That’s not how you are reading the SDMB these days?
Truly you have embraced the essence of Trumpism – “many people are saying” becomes the mantra through which all can be questioned, no matter the facts or evidence, without any actual personal accountability.
Are you aware of any time a person has been chastised for using the term “master password”?
I used to work in IT, including on a support desk just a few years ago, and while I was aware that “master password” had fallen out of favor, plenty of people still said it and precisely no-one gave a shit.
I am not disputing the concern some people feel about PC culture; I absolutely agree with you on that. It’s an election-winning issue.
The point is whether it’s justified or just presses a particular psychological button for people who are not looking at things critically.
I can easily see “guy in a pub” complaining about how you “can’t say master password any more” when 1) He never had need to use the term in the first place and 2) No one would care that much if he did. The worst he’s going to get is someone saying “It’s better to use primary password now”.
It doesn’t require it to actually happen, just imagining being chastised is enough to satisfy their persecution complex.
And to dispel with any ambiguity as to who I am speaking of, I am speaking of those “many other people” who say PC culture is causing them problems.
“I used to be a liberal Democrat and then someone suggested I use primary password and now I’m a Trump supporter.”
No, but objecting to over-the-top PC changes has been compared to wanting to use the n-word without consequence right in this thread.
And the fear is very real:
Well not really, it was used once in a rhetorical joke by RitterSport. I won’t speak for him/her but if you ask I’ll bet the intent was not to suggest using “master password” is as bad as calling someone a n**ger.
Absolutely, I’ve said this in every one of my posts in this thread. That doesn’t make it justified.
Moral panics don’t need to have any substance.
Anecdote Warning:
I remember very vividly my daughter’s high school graduation. My parents came down for the ceremony and I rented a mini van so we could all go together. Afterwards, we decided to celebrate with lunch and were deciding on either Italian or Thai food. My mom said something…something…“Oriental food” a couple of times through the conversation and I, being culturally sensitive and woke, corrected her saying that “Asian” was the proper term to use, not “Oriental”. That made for an uncomfortable moment of silence in the car as she became quite sheepish and embarrassed. Fortunately, we decided on Italian and got over it by the time we parked.
But that made me think about why the word “Oriental” fell out of the popular vernacular so I did some homework and found this opinion piece:
Specifically:
I don’t see it that way; I see self-righteous, fragile egos eager to find offense where none is intended. A wave of anti-Oriental discrimination is not sweeping the country. Besides, the term has been steadily falling out of circulation since the 1950s, and it’s mainly used today by older Asians and the proprietors of hundreds if not thousands of restaurants, hotels, shops and organizations with Oriental in their name. The well-intentioned meddlers will create trouble for exactly the population they want to defend.
My profession, Oriental medicine, is among those on the receiving end of the identity-politics outbreak. A funny thing I noticed is that my Caucasian (dare I say Occidental?) colleagues, not my Asian colleagues, are most eager to remove Oriental from public discourse. I suppose they’re busy shouldering their burden of guilt.
N.B.: I know that anti-asian discrimination has risen since this article was published. But please consider it in context if you can.
Now, I’m not arguing for bringing “Oriental” back. I don’t care either way. In part because as a (secular) Jew I’m well aware that the word “Jew” can be used in a pejorative or benign way and I’m not prepared to argue for its removal from the vernacular because it may sometimes be used offensively. I have personal experience of being on the receiving end of its offensive use and in my younger days … well, that’s another anecdote.
The point I guess I’m making is that while certain terminology should change or be entirely removed from polite society. We need to consider the possibility that some idiomatic phrasing probably doesn’t need changing and may even deserve some deeper evaluation rather than unquestioning capitulation to well meaning activism.
So was the fear that allowing immigration of these slavic and latin types would ruin the United States. The fear was “real” but not in any way justified.
I don’t think moral panic is even the right way to look at it. This is a never-ending series of changes that the majority of people don’t see the point of, and feel are imposed on them by the privileged and powerful, primarily to show off their own intelligence, virtue and in-group status. The main result is to complicate speaking about certain subjects, increase cognitive load, and render the language blander and/or more awkward to use. Why wouldn’t people object? (Quietly, to avoid being accused of bigotry by the self-appointed moral guardians.)
They didn’t see the point when they had to stop making racist and sexist jokes at work. They didn’t see the point when stewardess became flight attendant, mailman became mail carrier, policeman became police officer. Some changes stick and some don’t – overweight people aren’t called “person of girth”, but changing “slave” to “enslaved person” probably makes a lot of sense and that’s just happening now.
Which changes to language make sense to you and which don’t? Does it just happen to correspond to changes that happened when you were younger?
I believe the intent was to conflate all complaints about PC culture with wanting to do the latter.
What does it matter? I’m not the arbiter of what’s okay and what isn’t. But neither should it be the most easily offended person in any given group, or no one at all, because a word or phrase is changed just in case someone is offended with no evidence anyone is.
Which make sense to you? For example, should people opt out of using the following:
Ableist language:
Crazy, Insane, Wild
Lame
Walk-in
How about?:
Long time no see
No can do
I realize that we can substitute other language for the above. But do you think it reasonable that we should do so?
Really? That seems to be the position you’ve taken.
I don’t know – let’s see if there’s any traction to making these changes. If it turns out that people are offended by the term walk-in, I’ll think about changing the term I use. Either that, or I’ll start voting for Trump – one of those two things.
Then you have radically misunderstood my position.
So you don’t have any desire to consider how you feel about its use. Just how others tell you you should feel about it.
Hold on now. Let’s not do anything rash.
Honestly, what does “should” mean? If I’m told that a particular word or phrase I’m using is bothering someone - and if I respect that person and don’t want to bother them - why wouldn’t I stop using it? If “no can do” is really such an important part of my vocabulary that I can’t communicate clearly without it, then I’m in trouble. You’re talking about making a hilariously trivial concession to make someone else more comfortable. “Should” you do this? I dunno. “Should” is meaningless to me. But if you (universal “you”) don’t, I reserve the right to think that you’re kind of a jerk.
Like everyone in the universe, I’ve used words or phrases that have fallen out of favor. Sometimes, I’ve been gently corrected. In every single case, I’ve just acknowledged the correction and rephrased, and the conversation has continued with barely a hiccup. “Should” I have instead brought everything to a screeching halt to insist upon my sacred right to the hackneyed phrase “long time no see?”
ETA: I don’t feel anything at all about any particular words or phrases. Language is a tool for clear communication and absolutely nothing more than that. If I’m using the wrong words for my audience - if there’s a way I could communicate differently and be better understood - then that’s on me, not on them. I’m using the wrong tools.
I’m a straight white guy and have not really faced the kind of hardship that minorities and the disabled have faced. Of course, I’ve had my ups and downs, but nothing due to my disability status or skin color. So, words that seem perfectly fine to me may come with baggage for others. If that’s true, and I’m told about it, I’m happy to change the words I use.
So, if there is a movement by the disabled community to change the sentence “All Bon Jovi songs are so lame” to something else, I’m happy to accommodate them.
Let’s not play stupid word games about the meaning of common words.
Should:
verb
- used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.