Politically Correct Discrimination

In My Humble Opinion
1

Here in the United States the word “discrimination” has acquired two different meanings which take effect in different contexts. One usage of the word means the ability to make distinctions; to recognize that two or more things are different. Another common usage includes the ability to make distinctions along with the assumption that because two things are different that one is inferior to the other.

The US is becoming increasingly politically correct of late, with “chairman” becoming “chairperson” to more accurately describe the position (regardless that it was unlikely to be misunderstood). Before this dual meaning becomes hopelessly ingrained in our culture I would like to call on the Straight Dope to create a politically correct term for the new discrimination that accurately conveys the extended meaning while being easily understood.

2

You clearly cannot discriminate between the purpose of GQ and that of the other forums. Ask a mod to do this important work for you before this non-factual question becomes hopelessly ingrained.

3

Right. Like the SDMB deciding to call it “fnord” will have the slightest effect. :rolleyes:

4

Seeing that “chairperson” (a) accurately conveys the extended meaning; (b) is easily understood; and (3) is politically correct, the OP would seem to be entirely pointless. You have not indicated why you object to this term.

If you don’t like “chairperson” as a neologism, you could simply use “chair.” But I’m not sure why you would want to coin a new neologism to replace one already in existence.

Given that chairman, chairwoman, chairperson, and chair are all available for use, I don’t see what the problem is.

5

I don’t think the OP was objecting to the term “chairperson”, I think it was drawing a distinction between the term “discriminate” as in showing bias toward a person and the term “discriminate” as in making a distinction between two things.

In fact, the OP was discriminating between the two meanings of the word “discriminate”.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

6

BrotherCadfael is correct, I am looking for an alternate term for “discriminate”.

Exapno Mapcase is also correct, this should probably be in “In My Humble Opinion”. He is also apparently having a bad day.

7

“Differentiate”

8

There is no inherent contradiction in the use of the terms.

I distinguish between a fine Chardonnay wine and Thunderbird – because I have a discriminating palate.

I discriminate between the writings of Ann Coulter and of Antonin Scalia, because one of them founds his work on a particular legal philosophy and reasons more or less logically from it.

If I were to approve of Scalia’s work and not Coulter’s, not because I consider the import of the writing, but because he is male and she female, then I would be engaging in discrimination just as I did in evaluating the virtues or lack thereof of their prose, but I would be judging on the basis of something not relevant to the work – i.e., their sex. Liking Scalia’s opinions better or worse than Thurgood Marshall’s can be discrimination on the basis of a political viewpoint, a jurisprudential philosophic viewpoint, or because one is white and the other black. The first is questionable ethically, the second sound, and the third reprehensible.

Short hijack: A chairman (chairwoman, chairperson) is a person elected to fill a position where he or she will normally be the presiding officer over a meeting, or given that status as an honor without the expectation of regular actual presiding. The Chair is not precisely synonymous – it refers to the person who is presently serving in that presiding capacity. To make the distinction clear, consider the following: “The Chairman indicated that he had an issue he wanted to bring before the meeting, and named Adam J. as Chair while he took the floor.”

This useful distinction should not be lost in attempting to evolve exclusive language.

BTW, without an intent to provoke an argument on inclusive language, it’s interesting to note that the “-man” suffix in English derives not from the word “man” (i.e., adult male) but from a close cognate with the meaning “human being” that has been subsumed as a standalone morpheme into “man” – compare Greek anthropos and andros, Latin homo and vir, and German Mann and Mensch. So technically, chairman, mailman, bowman, etc., are as referential of a woman holding the position as of an adult male. Note the differing vowels with which they are spoken.

9

Pochacco: I mean the second meaning, where unethical methods of differentiation are assumed.

Polycarp There may be no contradiction, but there is definitely an added meaning. If your were to discriminate between your Chardonnay and Thunderbird it would be assumed that your judgment was fairly based on color, aroma, taste, etc. However, were you to discriminate it would be assumed that your basis was unethical.

Basically, without a specific context, if “discrimination” is brought up it is assumed to refer to the issue of unfairly assigning fault to a particular group without considering individual merit. I am looking for a word or phrase that would avoid any possible confusion caused by using a word to symbolize an issue, when the word does not encompass the basis of the issue.

10

English is full of words with dual (and even multiple) meanings. No-one is confused; if you’re using a word within a statement, there’s always some kind of context to show which is intended. In this case, the context is well defined by the associated preposition:

“discriminate between” = “distinguish between things”

“discriminate against” = “apply a prejudice against”

11

Off to IMHO. I guess.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

12

I think we’ve done more than enough of dumbing down English for the benifit of morons. In fact, we should be working on things such as escorting idioms like “flammable” and “crispy” back into their non-word status.

13

What the hell is wrong with “flammable” or “crispy”? Crazy language nazis.

“Flammable” as a word saves lives. As language changes, “inflammable” begins to sound like “in-”, not, plus “flame”, burn, plus “-able”, able – people begin to hear it as “not able to burn.” Both adults and childer* make this mistake. What on earth is wrong with coining a new word whose meaning is immediately clear to everyone? A word whose meaning is clear is automatically superior to a word whose meaning is obfuscated.

And objecting to “crispy”? Is there any other word with the exact meaning? How ridiculous can you possibly get?

Grr!
Daniel

  • If you’re a language nazi, you better damn well be saying “childer,” the correct plural for “child.” It was only later ignorami who misunderstood how to pluralize the word, and heard “childer” as a singular; they incorrectly pluralized the already-plural “childer” as “children.” These days, some people incorrectly hear the twice-pluralized “children” as singular, and pluralize it a third time as “childrens.” Unless you’re willing to accept that language changes, I hope you’re saying childer. And I do hope you don’t have the gall to think you can teach me about incorrect pluralization of another word in this footnote. I’m all about the irony.
14

Gaudere, I loves ya! :smiley:
Daniel

15

Furthermore, pizzabrat, shouldn’t that be “idioms such as”?

16

It should be, except that “idioms” (idia if you want to be anal about it) is usually used to refer to multiple-word phrases, not to individual words. It’s a poor word choice all around.

Pizzabrat, I don’t normally jump on folks’ language, but if you’re gonna be a word snob, you better make sure your ducks are in a row.

And if you want to get rid of an idiom, how about “ducks in a row”? Get rid of that one!

Daniel

17

Yes! Tell me what “crispy” describes that “crisp” can’t. And as for my other mistakes, leave me alone! It’s final’s week!