs and less As it should tend to increase pressure for reform of said system.

Acceptance of terminology = acceptance of systems? I disagree. There are plenty of examples of terms we accept knowing they are not perfect descriptors of the systems they represent. Eventually terms are replaced that are no longer useful. It's a fallacy to think that a new term will change outcomes systemically, or even help to facilitate that change.

In practice it seems that it does not change behaviors.

@wildgrass said
Acceptance of terminology = acceptance of systems? I disagree. There are plenty of examples of terms we accept knowing they are not perfect descriptors of the systems they represent. Eventually terms are replaced that are no longer useful. It's a fallacy to think that a new term will change outcomes systemically, or even help to facilitate that change.

In practice it seems that it does not change behaviors.

That assertion is based on ................................................ what exactly?

@no1marauder said
That assertion is based on ................................................ what exactly?

It's more of a null hypothesis rather than an assertion. I hypothesize that changing the term "correction officer" to "prison official" will not affect anything relating to actual criminal justice.

@wildgrass said
It's more of a null hypothesis rather than an assertion. I hypothesize that changing the term "correction officer" to "prison official" will not affect anything relating to actual criminal justice.

Yes, because the words used in political discourse are utterly meaningless.

Is that really a position you want to adopt?

@no1marauder said
Yes, because the words used in political discourse are utterly meaningless.

Is that really a position you want to adopt?

No. That's not my position. To sum it up: changing words doesn't fix anything, and distracts from solving real problems.

In a hypothetical discussion of prison reform, would it make any difference in the outcome if the debaters were referring to correction officers or prison officials? My guess is no.

It might be interesting to test this with an AI algorithm.

@wildgrass said
No. That's not my position. To sum it up: changing words doesn't fix anything, and distracts from solving real problems.

In a hypothetical discussion of prison reform, would it make any difference in the outcome if the debaters were referring to correction officers or prison officials? My guess is no.

It might be interesting to test this with an AI algorithm.

Funny, prison officers don't agree with you; they want to be called "correctional officers" in part to validate the system:

" we need to remind the public that, within our progression, we have embraced the title of correctional officer as a way to signify our personal evolution, our personal sacrifices, and our permanent place in the law enforcement community."

"Corrections is about rehabilitation. In essence, we strive for change and provide hope in a world that would prefer chaos and anarchy. Within the walls, lies a community founded on the need for change. Within that foundation, centered at the core for personal growth and development, stand those who fight for change by enforcing the laws that govern their state."

https://www.corrections1.com/corrections-1/articles/its-correctional-officer-not-prison-guard-GQ3R8WOhrm26TppL/

Progressives know that the present prison system has very little to do with " rehabilitation" or "change", so labelling those who work in it in such a misleading way inhibits recognition of its reality. So yes, in a discussion of prison reform it makes a difference what we call them.

@no1marauder said
Funny, prison officers don't agree with you; they want to be called "correctional officers" in part to validate the system:

" we need to remind the public that, within our progression, we have embraced the title of correctional officer as a way to signify our personal evolution, our personal sacrifices, and our permanent place in the law enforcement community."

"[b] ...[text shortened]... on of its reality. So yes, in a discussion of prison reform it makes a difference what we call them.

Sure. I mean we could call them whatever we want. It's counterproductive when you need to bring them to the table to discuss reform. first telling them they aren't what they think they are. Fighting about terminology with the other side is a sure way to never accomplish anything.

@wildgrass said
Sure. I mean we could call them whatever we want. It's counterproductive when you need to bring them to the table to discuss reform. first telling them they aren't what they think they are. Fighting about terminology with the other side is a sure way to never accomplish anything.

Don't be ridiculous; agreeing with them that their job is all about "rehabilitation" and "change" isn't going to produce any type of reform, is it?

Before you can change the system you have to see its reality and terms that mask that reality are designed to perpetuate its flaws. Liberals will never get anywhere until they recognize this and that accommodating the biases of those who will never agree to reform anyway is a fool's game.

@no1marauder said
Don't be ridiculous; agreeing with them that their job is all about "rehabilitation" and "change" isn't going to produce any type of reform, is it?

Before you can change the system you have to see its reality and terms that mask that reality are designed to perpetuate its flaws. Liberals will never get anywhere until they recognize this and that accommodating the biases of those who will never agree to reform anyway is a fool's game.

Meeting them where they're at is the best way to enact change.

Telling them they're wrong is guaranteed to shut down conversation.