Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on words, their import, and their use / misuse.
With respect to the late, great George Carlin.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- How do you feel about political (or forced) movement of language? For example, pro-life and pro-choice being two sides of the same issue because nobody wants to identify as "anti-"anything.
- What are some words that are nebulous, but everyone "knows" the meaning of?
- Are there any manipulated words that annoy you?
- Do you find any common patterns with how words are used by various groups?
Words are wonderful and descriptive when you know how to use them and I’ve always felt that there is no perfect synonym for most. If you study language (at least in English), some really strange shit has happened over the last 20 years or so. Language via political pushes has happened way more often than any time I can find throughout recorded history thanks to the internet and flat-mass culture.
Left-wing language seems to have been pushed to obfuscate, and right-wing wording is pushed towards blame. Either way, linguistically it makes zero fucking sense sometimes. Broadly applying misunderstood terms has always felt like a dumbing-down to me (see the recent breakage of the word "literally") and I feel it only hurts discussion and understanding of others.
For more function and clarity, I wish we created more terminology for edge cases instead of breaking specificity to apply to everything. As a reminder, I'm not here to spread my ideas, I'm here to discuss all ideas. Feel free to pick these apart!
Some examples (and please don't be offended, I'm speaking about words and their usage, not accusing or maligning anyone):
Bigot - This is a massively overused word that is only partially understood since it became a slang. Why? Because the definition is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." So by definition it is anyone not accepting of other ideas, no matter how dumb those ideas may be. Vehemently don't like anti-vaxxers, flat Earthers, liberals, leftists, the religious, atheists, Nazis, or conservatives? You're the textbook definition of a bigot. This makes the word incredibly easy to overuse by anyone, because damn near everyone is a bigot about something, but you're intended to simply intuit the kind of bigot the user doesn't like from the usage and assume it's an insult.
Gender - (Edited from our Gender weekly topic) I still don't understand the purpose of gender beyond a useless classification akin to classifying people by hair colour and the definition doesn't help. Take trans issues, for instance. If you are "transgender," that means “I changed my gender” which in turn means… nothing because gender is so effusive. Even if it indicates change, then it changed from what to what? Does it mean you had surgery? Does it change daily? Maybe! But conversationally, it seems to only serve to mask things about a person rather than clarify them - it’s a useless term. On the other end, the term “trans-woman / man” makes sense. You immediately get more information about someone upon hearing it. It is additive instead of obfuscating language and means that that person is one sex, but presenting another. Easy, more accurate, and as a bonus, would sidestep some needless culture-war bullshit instead of wallowing in it.
Retarded - An obvious one, but why is that? We all know that it was a medical term and became an insult, but so were the words "dumb," "dork," "idiot," and "imbecile." Once it became a mild slur, people stopped using "retarded" as a descriptor and started using "special." Then "special" became a pejorative. Quite literally any word implying that someone is less intellectually-abled is available as an insult. Really, I'd like to understand it, but someone already said it much better than I could.
Fascist - Seems to be a very popular slang among leftist communities from what I've seen and not really used much by the right wing (and yes, I can warrant a guess as to why some may think that is). Tends to mean "bossy / slightly less leftist than me / right-wing / independent / centrists that disagree with me on this particular issue." I've had this entire sub reported for being "fascist" according to one user despite not adhering to any of the values that make up the definition and quite literally upholding the polar opposite values in most cases. Funnily enough, if you wanted to be fascist, you wouldn't discuss things and encourage discussion with people with varied takes on a situation, you'd try to silence opposition.
Centrist - (From our weekly topic on Centrism / Independents) If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being dead-centre in the middle of the US "Left" and "Right" positions. That would be an astoundingly stupid position to undertake. Centrists are not a cohesive group and each have their own ideas - they may be a centrist because they take many positions that don't adhere strictly to party lines. I think they only reason this take is as popular as it is on Lemmy is because people like to bad-faith strawman any arguments that aren't theirs. It's much easier to insult someone than it is to understand them.
