Life In 19x19

amnal wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

topazg wrote:I'm a man. I'm British. I'm 28.

No you can't say that. It is: "I'm a human who happens to be male, happens to live in Britian, and happens to be 28 years old."

Ooops! I can't say that. There are other great apes. Let me try again: "You're a primate who happens to be human...

Dang! I must be sensitive to the feelings of other vertebrates. "You are a vertebrate who happents to be a primate, who happens to be a human...

Oh dear! There are invertebrates. I'm gonna quit before I offend a vegatable.

This is a strawman construction based on an argument that I don't think anyone is actually making. Least of all simpkin, if that's the post you're referencing.

The subtlety of language usage being in some way derogatory depends on context and is hard to describe. The use of asthma is perhaps an awkward example too, unless you consider it to bear a stigma for some reason (though it does still make sense, I think).

Simpkin has an excellent point to be made, though, and I think she can elucidate much better than I can with my own vague grasp of what she means. I hope people will not mock a point that they simply haven't understood yet.

Actually, I do understand it. And Topazg evidently does too.

Topaz made the point simply. I made the point facetiously. For the third iteration, I shall try to make the point formally.

Basically, what Simpkin is saying is that to decribe something as category Y when that thing is a member of a larger category X ( such that Y is a subset of X ), is to overemphasize Y and implicitly underemphasize X.
The problem with this is that once it starts, there is no logical stopping point; at most, there is only a practical one. If category X is itself a subset of W, then the same logic would apply, so that one must refer to the thing as "a W which happens to be Y and which happens to be X". Then if there is category V, of which W is a subset, we can go one more step.

Eventually, we will be describing this particular object as "an A, which happens to be a B, which happens to be a C...etc." It only stops when we have a base category A for which we know of no superset. In other words, Topazg is a thing which happens to be normal matter, which happens to be.../many steps snipped/... who happens to be a primate who happens to be human who happens to be male.

As a practical matter, at some point we have to choose an arbitrary base category to encompass the discusion; or to borrow Topazg's wonderfully pithy words, we have to lump things in some pot. One can argue that one does not like the choice of base categories, but one cannot argue that the choice of base categories is improper because a superset exists. This leads to the recursive problem decribed above.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Actually, I do understand it. And Topazg evidently does too.

Basically, what Simpkin is saying is that to decribe something as category Y when that thing is a member of a larger category X ( such that Y is a subset of X ), is to overemphasize Y and implicitly underemphasize X.
The problem with this is that once it starts, there is no logical stopping point; at most, there is only a practical one. If category X is itself a subset of W, then the same logic would apply, so that one must refer to the thing as "a W which happens to be Y and which happens to be X". Then if there is category V, of which W is a subset, we can go one more step.

Eventually, we will be describing this particular object as "an A, which happens to be a B, which happens to be a C...etc." It only stops when we have a base category A for which we know of no superset. In other words, Topazg is a thing which happens to be normal matter, which happens to be.../many steps snipped/... who happens to be a primate who happens to be human who happens to be male.

At some point, we have to choose an arbitrary base category to encompass the discusion, or to borrow Topazg's wonderfully pithy words, we have to lump things in some pot. One can argue that one does not like the choice of base categories, but one cannot argue that the choice of base categories is improper because a superset exists.

Actually I think you have missed the point. It comes down to...simpkin is asthmatic, that's fine, nobody cares (or...shouldn't think anything more of it as regards to her as a person). It's to do with the wording that simpkin is *an* asthmatic - where this might imply that this defines her rather than be a quality of her. I hope that this both makes sense and *is* what she meant

I don't really want to make this argument, because I don't think I'm the best qualified, but...would it make more sense to use a race based example? Does 'X is black' have a different connotation to 'X is a black'? Assuming I interpret correctly the point, this is the same type of wordplay which can actually be quite meaningful, and which simpkin was referring to as being dangerous.

EDIT: To elaborate, I suppose the point is that 'X is a black' implies 'X is just a black'. It's dehumanising.

EDIT 2: And to clarify ( ), I'm not saying that this word order is inherently dehumanising, that isn't the point either. But it easily can be used in this way, and often is in our society, which is the important thing to be avoided.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:...
The problem with this is that once it starts, there is no logical stopping point; ...

The logical stopping point is stopping where those that you care about have their feelings hurt.

If your friend John doesn't like you to call him Johnny, then if you care about his feelings, don't call him Johnny… Or talk about it with him.

