Using obscurantist in casual conversation strikes me as a little obscurantist.
Asshole?
You can operate a number of ways here on earth:
-
You can accept things for the way they are and deal with them. This means that we all know that certain people are going to think we are assholes for using certain words, and we shouldn’t be surprised when they do, or we just don’t bother because it ain’t worth the hassle.
-
Get pompous and act like everyone should know what the hell you are talking about all the time and deem them unreasonable or uneducated/ignorant/whatever.
-
Doing what you did; using the words you see fit knowing there might be some hostility towards you, but accepting it because you are consciously going to take it on the chin from time to time to move people forward.
Sometimes you gotta be an asshole to make things happen. So, to her, you are/were an asshole, but if you are taking approach number three, asshole might be a good thing.
Ah, now the truth comes to light.
You pissed your sister off, you did it on purpose, and she responded obliquely by criticizing your choice of words instead of your message. This whole thread is about a red herring. Intellectual snobbery was never the real issue.
I didn’t piss my sister off purposefully. I did, however, answer her question honestly.
Stupid golden lariat won’t come off. I am SO murdering the Amazons later.
Before opening this thread I would have taken a WAG (if asked) that “infantilized” was well within 9th grade vocab levels. I am surprised (actually somewhat shocked) by the number of people who don’t seem to have come across “obscurantist” before.
If you are talking to a (presumably) intelligent, educated person, you are perfectly correct to use standard English words that accurately convey your meaning, sesquipedalian or otherwise; if the other person doesn’t know a specific word they can ask or look it up later. Continuing to use language that your interlocutor can’t comprehend, after it has become obvious that they’re not getting it, would be asinine, but being verbally gifted is not itself a crime. 
JRB
The third Law of Thermodynamics is the one about “ya ain’t never gonna get Absolute Zero because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
I had to look up obscurantist.
Your sister might actually have a point. Sorry.
Infantilize - To baby
Obscurantist - Willfully stupid
I came in here to say that!
Why would that make you an asshole?
The thing is, we learn stuff to use it later when we want and need to; right?
What the hell, if those words were right to help you express what you wanted to express, why not use them?
I reckon if people think you’re a jerk for using those words, they’re just intimidated, seriously.
I’ve been on the opposite end of this situation with my fiance. She has a PhD in psychology and likes to throw words from the discipline into everyday sentences. I only object to this if I feel that she’s doing it to make me look stupid - which is probably never actually the case! And therein lies the rub: If the person gets offended by the big word, he or she may have self-confidence issues (for me these are rooted deep in my upbringing and still sneak up on me from time to time). Although they are not in the right to get offended, it may be an automatic reaction that’s mostly beyond their control.
If this is really the situation, then you can at least be understanding about it, explain the word and move on. My own vocabulary leaves much to be desired and I love learning new words. As long as someone is ready to explain their choice of words there shouldn’t be an issue. You’re definitely not an asshole for having a large vocabulary, but if you’re going to use it to the max, be ready teach a new word to the person you’re talking with. Just because they don’t have the same vocabulary as you doesn’t make them assholes either.
Accroding to this site obscurantist os the 68,885th most commonly used word in English.
I feel that the line between being snobbish about vocabulary and not has more to do with the reaction when someone asks for clarification than the actual words used.
Likewise whether one asks for clarification or calls you a jerk for using “big words.” Or worse, accusing you of making them up.
In my book, clarity is the soul of sincerity. In other words, “Say what you mean, and people will believe you mean what you say.”
When is there ever truly a reason to opt to utilize a rarer word, when you can simply choose to use a more common one with the same meaning?
Why use “infantilize” when a shorter, clearer, and more evocative term “baby” (v.t.) exists?
As for “obscurantist”, I can’t think of any 100% one-word synonym, but the word itself is obscure enough to be a reflexively ironic term. That’s great, if that’s the humorous angle you’re going for. Otherwise, if you really want to make it clear that you think someone’s pussyfooting around a topic, or giving you the ol’ song and dance, or is guilty of hand-waving or playing with smoke and mirrors… Just say so! Leave the Latin cognates to forming mottoes or making sententious slogans.
