I've pondered over it awhile, and believe "adjectives" and "nouns" have nothing to do with this subject as this does not matter to anyone.
Name one noun that refers to a group and may have negative connotations which is socially acceptable to use. An adjective borrowed from a noun will always have less impact then a noun.
I can't think of one, but why should I? Is there strong need in our society to use "negative connotations which are socially acceptable"? No. Nouns, adjectives, adverbs, words, whatever -- all have the power to be offensive, mean, or discriminatory. Yes, "I saw that faggot walk into the library" is more offensive than "I saw him walk into the library with that faggot backpack." But who cares? Both are unacceptable. Carrying a Webster's Dictionary around won't help fight racism; sensitivity will.
"generalnmx" said:
Of course no one thinks saying "SUVs are gay" means you are making a reference to homosexuals. But I am arguing it's still insensitive and ignorant. If SUVs are "unrelated to the homosexual population", why on earth would someone say "SUVs are gay", and perpetuate the negative view that gay is equal to wrong?
This is something I actually fear - "word destruction". The word "gay" is an archaic reference to "happy". It was someone's idea to start calling homosexuals "gay", and I'm not even sure this happened before or after the slang "gay" came into use. In fact, we could even evaluate the word "gay" with the opposite of "good" (from its original meaning, "happy"), just as "bad" can mean "good" in terms of slang. The word that truly defines the homosexual population is "homosexual". Must we continually censor ourselves based on the whims of a slang-wielding community?
Ack, no one's destroying the word "gay", and what a silly worry anyway. Gay is still acceptable when it means happy, just not when it puts down homosexuals. And homosexuals nor anyone else has a problem refering to homosexuals as gay people, as far as I know. Once again, this is deterrent. Slang is a problem when careless people use it, and it hurts someone. Nobody got together and decided, "let's all go destroy the word gay"; trust me, the word and its various meanings are not going away.
"generalnmx" said:
Words also have a hypnotic effect, and people do on some conscious level accept these statements as true. It's one reason homophobia is a reality. I'm a thinking, rational human being, but I'll confess to being at least a little homophobic, because words have that power.
I completely disagree. One cannot manifest homophobia just from hearing the word "gay" used in a negative context unrelated to homosexuals. Homophobia mostly stems from the "hetrosexual macho" image hetrosexual men try to uphold, and homosexuality is a clear negative to one's "hetrosexual macho" image.
Yeah, but who do you think invented the definition of "gay" as "wrong or uncool"? That's right, the "heterosexual macho"!
"generalnmx" said:
Approaching something this sensitive ideologically is unfair because ideologically human beings would never be offended by anything. They are, and it's not often or always their own problem.
A lack of adaptability in this world does represent a personal problem. However, just because it is personal, doesn't mean we should let them deal with it on their own. I am willing to provide whatever emotional assistance to fragile people that they require. If they refuse, and instead insist on avoiding their problem instead of confronting it, then that is indeed their problem. Avoiding issues only degrades the overall mental health of a person. Treating people with respect, while still speaking frankly, requires a level of maturity on both sides of the discussion.
Apologizing is the best solution when you offend somebody when you shouldn't have. But has the damage not still been done?
People who are fragile enough emotionally that an apology cannot ease their anxiety require more help then self-censorship can provide. In fact, self-censorship seems more like trying to skirt dealing with these people on a personal level, then actually caring about their feelings. As said before, while trying to avoid the issue entirely may promote a short-term solution, it could actually cause long-term damage, enabling the sensitive person and providing them with the illusion that they should be treated special just because they are fragile.
OK, general, can we agree to disagree?
"general" said:
I realize I'm approaching this in a kind of Machiavellian "ends justifies the means" way, but that's a proactive stance. Stop using the words "gay" and "bitch" in a degrading context and you will be destroying dicrimination in yourself and others.
One cannot destroy discrimination just by using words differently. Words are just a form of communication, dialog. Words are still generally unable to convey even a smigedon of one's real emotions, and are many times used to mask those feelings. Discrimination is a dark bias cradled deep within one's pysche.
I didn't say or mean this would "destroy
all discrimination" but I can see how my statement was misleading.
Changing one's words only changes what one says, not what one means.
Yes, yes, we communicate with words, and we show our emotions in other ways too, no one argued against that. What is important, words often manifest or represent what one means or believes! When it doesn't, as saying "SUVs are gay" does not mean I think homosexuality is wrong, it still shows a carelessness or insensitivity to a minority we live with. I realize this isn't exactly compelling; I just believe it to be a simple truth.
The people you consider "fragile" I would often consider victims of discrimination. Six years ago, I was in a summer course that focused one day on racism. The teacher asked a fourteen-year-old black student: "If you were with a white friend and he said, 'Let me see that book, boy', how would you feel?" The student said he would be really angry, and would want to hit him.
"OK, what if he noticed you were angry and said he was sorry?" The student said he'd still feel angry, like he wanted to hit him.
"Well, what if instead he said 'my bad, my bad', then how would you feel?" The student said he would feel angry, but a little better.
It was a moment of epiphany to me. The teacher, who was black, somehow knew what each of these words would do. What's more, the black student had been my best friend for two weeks, and no one including myself would have ever guessed he could become this angry or emotional. Saying sorry was not even the best solution (I was wrong if I said it was earlier this thread), because this is patronizing.
But no, general, I don't think you could "offer emotional assistance to fragile people" because you label them "fragile" and assume it's their own problem. When your method is philosophy, and when what people need is simply understanding, analyzing words will not ease anyone's pain.
It's not only fragile people who are offended or hurt. Bill Cosby is one of the strongest and most brilliant individuals I can think of, and he says he's hurt when someone is racist, even if they think they are just joking. Most black people are hurt (this is not stereotyping, this is simply true; just talk to them seriously), so to say for instance, "people who are hurt by joking or thru contextual misunderstanding are fragile" you would also be saying "most black people are fragile." This would be racism.
Have you ever been hurt by a joke that wasn't meant to hurt you? Everyone has, and for some people, like myself, this is as close to understanding as we can come.
