And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
The infected must maintain a safe distance or remain quarantined to prevent further infection.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism.
However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize.
It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing).
Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them.
Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake
Or they disagree with your take.
Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take.
It’s not a logically necessary take.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole.
Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes.
I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.
People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.
Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.
You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
They’re not necessarily speaking to those people specifically or exclusively.
They could be speaking to the broader language community that through their collective action has established that the conventional meaning of the word isn’t dehumanizing (because conventionally it isn’t) when someone like you comes along & tries to twist their words.
It’s common knowledge.
Your “common knowledge” is mistaken: the language community is the authority on their language & there are wrong answers.
Someone informing you “lots of people are offended” isn’t a reliable authority, being offended doesn’t make someone’s opinion correct.
The fewer people recognizing some niche, novel reinterpretation don’t decide for the rest of the community the conventional definitions of words.
The conventional definition of that word has stood far longer & holds more weight, so people are justified to generally accept it & reject unconventional ones.
I think you’re aware of that: innocuous instances are common.
Blanket condemnation based on an unconventional meaning of a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers.
The general community would be right to consider such antagonism & the people who defend it unjustified & petty.
asshole
You like this word.
Reflect a bit: do good people twist people’s words when they understand the usual meaning isn’t what they claim?
Do good people think it’s right to antagonize nonoffenders?
I think good people would try to interpret messages according to their likely meanings & not the worst, unsupported ones.
There’s a fair argument here that your understanding of this situation is backward.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here.
That indicates your clouded judgement: you’re failing to recognize conventional language isn’t just a matter of opinion (no matter how strong).
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism. However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize. It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing). Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them. Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
Or they disagree with your take. Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take. It’s not a logically necessary take.
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole. Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes. I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.
People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.
Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.
You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.
They’re not necessarily speaking to those people specifically or exclusively. They could be speaking to the broader language community that through their collective action has established that the conventional meaning of the word isn’t dehumanizing (because conventionally it isn’t) when someone like you comes along & tries to twist their words.
Your “common knowledge” is mistaken: the language community is the authority on their language & there are wrong answers. Someone informing you “lots of people are offended” isn’t a reliable authority, being offended doesn’t make someone’s opinion correct. The fewer people recognizing some niche, novel reinterpretation don’t decide for the rest of the community the conventional definitions of words.
The conventional definition of that word has stood far longer & holds more weight, so people are justified to generally accept it & reject unconventional ones. I think you’re aware of that: innocuous instances are common.
Blanket condemnation based on an unconventional meaning of a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers. The general community would be right to consider such antagonism & the people who defend it unjustified & petty.
You like this word. Reflect a bit: do good people twist people’s words when they understand the usual meaning isn’t what they claim? Do good people think it’s right to antagonize nonoffenders?
I think good people would try to interpret messages according to their likely meanings & not the worst, unsupported ones.
There’s a fair argument here that your understanding of this situation is backward.
That indicates your clouded judgement: you’re failing to recognize conventional language isn’t just a matter of opinion (no matter how strong).