It may be silly - what's wrong with the name Johnny? Nothing's wrong with it to a lot of people. But John doesn't like it.

So you can respect the wishes of those that you care about. Again, if you don't care about it, or if you think John is being unreasonable, that's fine, too. But John may still get upset about it.

In this example, maybe simpkin doesn't like to be called an asthmatic. If you care about her feelings, then don't call her that.

You can only control your own behavior. You cannot control what other people think is good or bad behavior.

amnal wrote:Actually I think you have missed the point. It comes down to...simpkin is asthmatic, that's fine, nobody cares (or...shouldn't think anything more of it as regards to her as a person). It's to do with the wording that simpkin is *an* asthmatic - where this might imply that this defines her rather than be a quality of her. I hope that this both makes sense and *is* what she meant

I don't really want to make this argument, because I don't think I'm the best qualified, but...would it make more sense to use a race based example? Does 'X is black' have a different connotation to 'X is a black'? Assuming I interpret correctly the point, this is the same type of wordplay which can actually be quite meaningful, and which simpkin was referring to as being dangerous.

EDIT: To elaborate, I suppose the point is that 'X is a black' implies 'X is just a black'. It's dehumanising.

EDIT 2: And to clarify ( ), I'm not saying that this word order is inherently dehumanising, that isn't the point either. But it easily can be used in this way, and often is in our society, which is the important thing to be avoided.

Lol.
Each phrase can be dehumanizing or offensive - depending on how it is used.

You can stand in front of me, and I can offer you a cheese sandwich and make it sound dehumanizing... or caring... or kinky (If I happen to like you and you're cute and of appropriate gender)... or indifferent... or angry... or sad... or mysterious... or derogatory... or happy... or whatever.

Still - sometimes a cheese sandwich is just a cheese sandwich.
Don't blame it for the ideas I happen to have at the moment.
Or are you going to start a crusade against cheese sandwiches now?

Back to the topic at hand -
I see very little evidence that the term 'Oriental' is used in a derogatory or dehumanizing way. Sure, it CAN be used like that, as can any word, but from what I can see - it isn't. By trying to make it appear as it if is, you are actually making it so, and thus doing a great disservice to every Oriental person out there.

simpkin wrote:

gowan wrote:The whole "PC" thing is often ridiculous. I have to laugh that. in the USA, it is wrong to call someone "colored" but OK to say "person of color"

That's not "PC". It's one thing to be "noun"; it's quite another to be a person who has a characteristic.

As I recall it, the puzzle was over why "coloured person" was inappropriate, while "person of colour" was deemed acceptable. In this version, you can see that there no noun vs. characteristic distinction. In fact, if anything, "person of colour" appears to subordinate the person to the colour class.

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference in how the expressions are perceived - there obviously is. It's just that it is odd that two expressions, so grammatically similar, and whose literal meanings appear to be identical, should elicit such different reactions from people.

Anyways, this is partly an excuse to bring up an old "Bloom County" strip, from 1988(!). Sorry, but I could not find a version in, um, colour:

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/blm/1988/blm880828.gif

Enjoy.

simpkin wrote:
Yes, you have seen someone using it in a derogatory manner - Richard Mullens, upthread, referring to the "exotic mystique of Oriental women".

Probably we will have to agree to disagree about this.

You might possibly claim that I made a "sexist" remark about oriental women (I would dispute that), but I was not using the term oriental in a derogatory manner - far from it.

Actually I would be surprised if many were to object to the terms mysterious or exotic.

This is what I said

To me "oriental" is not in the least pejorative. I might say that "I like oriental girls" where there is a hint of mystery or exoticism implied and it certainly beats reeling off a long list of countries.

Certainly there is a sense of mystery associated with the East. Do you not have an image of a snake in a basket and a man "charming" it with music - or the strange sounding musical instruments of Kabuki http://www.creative-arts.net/kabuki/Sound/shamisen.au - I find nothing bad with these associations.

What concerns me more is people who don't like oriental women - or French, or Northumbrian or whatever.

Kirby wrote:...If your friend John doesn't like you to call him Johnny, then if you care about his feelings, don't call him Johnny… Or talk about it with him.

It may be silly - what's wrong with the name Johnny? Nothing's wrong with it to a lot of people. But John doesn't like it.

So you can respect the wishes of those that you care about. Again, if you don't care about it, or if you think John is being unreasonable, that's fine, too. But John may still get upset about it...

It might be worthwhile to look at the flip side of this.

