Perhaps switch to monkees? Hey, hey, we’ve renamed the monkeys, let’s all monkee around.
Given that most people using the word don’t have the first fucking clue what a “monkey” even fucking is . . . yes.
On the contrary, I think the fact that people care so much about words is a priori proof that word choice matters a lot, not for the arbitrary sounds that are assembled but for the connotations built up by usage. If what you say about zero practical impact were true, there would be no such thing as the “N word.” As a very practical matter usage establishes connotation, which forges a societal tool that can be further used.
Here’s why they’re changing it:
To reduce stigma and discrimination and be more accurate.
and
In essence, they said the monkeypox naming conventions gave the impression that the disease was an African problem. That’s not only because of the geographic variant names but, as others have pointed out, because monkeys aren’t often associated with Western countries.
From here. So, why do you care if they change it? What it’s called will have no effect on my life, but maybe a new name will stop some Africans from getting beat up or yelled at or something, like Asians were during the early COVID days.
I guess I’m loony left because I prefer more accurate virus names that don’t stigmatize people or regions.
Indeed the rules of chivalry included guidelines regarding when rape by a knight was perfectly fine and it had to with whether or not a woman was accompanied by a man. If the knight vanquished the man, then he could claim the woman and have his way with her.
I’m having trouble finding anything offered in this threat that is either loony or leftist, much less anything that is both loony and leftist. We have things like run-of-the-mill economic analysis (not loony), or healing crystals (not leftist).
Unlikely, though? This assertion is often quoted from Chretien de Troyes’ 12th-century poem Lancelot, but in that poem the narrator is inventing a “romance” set in the legendary court of King Arthur, and claims to be describing “the customs and privileges” current “in those days”.
ISTM that this supposed long-ago “custom and privilege” of victory in combat legitimizing deliberate rape on the part of a “chivalrous” knight was probably just made up by Chretien for the sake of his plot. I have never seen any contemporary factual description of any genuine legal code or code of chivalrous conduct that attests it.
If you’ve got actual historical evidence proving the existence of such a real-life “guideline”, of course, feel free to cite it, but IMHO that’s gonna need more than just Chretien de Troyes pulling Arthurian-romance plot points out of his ass.
In Before: Someone says Chretien de Troyes was “woke” or something…
Yeah, I was wondering whether this subject actually does circle back to the thread topic of excessively “loony left” viewpoints.
As in, at least since Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape it seems to have become conventional wisdom to take Chretien de Troyes at face value as an accurate reporter of “permissible rape” criteria in historically attested medieval codes of chivalry. But, again, AFAICT neither Brownmiller nor anyone else has convincingly documented that with evidence.
So I wonder if this might qualify for a category of views that might be called “Feminist Folklore”, including urban legends like the one about domestic violence peaking on Super Bowl Sunday and so forth. There’s a fair bit of conventional wisdom floating around in feminist popular discourse that at some level expresses valid concerns about sexism and misogyny and so forth, but in terms of its specific details is not borne out by factual evidence.
Of course, while such “feminist folklore” is pretty much by definition “left”, it seems kind of exaggerated to call it “loony”, even where its specific claims are not factually supported. Sexist cultural traditions tending to normalize rape and domestic violence are actually a thing.
While a thing also fly in the face of sexist cultural traditions of women, especially virgin daughters, being valuable male property.
I’d say they are two different manifestations of the same principle; that men somehow have ownership of women’s sex lives and get to decide when women have sex.
I think the problem is targeting the words rather than targeting the people who use words to attack other people. It’s fighting the surface of the problem rather than the substance.
The work that is put into fighting racist language might be better spent in fighting racists. When we defeat racist language, the racists just invent new ways to express their racism. But when we defeat racists, all of the problems caused by racists, such as the use of racist language, disappears with them.
Bullshit. If someone proposed that we should stop saying the word “therefore” because it was used by racists in the past, and there was agreement among many on the left that it’s a good idea to not say “therefore” from now on, that doesn’t mean that normal people should find that sane. And it’s not because banning “therefore” proves that “word choice matter a lot”. Sane people are upset that people with too much time on their hands find words whose connotations are stretched beyond an inch of their lives, just to show that the word could be offensive to someone.
I don’t think normal people are against the embargo on saying truly hurtful words like the N word. It’s when innocent words get dragged into this.
A recent example: we shouldn’t say “tribal knowledge”, because tribal is derogatory. Tribes are a thing, they do preserve knowledge a la “tribal knowledge”, so it’s a useful term. Aren’t there the twelve tribes of Israel? Who thinks that referring to them as tribes is derogatory?
And yet, the new normal is that we shouldn’t say “tribal knowledge” at work
Which is funny because “tribal knowledge” sounds like the kind of paternalistic racism I associate with the “loony left”.
That ‘We have much to learn from our non-White brothers and sisters!’ thing.
Unless we’re talking about specific knowledge that specific tribes have, in which case I’d refer to it as “insert specific tribe here knowledge”, it does come across as othering and a bit dismissive. ‘There’s our knowledge and then there’s that tribal knowledge!’
Why do I have my doubts that anyone using “tribal knowledge” is ever referring to the Jews?
I don’t know about that specific phrase, but Jews refer to themselves as “the Tribe” all the time.
While variations of the phrase ‘He’s/She’s a member of The Tribe’ may be common in-group (I’m aware of it’s use) the out-group use is, often in my experience, just a polite way to express antisemitism. It’s pure ‘othering’.
I agree. We debated this April 2021 regarding the use of the word “master”. Yes, it does have a specific association with slavery, but a myriads of other uses (“master bedroom”, “master key”, “master’s degree”, “master/apprentice”, “master branch in git”, etc.) that were all advocated to be replaced because of one definition with historical baggage:
Sometimes terms should change to be more accurate – I have no problem with renaming monkeypox – and sometimes people should just grow a thicker skin and stop being offended by everything they see.
(Or as John Cleese put it, “People are deliberately waiting for the thrill of being offended”)
Obviously there are racist assholes who deliberately use words to hide behind and claim innocence. They should still be called out for their racism, of course, instead of trying to solve the issue by banning the words themselves.
I dislike “tribal knowledge” mostly because of its accurate implications, rather than because of its inaccurate implications crossed with avoiding exoticism.
Tribal knowledge known by actual tribes is often jealously guarded secrets, not some folk wisdom that can easily be had if you deign to talk to a tribesperson for a few hours. For each tribe, there are billions of non-tribespeople, and people are random and curious enough that one of them would have probably obtained that knowledge already if it were freely given, at which point it would no longer be “tribal knowledge” but become “knowledge”.
Same with institutional use of the term. Even if it is sometimes used to mean knowledge held by a group of people that we just need more simple coordination and mindfulness to transfer, it will always hold an implication of a jealously guarded silo that the folks in the knowledgeable “tribe” hold on to in order to keep themselves relevant.
Forget it. Hey, read the thread first you idiotic chocolate bar!
One of the things that I consider “too far” to the left is the idea that…
…After January 6th…
…After Dobbs…
…After what’s come out in the January 6th hearings and from the Mar-a-Lago seizure so far…
…After all fifty Democratic senators voted to try to codify Roe v. Wade and all fifty Republican senators voted not to…
…After all fifty Republican senators voted against the biggest climate bill our government has passed so far…
…the idea that “both parties are the same.”