I know that humans play with words and that language moves, but feel these are examples of political movement of words instead of natural linguistic movement. It's certainly not an exhaustive list, just a few off the top of my head to test the waters.
OK, so I did a bit of research (as is my obsessive self's wont) and can answer for "gender".
Our modern understanding of sexual matters is far more subtle and nuanced than the old-fashioned notions most of us grew up with¹. What follows is a simplified take on things. The reality is more complicated and has many more axes than I'm highlighting.
At the lay level you can think of there being three axes of sex-related issues:
Gender is in most cases oriented to match your sex (cisgender) and in opposition to your orientation (heterosexual). Because, however, the body, and various parts of the brain grow at different times, it's possible for these three axes to differ due to hormonal differences in the mother's body (external factors) or to activated genetic influences (a mix of external and internal factors). If one of these factors activates at one point in development, the part of the brain that regulates sexual desire flips the switch and your orientation is different². If one of them activates at another point in development, the part of the brain that models your internal view of your sex flips and you now have that thing called "gender dysphoria".
And after literally centuries of trying to "fix" people with gender dysphoria through abuse, through religious counselling (c.f. "abuse"), and through therapy, it's pretty much well-established that gender dysphoria has no talking (nor abusive) "solution". Thus the kindest thing to do is to let people whose gender doesn't match their physical sex to present the gender they feel themselves to be by behaviour, manner of dress, and ultimately, as far as is practical, physically. Anything else is abusive and cruel.
Note, again, I stress this is the very simplified model, and it's filtered through my inexpert, non-practitioner understanding of things. (I'm open to correction by those with actual expertise in the field, obviously!) As such it doesn't address the huge forest of orientations (which I alluded to in the footnote below), it doesn't address intersex issues, and it doesn't address gender issues like the "non-binary". And indeed I don't, to cite Orwell again, "bellyfeel" gender dysphoria, enbies, aces, etc. … but in the end it doesn't fucking matter. There is literally zero impact on me if someone wants to call themselves "non-binary" or "trans" or "ace" or whatever. So even if I don't "get" it, what I do "get" is that these people are profoundly unhappy in the circumstances they find themselves in and if transitioning helps them, all the fucking power in the world to them!
¹ Why "most of us"? Because there are cultures out there that have more nuanced models than the strict binary. Look up terms like "hijra" for the Indian sub-continent, the role of eunuchs, M→F gender-swapping actors, and F→M cross-dressing characters in heroic lore in ancient China, the กะเทย/kathoey of Thailand, the whole allure of "fox spirits" all over the east Asian sphere, the "two-spirit" peoples of North American natives, etc.
² For instance that part of my brain flipped me to a "2" on the old-timey Kinsey scale (nominally heterosexual), though on more modern classifications that the kiddies would use I'd be a het-leaning pansexual.
Great analysis, especially on the word bigot, which is indeed massively overused in contemporary discourse. Brings to mind that old adage "whenever you point a finger at someone, there's three fingers pointing back to you".
As for fascist, this seems to be a blanket term people like to apply to any circumstance in which a set of rules prevents them from simply living in the moment and doing whatever they feel like, regardless of whether these rules are strictly exclusionary or not. As you point out correctly, actual fascists not only have strict rules about what is acceptable and what isn't, but they'll enforce them rigorously and rarely if ever give you a second chance to cross them. With a fascist, any mistake is an immediate death penalty. In that sense, it also applies to communists (see lemmy.ml moderation for a good example of this).
To give a counterexample of this, a lot of leftists like to call the police fascist because they can and will lock you up if they find you doing something they don't approve of. This might appear to fit the above definition on the surface, but it ignores the fact that they are still bound by the law and have to make their case before a judge if they want to keep you behind bars for longer than 48 hours (or whatever the state-mandated maximum lockup time is). If they cannot convince the judge that you should receive further punishment, they HAVE to let you go, whether they want to or not. While there are certainly edge cases in which this CAN result in fascism (such as the police officer and judge being cousins), it is generally the result of corruption and not the norm.