What if I don't like Johnny. Despite the fact that his friends call him John, I prefer to call him Johnny. It's not a derogatory word. It's just a common alternative to John. I can even claim that there is nothing offensive about me saying "Johnny."

But there is. It is the fact that I, someone who doesn't like him, prefer to use the word. "Johnny" might seem like a normal word, but it's not. Due to my having chosen it, "Johnny" has taken on a negative connotation. This is not implicit in the word itself. It has to do with the context. If instead of me, it was Johnny's friends who all called him Johnny, Johnny might even think that "Johnny" has a certain flair that he likes.

But I got there first, and have managed to taint a neutral word, and can use it hurtfully. This doesn't mean that "Johnny" in and of itself is a bad word, but if you are his friend, and you know that his enemy (me) uses it against him, then it would be silly for you to not take this into account when using the word yourself. This is not to say that the word "Johnny" should be forbidden - in fact, one possibility is to take control of the word yourself - as blacks have with "melanin enhanced gentleman," and gays have with "queer," and mitigate the possibility of that word being used against someone you like.

Words such as "Oriental" don't exist in a vacuum. They acquire nuances depending on who uses them and when. The well wishing idea of political correctness is also an attempt to take control of words. It does so by separating the world into good people who never offend anybody and bad people who callously ignore the sensitivities of others. There are certainly many of us who resist being pressed into such a mold.

Nonetheless, those of us who bear a grudge against word police, but no grudge against orientals should be aware that each word has it's own history, and that the nuances a word acquires have an effect on real people. Just ask Johnny.

Oops. I've managed to provoke our very own language police who have for someone's benefit (mine?) and perhaps humorously, altered my word choice in the above post.

This is not to say that the word "Johnny" should be forbidden - in fact, one possibility is to take control of the word yourself - as blacks have with "censored" and gays have with "queer," and mitigate the possibility of that word being used against someone you like.

Maybe people aren't ready to read such words, but my use of it was illustrative and not inflammatory, and it seems to me silly to censor it. After all, the words "queer" and "oriental" - also potentially offensive - were left standing. I am aware, as is virtually everybody, that the censored word is strongly associated with a cruel discrimination of black people, and I am also aware of its history. It was derived from Negro the Spanish and Portuguese word for "black." The use of Negro in English to denote a black person first appeared in 1555. The word which I am not allowed to type first appeared in 1587, and was simply a variant pronunciation of negro, and not originally pejorative.

Anyway, nice that we can squeeze another meta-level into this discussion.

gowan wrote:The whole "PC" thing is often ridiculous. I have to laugh that. in the USA, it is wrong to call someone "colored" but OK to say "person of color"

It's very illogical. We were supposed to stop using words like small, and replace them with vertically challenged. Also you can't say problems, you have to say issues. This is a very peculiar form of thought control and should be resisted by anyone who believes in freedom.

Bantari wrote:
Lol.
Each phrase can be dehumanizing or offensive - depending on how it is used.

You can stand in front of me, and I can offer you a cheese sandwich and make it sound dehumanizing... or caring... or kinky (If I happen to like you and you're cute and of appropriate gender)... or indifferent... or angry... or sad... or mysterious... or derogatory... or happy... or whatever.

This is true, I suppose. But 'is a black' alternative to 'is black' is problematic because it's the method of noun usage that *is* used in a dehumanising a great deal. This is what I meant in my EDIT2 - it is easy to think of fake counterexamples, but they don't disprove the point.

I'm not really sure what to say to make you consider my point, most things I think you will just say 'lol' at because you already don't believe me. I hope that simpkin will be able to explain better why this is problematic (and it *is* possible to provide very real examples that illustrate the point, but I'd rather someone with more knowledge about it did so)

Still - sometimes a cheese sandwich is just a cheese sandwich.
Don't blame it for the ideas I happen to have at the moment.
Or are you going to start a crusade against cheese sandwiches now?

This doesn't relate to your previous point. It isn't even a very good exaggeration of your argument from incomprehension.

Back to the topic at hand -
I see very little evidence that the term 'Oriental' is used in a derogatory or dehumanizing way. Sure, it CAN be used like that, as can any word, but from what I can see - it isn't. By trying to make it appear as it if is, you are actually making it so, and thus doing a great disservice to every Oriental person out there.

I never said that Oriental was a derogatory or dehumanizing word to use, don't involve that separate point in the line of debate about the specific word 'Oriental'. This also attempts to devalue my argument via absurdity, but you can only do so by putting words in my mouth.

Javaness wrote:We were supposed to stop using words like small, and replace them with vertically challenged.

