Certain folks want to build strawmen where the ‘woke left’ only has two categories of words: a) perfectly okay to use and b) anathema, woe unto they who utter them, their family is cursed unto several generations and all others of good and pure wokeness must shun them yea even should they switch to almond milk for the rest of their days.
But of course that’s not how it works. Some words are problematic. Some words are iffy. Some words become outmoded for any number of reasons. ‘Master bedroom’ is clearly not a racist term by any subjective definition, but words and terms - racist or not - can carry a semantic weight that is unrelated to their strictest definitions.
So some people use it less because it makes them a little uncomfortable. That’s called “doing what you want.”
Some people use it less because it makes the people around them a little uncomfortable. That’s called “being kind” or “being pragmatic,” depending on your situation.
Some people use the term because it doesn’t make them uncomfortable and because they don’t give a shit whether it makes the people around them uncomfortable. That’s called “being a pretty typical human.”
And some people use the term because if they stop, they’re handing a victory to the woke radical left and goddamn them because first they came for the Hummers and I didn’t say anything because I didn’t have a Hummer but I’ll be dead and buried before they pry the god-given right to say the word ‘master’ from my cold dead hands and… hey. Where did you- oh, say hi to John for me I guess. This party sure is boring, nobody wants to talk about interesting stuff.
Agreed! Another example is the word, “niggardly”. which means, “Petty or reluctant in giving or spending”. Though the word is very old and was in use long before the racist “N” word, its resemblance to it is enough to render it virtually obsolete.
And you fail to mention the other option that is open to them, the one that I suggested.
That, after an explanation of usage, intent and context they can conclude that the offense they initially felt was perhaps unwarranted and react differently in future.
That was not what I said now was it? That’s highly disingenous of you. I’ve said precisely nothing about “feeling wrong” or that anyone “should not” be offended.
After having the context, intent and usage explained to them they are free to continue feeling offended if they so wish and I’ve made no judgmenent on anyone who chooses to do that.
This was my very first post on the subject.
No value judgement there, neither explicit nor implicit.
“Offended” is a pretty narrow word. Does your response change if we use the word “uncomfortable”? If somebody says, “Hey Novelty, that word makes my children feel uncomfortable,” is your response to carefully explain the etymology of the word and then continue using it around them?
That change of wording doesn’t change anything. Offence is already a tenuous concept, “uncomfortable” is even more so. Even more things rise to level of causing people to feel uncomfortable.
The person who uses the the word retains the option of using/not using.
The person who has the non-offensive context/usage/intent explained to them has the option to continue taking offense/feeling discomfort or not, or even to try to get comfortable with hearing it in future.
Nothing goes well with unreasonable people. You may be offended by anything you want but don’t visit your offense on others who meant no offence and could not have known that you would be offended. You can continue to be offended by someone or something else but no, you should not offend me with your unreasonable feelings, keep them to yourself. If you wanted to discuss the matter without directing your offense at me I’d be happy to do so.
If multiple people are all getting a different message than the one you intended, especially if they’re all getting the same message, then you should reconsider what you are saying/how you are saying it because clearly you’re not expressing yourself as well as you thought you did. Or you’re wrong.
In other words, you have no intention of changing how you behave even when you have been informed that your behavior makes other people uncomfortable or offended, and they should just get over themselves and get with your program.
Mmmmmmm… sure. That’s not at all self-centered, or arrogant, or insensitive.
I can’t speak to your internal emotional state, but mine doesn’t involve options about feelings. I can choose what I do with my feelings, but I can’t choose what the feelings are. And I’m pretty sure that’s a far more common internal emotional state than the one you claim, in which a person “has the option” to “continue feeling” certain things.
It’s mildly interesting that you seem to think you can switch your emotions on and off like a light switch. Maybe you can, and if so, that’s a neat party trick. But it’s mildly infuriating that you continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that most folks experience emotions in that manner. It’s an act of massive willful ignorance that you’re engaging in.
So someone is convicted of murder based on eyewitness testimony. You hate the murderer. Later the witness recants, says their testimony was all a lie, in fact the actual murderer is discovered, the original person is set free.
While your original feelings of hatred towards the person convicted of murder are understandable, they were in fact in error given the actual facts which eventually come to light. To be a responsible member of society, you do indeed need to deal with your feelings and not let them rule you.
If you spent less time explaining folks’ emotions to them and more time trying to understand what folks are telling you, you might not come up with such absurdly off-topic analogies.
If I’m wrong then you are wrong as well because you already agreed with the core of my argument, i.e.
Which goes for both the person who receives the accusation of offence and for the person who is offended and has the context, usage and intent explained to them.
Neither should be under any obligation to change their reaction but the option to do so is absolutely there for both of them.
Let’s say you move to a part of the country where a phrase is in use that you which causes you offence the first time you hear it.
You express this offence and someone tells you it is a common phrase, it is completely benign in intent, context and usage.
You are now in a position where you can continue to take offence every time you hear it, or you can shrug it off and get used to it, and take it in the spirit in which it is intended.
Similarly, the people you expressed your offence to have the option to continue using it around or not.
I’m not in position to judge when any those options are the right course of action to take.
That initial rush of offence is not something you can control and I’ve never stated it is or that you should or that it is wrong to feel that way.
However, you are in position to decide how to react to those feelings both initially and in future when you are equipped with more information and context.
The same is true for the person who has spoken the words that offended you.
