Should the terms squatter, striker and deserter be banned?

[marieltrokan]

You mean build homes? I think political leaders should say in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed.

[Strange]

You mean build homes?

 

If that is the problem. Although shortage of housing is not always the reason for homelessness.

 

I think political leaders should say in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed.

And you think that is better than actually doing something?

[marieltrokan]

I think that political leaders saying in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed is a perfect solution.

[Delta1212]

Politicians say things like that all the time.

 

It doesn't seem to have fixed everything.

[Greg H.]

Why does it need to end? I have no problem with choosing new words when the use of old words has - completely naturally - become offensive. Would we really prefer to risk offence and demeaning others purely to preserve a language which we know changes fluidly and without pause anyway - it does not matter if my use of a term has no intention whatsoever to hurt someone, if it does hurt them then I am happy to paraphrase and reparaphrase

It needs to end because we're losing our language. We're losing the ability to express ourselves clearly, concisely, and precisely because we're afraid to hurt someone's feelings. When clinicians are stumbling over words trying to accurately describe a patient's condition, we've gone too far. When we have people actually studying the harmful effects of politically correct speech on mental health practices¹, it's time to stop and take a step back.

 

Life's hard. Get a helmet.

---

1 Cummings, Nicholas A.; Rogers H. Wright (2005). "Chapter 1, Psychology's surrender to political correctness". Destructive trends in mental health: the well-intentioned path to harm. New York: Routledge.

I think that political leaders saying in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed is a perfect solution.

Your initial premise, that being that people listen to politicians, may not be entirely founded in reality.

[marieltrokan]

People do and don't listen to politicians - and because that truth can apply to anything, why should the topic of the world making the effort to exist so that categorization needn't exist prompt the bias?

 

The Scottish independence referendum took place in 2014, and yet on that issue people would have ignored campaigners for independence - and the same applies to the American War of Independence.

[Strange]

I think that political leaders saying in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed is a perfect solution.

Please explain how it would help. Please explain why it is a better solution than, say, building low-cost housing or tackling poverty.

 

Politicians say things without it having any effect. We need action not speeches.

People do and don't listen to politicians - and because that truth can apply to anything, why should the topic of the world making the effort to exist so that categorization needn't exist prompt the bias?

 

There is no bias. It is always better to do something than just make speeches.

 

 

 

The Scottish independence referendum took place in 2014, and yet on that issue people would have ignored campaigners for independence - and the same applies to the American War of Independence.

 

???

[marieltrokan]

If speeches are nothing, why do they exist?

[Delta1212]

To help politicians get elected, mostly.

[imatfaal]

It needs to end because we're losing our language. ...

 

We always have been...but it is still going.

 

I haven't read the article - but I am sure it has echoes of the use of discourse in mental health care brought up by Foucault in Madness and Civilization which was a deliberate reintroduction of the work of George Canguihelm etc.

 

Twas ever thus -- and this is why we have an evolving living language rather than a dead static one

[marieltrokan]

True, they do allow politicians to be elected; but speeches are as much nothing to do with elections, and there are many speeches throughout human history that are famous for having nothing to do with elections.

 

Elected officials saying to millions and millions of people that they're each the Universe, and that because of this the world should make the effort to exist so that categorization isn't needed is the solution.

[Strange]

Elected officials saying to millions and millions of people that they're each the Universe, and that because of this the world should make the effort to exist so that categorization isn't needed is the solution.

 

Any politician who said such a thing would probably be laughed off stage. Please explain how it is supposed to help solve the problem. (And just repeating the same thing is not an explanation.)

 

Just making speeches is not very productive. Especially when those speeches are full of vague platitudes. I still tend to the view that doing something is a better way of solving a problem.

 

So, if the politician gave a speech saying, "we have initiated a plan to tackle homelessness by (1) building 100,000 new homes, (2) tackling the causes of poverty and (3) providing enough resources to treat mental health and addiction problems", including a clear timetable, costs and how it was going to be paid for then I might be impressed.

 

But a politician standing up and sounding like an old hippy, "I mean, like, we are all stardust, man" seems like a complete and utter waste of time.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Strange

[Greg H.]

 

We always have been...but it is still going.

 

I haven't read the article - but I am sure it has echoes of the use of discourse in mental health care brought up by Foucault in Madness and Civilization which was a deliberate reintroduction of the work of George Canguihelm etc.

 

Twas ever thus -- and this is why we have an evolving living language rather than a dead static one

I take your point. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning behind giving up words with precision in favor of cumbersome euphemisms, however. Something about that just rubs me the wrong way.

 

It's like people who want to be addressed as they or them, rather than he or she. Logically, I understand the reasons behind their request - they don't identify as either gender in particular. Since the only singular, genderless pronoun English has is "it", they decide to use the plural, because they find being called an it offensive. (Frankly, I would too, but it is more grammatically correct) But it leads us to syntactical inconsistencies where we have to use nouns and verbs that do not agree in number, such as "John Doe doesn't like steak. They prefers the fish."

 

Now, you could write "They prefer the fish", but now you've broken the agreement between the pronoun and the noun it refers to, and we're not completely clear who the multiple they refers to, since we've only mentioned one person.

[Delta1212]

Singular they has a long tradition in the English language dating back centuries, and using the correct conjugation for 'they' doesn't break agreement between subject and verb anymore than using 'are' for a single person breaks agreement when referring to them as 'you.'

[Strange]

Singular they has a long tradition in the English language dating back centuries, and using the correct conjugation for 'they' doesn't break agreement between subject and verb anymore than using 'are' for a single person breaks agreement when referring to them as 'you.'

 

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Greg H.]

Singular they has a long tradition in the English language dating back centuries, and using the correct conjugation for 'they' doesn't break agreement between subject and verb anymore than using 'are' for a single person breaks agreement when referring to them as 'you.'

I sit corrected. 18 years of school and college and I was never taught that, I appreciate the lesson. Thank you.

[Strange]

Singular they has a long tradition in the English language dating back centuries, and using the correct conjugation for 'they' doesn't break agreement between subject and verb anymore than using 'are' for a single person breaks agreement when referring to them as 'you.'

 

 

Of course, once upon a time, people did complain about the use of singular you:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26554

[StringJunky]

It's like people who want to be addressed as they or them, rather than he or she. Logically, I understand the reasons behind their request - they don't identify as either gender in particular.

I find myself doing that every time now when something I write is not intended to be gender-specific and wish to be inclusive of everyone, particularly with sayings. For instance:

 

"He who laughs last..." becomes "They who laugh last..."

[iNow]

"He who laughs last..." becomes "They who laugh last..."

And is finished by ..."thinks slowest."

[StringJunky]

And is finished by ..."thinks slowest."

[John Cuthber]

He who laughs last didn't get it.

Anyway, if you banned the words, how would historians refer to - for example- the General Strike?
We still need the word for smallpox (and hopefully one day polio) - even if we only use it to describe past success.

And as an exercise for the grammar nuts, should that have been

"We still need the words for smallpox (and hopefully one day polio) - even if we only use them to describe past successes."?

Edited July 3, 2016 by John Cuthber

[marieltrokan]

I suppose people would be able to allow history, but I don't think it would be right to forgo the progress of ending nations, capitalism, terms and the need for terms such as striker because of such a concern.

Edited July 3, 2016 by marieltrokan