If somebody called me vertically challenged I'd take that as an insult. Since using it implies that being small is somehow bad, or the speaker wouldn't see the need to use a euphemism.

[quote="amnal"]

This is true, I suppose. But 'is a black' alternative to 'is black' is problematic because it's the method of noun usage that *is* used in a dehumanising a great deal. This is what I meant in my EDIT2 - it is easy to think of fake counterexamples, but they don't disprove the point.

I'm not really sure what to say to make you consider my point, most things I think you will just say 'lol' at because you already don't believe me. I hope that simpkin will be able to explain better why this is problematic (and it *is* possible to provide very real examples that illustrate the point, but I'd rather someone with more knowledge about it did so) [quote]

I see that you're now writing like simpkin with your use of the asterix. Placing an asterix on either side of one of more written words doesn't produce consistent results with regards to the interpretation of the sentence on the other end.
It's perfectly possible to see "Nathan is a black" as a racist phrase, but saying that "Nathan is a dan" is unlikely to be seen as an elitist phrase. Trying to apply language rules doesn't produce consistent results.

daal wrote:...
Words such as "Oriental" don't exist in a vacuum. They acquire nuances depending on who uses them and when. The well wishing idea of political correctness is also an attempt to take control of words. It does so by separating the world into good people who never offend anybody and bad people who callously ignore the sensitivities of others. There are certainly many of us who resist being pressed into such a mold.

Nonetheless, those of us who bear a grudge against word police, but no grudge against orientals should be aware that each word has it's own history, and that the nuances a word acquires have an effect on real people. Just ask Johnny.

I think that what you said in this post is pretty much in line with what I have been trying to express. I made a few comments about this type of an idea, but I thought I was talking into the wind

My personal take on PC is that it is just a guideline that lets you get a rough idea of what irks people. However, it's still a generalization, and to get to know a particular person's preferences, you've got to get to know that person.

I put PC in the same category as other generalizations that some have about groups of people. There are generalizations all around, even if they aren't intended to have any negative connotation.

For example, it might be believed that "Japanese people eat with chopsticks". Though there may be many examples of how this is true, it may be the case that there exists a Japanese person that doesn't eat with chopsticks, and prefers using a fork. With billions of people in the world, it's hard to construct universally true generalizations.

---

Another way to think about this is to consider an area in computer science, which I kind of like: machine learning.

There are many different types of machine learning algorithms, but a common idea is for the computer to "learn" by making inferences about the world based on many samples.

For example, suppose we have a machine learning algorithm that we use to estimate the score in a game of go. One approach might be to consider a few different variables that we think might be relevant to the analysis, and then throw thousands of input games to the algorithm as training data. For each input game, the algorithm can take a look at the values of the variables the game has, and then also the final result.

Over time, the algorithm can infer some types of trends in the data, and may identify that particular variables lead to particular results. It constructs an idea of how the world works, based on the many samples that it has seen.

---

I think that understanding diverse cultures can be the same way. We, as humans, are like machine learning algorithms. With the datapoints we have available to us, we can make inferences about the world with some degree of probability. We can think, "oh, black people are usually like this", or "oh, asian people are like this".

But the point is, the more datapoints we are able to get, the better inferences we can make.

So to be able to understand different cultures, I guess, it's good to get a lot of experiences with people from those cultures.

Back to the subject on hand, to determine if something is "okay to say" is always a shot in the dark, but to have a greater chance of not offending somebody, you should get as many data points as possible. That means, to understand if it will offend Asian people when you refer to the "orient", you should get to know and understand as many Asian people as possible...

However, it is NOT possible to get to know all of the Asian people, and it is not feasible to do this type of analysis on every single thing that you say.

So the answer, again, is to consider the people that you care about. Get to know them really well. In doing so, you can understand their preferences, and you can accommodate their interests.

For the millions of others out there, whatever you do could potentially offend them. If you're aware of an action that offends someone, if it's important to you, you can adjust your actions. If you don't care, then it doesn't matter.

If you're aware of an action that offends someone, if it's important to you, you can adjust your actions.

Has anyone ever heard of PC wallahs expressing remorse or changing their behaviour because they offended millions more people than they were supposedly trying to defend?

That's not trying to make a cheap rhetorical point. It's a genuine question. I've never heard of it, and somehow, given the militant/activist kind of person who often makes PC pronouncements in public, I find it hard to imagine.

Just follow everything you say with "...if you know what I mean", and we can equally offend everyone