Treating Other People With Respect

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I disagree. Intent is one thing, but meaning is derived in the mind of the person who hears (or reads) the words. You can have the best of intentions, but you don't get to control how the person you are talking to interprets the words you use. The interpretation is up to them, and you can go blue in the face (like I imagine you are right now) trying to explain exactly what you intended to mean, but that does not prevent someone taking offence in the first place, and does little to alleviate offence once taken.

In my opinion, you've got this exactly backwards. Why not strive to start with the most charitable interpretation of what is said and done by those you meet? Why not give the benefit of the doubt. Often they're just words.

 

[arthwollipot]

********! One could never carry on a conversation with a stranger under your scenario.
Unless everyone carry around a list of taboo words that will set them off, and exchanges the list with every and ny one who says "good morning " to them, discussion is not possible. This is the epitome of PC.
The alternative.is to realize that not everyone has your background and tastes, and quit being so thin *********** skinned as to assume insult is intended with every usage you disagree with.

Please try to make your point without resorting to profanity. Also, please try to make your point without resorting to hyperbole and slippery-slope thinking.

Could never carry on a conversation? That's rubbish. It happens all the time. It's just like those people (no names mentioned) who claim that asking someone to provide a trigger warning leads directly to the absolute destruction of any chance of communication. It's bull, it's hyperbole, it helps no-one, and it makes you look like a reactionary who just wants an excuse to go on freely insulting people without consequence.

I used the word ignorance because it is a plain fact that the word "alien" commonly means non-citizen, with no pejorative overtones. If someone does not know that common meaning, then he does not know what is common knowledge, namely what this word means in this context. In that respect, he is ignorant.

Again, "ignorant" is one of those words which, like "alien" is commonly used perjoratively despite its dictionary definition. Did you notice that you're arguing by dictionary again?

Of course, once offense is taken, then it should be easy enough to fix. The speaker explains the meaning he had in mind, clarifies that it has none of the negative connotations the hearer believed, and so it is done. At least, that is how things ought to go.

Oh, if only it were so. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can discriminate and marginalise.

If, in fact, things don't go well at this point, the fault is all on the listener, not the speaker. I can understand if someone balks when I use the word "niggardly", but if I explain its meaning and that it is etymologically unrelated to the word they were thinking of, then they have no good reason to be offended any longer.

Okay, things are slightly more complicated. I don't actually use the word "niggardly" precisely because it can lead to needless complications. There is no good reason to take offense at the word, but it is easy to mishear. Similarly, if I think that many people are literally ignorant of this meaning of "alien", I may choose to avoid it. But let us be clear: any offense taken is due to ignorant on the part of the hearer, and any such offense should be trivial to dispel with only a little explanation of what meaning was intended.

It seems to me that you're saying that anyone should be free to use the N-word whenever they want, because those people who take offense are just ignorant and there's no reason to take offense at it, and if you do take offense at it, it's entirely your fault and that shouldn't stop anyone from using it.

Wow. Way to lampshade a problem. Well done. You are exactly the thing I'm talking about.

In my opinion, you've got this exactly backwards. Why not strive to start with the most charitable interpretation of what is said and done by those you meet? Why not give the benefit of the doubt. Often they're just words.

Oh, if only it were so. Yes, if everyone always assumed that people had the best of intentions at all times, the world would be a lovely place. Pity that's just a fantasy.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

... and when you realise that someone has interpreted a word in a way you didn't intend, apologise and try to rephrase in a manner that is more sensitive to their cultural and linguistic background.

That's interesting, because you also say "meaning is derived in the mind of the person who hears (or reads) the words". You are responsible for how someone's mind works and should apologize if it misunderstood the meaning and intent? That's crazy talk.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's interesting, because you also say "meaning is derived in the mind of the person who hears (or reads) the words". You are responsible for how someone's mind works and should apologize if it misunderstood the meaning and intent? That's crazy talk.

In what way did I suggest that you are responsible for how someone's mind works? That's the exact opposite of what I said.

If you say something, and you are made to realise that they have interpreted your words differently than they were intended and have taken offense, then yeah, if you want to continue meaningful conversation with that person, you should apologise for causing offense and find a less ambiguous way to say what you mean.

I realise some people believe that causing offense is not something that one should apologise for, but I don't agree. It was my words that caused offense and those words were my choice. If I offend with my words, I own up to it and take responsibility for it rather than trying to blame the victim.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What specific incident(s) are you referring to by Mr. Trump?

Also, while you're at it, can you give an example of an action that is Politically Correct?

That is nonsensical because political correctness is used solely as a pejorative.

I am looking for respectful but not PC statements. The only one being offered up so far was not using someones preferred pronoun before they had been informed of it. That is something I can see happening but in this case the person demanding on people refer to them how they want to before they know what that is, is the one being disrespectful.

As for what specific incidents, I would say it is most times he opens his mouth.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Please try to make your point without resorting to profanity.

