Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Seems to me one side is accusing the other of being snowflakes because they believe in using terminology that's inclusive, all the while accusing those same people of hurting their feelings by calling them stupid
|
If that's what it seems to you, then you've missed the point entirely. It's not a matter of objecting to inclusive language. That's not the basis of the objection. It's essentially that the language is, first of all, inherently exclusive - by emphasizing group classification as a crucially important attribute in peoples' character, you dig a trench between differently classified groups. It's tribalism, and tribalism does not lead to inclusion, even though it might feel good locally for roughly the same reasons that people enjoy being members of street gangs. Insert West Wing.
This divisiveness manifests itself basically in the same way religion does. You make the sorts of noises that are universally recognized as paying tribute to the belief structures that are favoured - be they accusing outsiders of islamophobia, or white supremacy, or deriding conservative commentators or politicians, or what have you, to demonstrate your fidelity to the righteous cause of social justice. If you make the wrong sorts of noises (or for some people, if you're not adequately extreme in demonstrating this piety; see "objecting to Steve Bannon's role in the white house while failing to call him a nazi makes you an apologist") you're some form of blasphemer. There are a number of forms - racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot. At this point, those are nuclear bombs; if society sees you as a bigot, you're an outcast, you're effectively human garbage. People will call for you to be fired from your job and shunned by the "good" people who follow the doctrine. So attributing those labels to people who aren't awful people - that's the language that's being objected to, not "hurt feelings". It's genuinely offensive to be accused of essentially being a KKK member when you don't consciously harbour any racist views or attitudes. Further explanation of the myriad potential problems with this trend can be found here:
https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/20/...gressive-left/
For anyone reading this post,
I'm not going to debate the merits of that argument for what feels like the ten thousandth time. Seriously. I have no interest in doing so today. But please, at least acknowledge that
that is the position, that is the argument being made. The argument is not, in any way, that inclusiveness is somehow bad. Even if you don't share the concerns fully (or at all), at least try to understand what those concerns actually
are.