Usually when I use a tricky Latinate phrasing, it’s for humorous effect – implying that I’m intentionally obfuscating the matter behind a vocabularic shield. Like saying something I’ve done is “sub-optimal” instead of “it could stand improvement”.
Another special-case exception: throw in the thesaurus if you can thereby make a memorably alliterative phrase, such as Spiro Agnew’s greatest legacy, the phrase “nattering nabobs of negativism”.
On re-reading the OP I see he mentions that his sister, who objected to words like “infantilize” and “obscurantist”, has an advanced degree in sociology. In which case, I fully understand how she could be so sick of that sort of thing: the journals and papers of the social sciences are RIFE with unnecessary word constructions and phrasings. I think it’s because of the attitude they get from some quarters that their work “isn’t really science” – that there’s hardly any math, and what math there is is often questionably or selectively applied… Or when the net result of their research is basically to say, “Men seem to be different from Women, except where they aren’t.” So they resort to building up the exclusivity of their tribe by throwing up walls of words. See, you don’t get what I’m saying, do you? Do you still think this isn’t hard work?
Especially in spoken speech, the burden of communication should be on the speaker, and not the listener. Even in written form, specialized vocabulary should remain in a specialized context where its use is expected and natural. For example, “optimization” and “prioritization” are not words I’d use very much outside of a technical engineering discussion. I wouldn’t say, or write, “I optimize my income for my expenditures”, I’d say “I try to get the most for my money”, unless I were talking to someone else I knew was technically inclined and I was doing it to be funny.
It sounds to me like the OP was joking. It’s a classic pattern in verbal humor–the juxtaposition of an extremely elevated word or turn of phrase – “obscurantist”–with a sentiment that might be expressed by a child–“plus the hats frighten me”. I thought it was quite amusing when he put it in context, and it’s too bad his sister was so put off by it.
“Baby” (verb) doesn’t mean the same thing as infantalise to me. To baby can be to treat like a baby, but to infantilise is to treat an adult like a baby in such a way as to effectively take away their adulthood.
I agree. To me, “infantilize” has an unamiguously different,and negative, connotation.
If my wife is sick, I might baby her, meaning to care for her physical needs in a very attentive and affectionate manner.
All words have connotations that help distinguish shades of meaning. These connotations are generally based on “where else have I seen that word before?”.
Using jargon to someone in your field immediately brings a host of associated issues and concepts, which is why jargon exists. Same thing with references to poetry or literature. “Incarnadine” literally means to turn something red; but the word was introduced to the language by Shakespeare*, so use of the word automatically brings with it a literary air, and one tinged with blood. Using it to describe the effect of leaving a red shirt in a load of white laundry is therefore humorous/ironic.
I agree that “infantilize” has specifically negative connotations of treating an adult like a baby to his/her detriment. But to me, it’s a semi-clinical term from behavioral science. In context and in casual conversation, I doubt anyone would confuse the use of the phrase “They shouldn’t be babying her like that” to mean the nurturing sense.
The bottom line is, it all depends on why one chooses to use a single, precise but relatively rare word instead of a more common one or a phrase or sentence. Is it for humor/irony? To include overtones of associated meanings from a shared background or field? Poetic reference or allusion? If it doesn’t seem to fit any of these categories – or, if the recipient is clearly not going to have the background to pick up on the reference point – then it falls into the last category of “pretentious”. And when communicating, you should always be casting your message to be easily received by the “lowest common denominator”, unless you’re willing to send the message that “you’re out of your depth here”. Making someone work unnecessarily to understand you is rude.
In this case, knowing the person I was talking to has a degree in sociology, I would have felt perfectly at liberty to use “infantilize”. Her objection to the term, I think, indicates that she’s sick of the general culture of hyperspeak in her academic field.
*Macbeth anguishing over his murder of King Duncan: Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather The multitudinous seas incarnadine, Making the green one red.
I was quoting my mother, and that was the word we use. Also, baby does not equal infantilize, as the former term is not necessarily condescending or insulting; the connotation of baby is more benign. If Mrs. Rhymer has the flu, I am babying her when I insist that she stay in bed and allow me to do all the housework, but I’m not infantilziing her. Contrariwise, if I refuse to let her have access to the money in our checking account because, in addition to being the primary breadwinner, I am older and supposedly wiser than she, I am infantilzing her.