[SOAPBOX PROXIMITY WARNING]
Yes, this is going to be me and my thoughts on a soapbox of mine: PC. No, I'm not an Apple fan. That's a different topic. I'm talking about political correctness.
So here's the deal: some jerk doesn't like someone else because of (insert random descriptor). They then make up a name, or use a pre-existing word, that identifies the person they don't like by that descriptor. The people in charge of making sure no one gets upset at anyone else (Ethan Hunt thought he had it tough) decide that the word the jerk used is now taboo. No one is allowed to use that word now because the jerk used it in a mean way. In the event that the jerk used a pre-existing word, no one is allowed to use that word anymore because the jerk used it INCORRECTLY. The impossible mission people then decide to use a different word to describe the people the jerk doesn't like. The jerk then laughs and uses this new word derisively thereby ruining the word. The cycle continues.
This bothers me...
We cannot hope to end this cycle of absurdity when we continue to allow morons and jerks to dictate the definition of words. How about, instead of taking all this time to find bad words and freaking out when people use them, we teach people to be nice. And when people aren't nice, we smack them. Ok, maybe not that...but seriously: why punish the nice people by saying "these are words you cannot use because someone might take offense even though this is a fake word or it is being used incorrectly"? What?!
This brings me to two other topics: words that change definition and swearing.
1: I understand that words change meaning due to a change of culture. Sure! Some words are obsolete now because they no longer have a place in society. There are some words that we don't use anymore because the objects they referred to are no longer in use. Ok. There are some words that have changed because the thing itself has changed and adapted to society, technology, whatever. Cool. I get that.
What about words that change definition because they are used incorrectly or associated with something "similar" but not actually related?
In an effort to not offend I will make polite edits to a few of the following words whist, and at the same time, making my point. (30,000 kudo points for that reference) ALSO (new other topic: difference between offensive and taking offence).
Let's take the word "b---h."
The original definition: a female dog used for breeding.
Hey, look at that! A word that was used for something practical. It was a word with a definition and it didn't bother anyone.
Slight alteration: a woman who sleeps around.
Ok, not really a dog, but still female. Not exactly breeding but still related. Ok, I can see it. Calling a person a dog. It happens. (don't know why) but it happens.
Slighter alteration: a woman who is mean.
...Ok...we are starting to lose focus here.
Slighterer alteration: a pathetic or annoying man who is acting like a woman.
So basically the only thing we have continuing here is that it's meant to be mean. And even the original wasn't mean. It was just a thing. Like "umbrella" or "pork chop". It was a noun. Also, isn't that a little sexist? Maybe?
Slighterest recent alteration: a friend of mine.
I guess we've come full circle in that the word is no longer a negative but..... WHAT?!?! I just wanna know who heard someone else use this word and thought "Hey, that didn't sound mean or derogatory at all. In fact, I'm gonna call all my friends that!"
*facepalm*
New word: "sh--".
Why this one word. Seriously.
I saw an elephant at a zoo once and I can tell you "poop" is an onamonapia. (side note: as I type that word in it has a red squiggly line. The suggested correction is "cinnamon". I kid you not...). Anyways.
"Dung" is just slightly comedic.
"Feces" just sounds nerdy and scientific.
"Droppings" is...well it's a thing.
"Bowl movement" no one uses because there are like, 100 other words you could use with one 1 syllable.
"Defecation" I believe is saved exclusively for really old books and death metal.
"Poo poo" is just adorable (Thank you Mr. Cosby).
"Guano" I thought was used just for bats until I just now Googled it and found out that in English it is used for birds. And I've learned something new. Also, I didn't know we needed an exclusive word for that.
I know that the cultural acceptance for this word varies but "crap" is another.
"Stool" ...I don't know and I don't wanna know.
But for some reason society has chosen 1, in some cases 2, synonyms for these words and said they are offensive. Why?!?! Why just 2?!?! I DON'T GET IT!
Well, I lied a little. Youtuber Vsauce explained it and I even watched the video so I do know why. I still think it's stupid though.
Btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc
Just in case you're curious as to why.
Now some words I understand!
"H---". Whether you believe in it or not everyone agrees it is not a pleasant place.
"D---". Wishing someone to the aforementioned place is not nice. Seemingly appropriate for some people, but still not nice.
"A--hole". Eww...
"F---". In regards to the actual definition: why would this ever come up in normal conversation anyway?! Also, how in the world did this one word get to the point of holding almost every part of a sentence in the English language except for a article?!?! No one word should be powerful enough to be a noun, verb, adjective, AND adverb. Just silly!
And so on...
I just turned two topics into one. So there you go.
Other topic: being offensive and taking offense.
People in America today seem to get these terribly confused. Also, this ties into my previous thoughts about being politically correct.
Hypothetical situation: I am from a country and I meet a man from a different country. We have different beliefs and cultures. I see the man eating. In his culture it is polite to eat with your mouth open and make loud slurping sounds. In his culture it shows he is enjoying the meal and is complimenting the cook. In my culture I eat quietly. My mouth is supposed to be closed to the point no one is even supposed to be aware that I am eating anything. I look at him in disgust with a frown and say, "Ugh, you're such a pig!" Unbeknownst to be pigs are worshiped in his culture for being extremely polite when they eat. He becomes my life long friend and will now never leave me alone.
In saying, "Ugh, you're such a pig!" I was trying to offend the other man. I was being offensive. He however did not understand my meaning. He was not offended.
Now flip the situation. While eating, a large burp sneaks up on me and I belch with a mouth full of food. The other man looks at me, smiles, and says, "You're such a pig!"
In my culture, pigs are lower than humans. He was giving me a compliment. He was not being offensive. I did not understand what he meant. I took offense.
2 sides to this idea: it doesn't hurt to take a little time and consider your audience. It's in fact polite to consider your listeners and not say anything they may take offense at. I apologize to anyone from England for this next example.
When face to face with someone from England or with a strong English heritage, I try not to use the words bugger or fanny. Those are not ok over there and yet mean virtually nothing over here. I don't want to and I don't mean to offend so I'm careful.
On the other hand don't take offense at people when they say something you're not used to. People grow up differently. 1: they may not know it's offensive to you. And then how silly do you look getting all worked up over a misunderstanding like that and ranting at someone who honestly does not and could not know better. Then you just look like a jerk. 2: even if they are trying to be offensive. Just...don't take offense! It's not that hard.
I've been called a lot of things by a lot of people. It really doesn't bother me. I've had people call me a son of a b---h. Ok, that offends my mom more than me AND is an incorrect statement so now you just look stupid. I've been on a field trip to a place with other schools. At one park exhibit I was looking at something when a class of black kids came up to the same exhibit. The next thing I heard was "What's that white kid doing here?" Did I take offense? No. Was the other kid being offensive? I have no idea! I'm not psychic. Wish I was, but I'm not. I've had people genuinely offend my character by saying I was lazy and slacking off just because I was approaching the end of my contract and accused me of "insubordination." (Made it sound like I was a part of Starfleet or something). Did I take offense? Well...a little. It p---es me off when people think something of me with no actual proof and would rather wallow in their self delusion rather than look at reality and make judgments accordingly. .....I may have mini-soapboxed right there..... But hey, that's my problem. And in the end, it doesn't bother me. Ok, the situation bothers me as a principle but that instance in my life doesn't bother me.
So in the end, here's the idea: don't let things bother you and don't be mean. It's that simple. I try not to be mean to people. Sometimes I am. Sometimes it's because I think they deserve it. It's never right. Just...don't be mean. :D
People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?": or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
ReplyDeleteThe word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I appreciate the application as well as the thought process.
ReplyDelete