No, I’ve got the point, I just disagree and was being somewhat facetious with my last post. People are defined by their actions. If dogfighting is reprehensible and cruel, then a person engaged in dogfighting is also reprehensible and cruel.
And I disagree. Not all people who have ever performed a cruel act or a reprehensible act are cruel people, or are reprehensible people. I read the OP to mean us to not label the person.
Have you ever done anything cruel or reprehensible? I think most people have, at one time or another. We’re human, we make mistakes, sometimes anger or stress results in us doing something we normally wouldn’t do.
Ever have a bad day?
That makes sense to me - it’s a description they earned.
I have noticed that the “actions, not person” distinction becomes more important where the thing you’re calling them is some kind of really loaded noun: “a rapist,”“a racist,” or “a Nazi,” rather than just a description. Similar to calling them “trash” in that you’re reducing all their humanity down to a word, which is fine if all you’re trying to do is slur them, but makes it really easy to disagree with because people just think no, a racist/rapist/Nazi is a bad person, and I/they aren’t a bad person, so this must be your problem. Whereas if you say “that thing he did was rape,” “what they said contains a racist assumption,” or “that thing they were chanting is a translated Nazi phrase that white supremacists all over the world use,” that’s actually quantifiable. “Dogfighters are trash” is open to the rebuttal that, whatever, my great uncle used to fight dogs in Georgia and he was my hero and this was his culture, whatever whatever. Whereas “fighting dogs is cruel, and you’re cruel for doing it…” yep, she’s got you there.
So what do you actually mean when you say other human beings are “trash”? To me it has echos of dehumanizing them or worse, trash is inanimate. To me it is worse to dehumanize humans than to fail to consider the well-being of animals.
So you clearly also object to calling them shitheads, blockheads, jerks, assholes, etc.?
Good, don’t do it, the rest of us will continue using these negative shorthand words when deemed appropriate and worthy.
Seriously? You think I’m talking about defining someone who had one bad day? That actually made me laugh out loud when I read it. What a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, we all have done bad things in our lives. We’ve all had bad days. We’ve all been cruel at some point. You know full well that is not what is being discussed here.
We’re talking about a pattern of behavior. A person who regularly engages in cruel and reprehensible behavior is cruel and reprehensible. The example used throughout this thread is dogfighting, which is a pattern of behavior. No one here ever said anything about defining someone by one incident or bad day.
If it was clear, why would you pose it as a question? And no, I think those have their place as of them have the connotation of “inanimate refuse” that ‘trash’ has, nor have I ever seen them used with that connotation clearly highlighted, unlike ‘trash’.
If you don’t care that many people read “trash” completely different from “shitheads, blockheads, jerks, assholes” then that’s a pity. Your lack of clarification of what you mean when you use it has me at least placing you in the bag of people willing to see others as less than human.
You’re making this shit up right?
Which part? I really can’t be bothered interacting with you if you’re going to continue treating my meticulously worded missives in such a superficial way.
I’m confused by the persistent assumption that calling somebody “trash” is dehumanizing them or calling them something less than human. That’s silly. Even if you’re being an absolute literalist (in which case hearing a human called an “asshole” should confuse you utterly) being called trash doesn’t dictate what you are. It dictates what you’re worth. And it’s entirely possible for something (or somebody) to be considered of low worth without its intrinsic identity changing in any other way.
I’m totally confused by this post. You’re using a lot of words to describe a distinction basically without meaning. The issue at hand is that some people read, and some people intend, the epithet “trash” in a way that is dehumanizing. Explaining that you personally only intend it to mean they have the value of trash, isn’t really an argument against.
I’m not saying you, or anyone in this thread who defend the use, are necessarily intending it in a dehumanizing way, but there are people who do, and that, to me, makes it a word to avoid.
People say and mean “They are trash, and should be burned.” because “They are assholes, and should be burned.” is just confusing. And to me that “and should be burned” always echos, even when it’s not present, or intended in any way. And I know there will be readers who assume it’s implied, so I think it should be avoided. I think “asshole” should be avoided to, but for different and much less weighty reasons.
It’s mean to call people names.
To the best of my memory, I have never called anyone trash. I’ve never heard “trash” used to describe anyone. Plain-white-trash, I’ve heard. I always understood it to mean “poor white people”. It does not. I came to understand what it means while walking to the local river.
We were walking to the local river. It’s only 3 miles from my home. But we drive to the dirt road that leads to the river. We drive to the start of the dirt road that leads to the river so that the communal dogs don’t meander in the road. I digress----From the bituminous road to the river, along the dirt road, the path is three-quarters of a mile. My partner and I usually walk this path twice for a 3 mile total.
The last time we walked this path, someone had thrown out their trash at the river. They had clearly partied at the river. I suspect they will be back-----at least until the filth is such that they cannot stand it.
I now understand plain-white-trash. It isn’t poor people per se. Someone who would pollute the very area that they use for recreation is trashy. When they make it a lifestyle and they are with an almost 95% certainty white, they are plain-white-trash.
I still think they should be fed and cared for. That is why I am a liberal.
I have picked up the trash on numerous occasions. My back doesn’t allow it now. Our local landfill will take a pick-up truck load of trash for $2.35------well the dump weighs the trash, but that is a typical fee.
How about calling people what we want to call them, and letting our choice of words reflect our personal opinion? Wouldn’t that be a novel idea?
But I’ve really never understood “white” trash. To me it seems to mean that people of color are trash and so we need to specifically make it clear that these were WHITE trash.
This is not my opinion, just a word usage that has always bothered me.
People are 95% full of shit. If they ever get under 50%, I’ll revisit this proposition.
“Sin is treating people as things.” - Terry Pratchett
This. Well said.
Why do you insist on being so classist?
I’m with the OP. When we give people certain labels, we are trying very hard to distance and dehumanize them. Once you can succeed in that, treatment of such individuals doesn’t have to be as good as you would treat real people. Because they are trash, or they are monsters, they deserve to be killed or destroyed or tortured or harassed or isolated from real people.
If you want to see examples from this board, the threads on the Charlottesville aftermath are a good place to start.
Dehumanizing people is a really prominent trait among white supremacists and neo-Nazis for a reason.