liv | (Reply)

From:

Let's talk about category structure and oppression!

Oops, I'd seen this a lot before but only skimmed it, and only now actually read it properly and appreciated it.

Although I was constantly confused that "category structure" wasn't a sort of category theory :)

I've been encountering a surprising amount of pushback lately... against the very idea of being careful with language so as not to hurt members of discriminated minorities.

It seems like people have been complaining about this (and every other innovation) as long as it's existed.

I'm obviously in favour, and am steadily becoming more and more in favour. (That is, I agree the concept can be unhelpful some of the time, but I find more and more areas where I think updating language is useful.)

I think maybe one thing that makes it difficult is that people are often naturally really defensive when corrected, so they're inclined to argue rather than say "I'm sorry, I didn't realise". Especially because sometimes it's something you really, really should have known in advance (using the N-word is unacceptable in most mainstream culture even if it's not very politically correct), and sometimes you're actually using the terminology most people you know would prefer, but you happen to be talking to someone who prefers the opposite. So it's easy for people go on the defensive, rather than accepting they'll sometimes accidentally hurt someone where they're sensitive and be ready to apologise.

Of course, I also think there are some cases where PC language is used over-the-top, but I don't know how widespread it is: it's not what I usually see.

I'm starting to be able to articulate the difference between comments like "men oppress women" and comments like "black people commit violent crimes"

I'm trying to work this through in my mind and still not quite sure where I end up. It seems like blanket statements about a group seen as the "default" are less indicting than ones about another group. But it seems like it holds up even apart from that, if the favoured group is _so_ favoured they're not really prototypical any more -- that it's a matter of circle theory, that people need a greater freedom to vent "upwards" even if they're being too generalising, whereas venting "downwards" incurs an obligation to be especially careful not to be accidentally bigoted..?