What profanity? All I see are asterisks.
But seriously, the point of the autocensor is that if profanity triggers you, the censor hides it and you can just ignore the asterisks. The post you just read is family-friendly. This comes off as super nitpicky tone policing.

Again, "ignorant" is one of those words which, like "alien" is commonly used perjoratively despite its dictionary definition. Did you notice that you're arguing by dictionary again?

You haven't justified why arguing by dictionary is incorrect... in a debate where we argue about the meaning of words. What's the alternative, arguments from anecdotes?

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can discriminate and marginalise.

I may have to steal that one, that's just too perfect.

Oh, if only it were so. Yes, if everyone always assumed that people had the best of intentions at all times, the world would be a lovely place. Pity that's just a fantasy.

So your default stance is that people have to worst intentions all the time? I'd find it hard and exhausting going through life that way.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

In what way did I suggest that you are responsible for how someone's mind works?

You should apologize if the listener misunderstood or misinterprets, this means you are responsible for how the word is interpreted in the listener's mind. That's how you suggested it.

If you say something, and you are made to realise that they have interpreted your words differently than they were intended and have taken offense, then yeah, if you want to continue meaningful conversation with that person, you should apologise for causing offense and find a less ambiguous way to say what you mean.

And here you're saying the exact same thing again. The fault is not on the utterer if the meaning is derived in the listener's mind.

I realise some people believe that causing offense is not something that one should apologise for, but I don't agree.

In your own words, the offense is strictly taken, not given, because whether the meaning and intent is offensive is formed in the listener's mind. When I say 'ignorant' meaning 'unknowledgeable' and you take it as a mere pejorative, that's on you, I have nothing to apologize for. I can only correct you that I did not mean to use it pejoratively, because it is not a mere pejorative. It actually has a descriptive and useful meaning.

It was my words that caused offense and those words were my choice. If I offend with my words, I own up to it and take responsibility for it rather than trying to blame the victim.

The victim here is someone who deliberately chooses to be a "victim" by assuming the worst intentions.

Victim is such a hyperbolic term here. Victim of words?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

That is nonsensical because political correctness is used solely as a pejorative.

This is demonstrably false.

 

[ThunderChunky]

It seems to me that you're saying that anyone should be free to use the N-word whenever they want, because those people who take offense are just ignorant and there's no reason to take offense at it, and if you do take offense at it, it's entirely your fault and that shouldn't stop anyone from using it..

How did you get that from what he wrote? Niggardly has nothing to do with the n-word..that was his entire point. That fact that they sound similar is entirely a coincidence.

 

[phiwum]

Again, "ignorant" is one of those words which, like "alien" is commonly used perjoratively despite its dictionary definition. Did you notice that you're arguing by dictionary again?

There is no fallacy in explaining what I mean. That's all I've done. I used the word "ignorant", you took it as a pejorative, and I explained that I meant it quite literally.

For some reason, you think that's "appeal to dictionary". I'm not sure how you think conversation actually works.

Oh, if only it were so. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can discriminate and marginalise.

And whose fault is that? When I explain, for instance, that the word "alien" has a technical meaning, that it means "non-citizen" and nothing more, then there should be no issue at all.

It seems to me that you're saying that anyone should be free to use the N-word whenever they want, because those people who take offense are just ignorant and there's no reason to take offense at it, and if you do take offense at it, it's entirely your fault and that shouldn't stop anyone from using it.

I don't think I've said anything of the sort.

I have been discussing words that have commonly accepted meanings, but meanings that some people are evidently unaware of. The word "******" has no commonly accepted meaning that is free of negative connotations, far as I know. If I say to my interlocutor that, when I say "******", I just mean "person of African descent" with no disparagement intended, he is in a good position to point out that no one will hear the word that way, that this is not how it is commonly used, and to insist that a word has its own private meaning is to invite misunderstanding and offense.

Compare that now to the examples I used. The word "alien" has a specific legal meaning, one that does not include any negative connotations but expresses a plain fact. The interlocutor who takes offense at that word is in the wrong, not the person who uses it.

Wow. Way to lampshade a problem. Well done. You are exactly the thing I'm talking about.

Happy to help you illustrate what you're talking about, but from where I sit, you have odd notions about communication and meaning.

 

[arthwollipot]

What profanity? All I see are asterisks.
But seriously, the point of the autocensor is that if profanity triggers you, the censor hides it and you can just ignore the asterisks. The post you just read is family-friendly. This comes off as super nitpicky tone policing.

I know the purpose of the autocensor, and am a great advocate of its use. However, as an Australian (a nation that is supremely fond of profanity), I am also aware that profanity is almost always entirely unnecessary, detracts from what you are saying, and makes you seem like a bogan.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

You haven't justified why arguing by dictionary is incorrect... in a debate where we argue about the meaning of words. What's the alternative, arguments from anecdotes?

I have, several times. But since you seem to have missed it, I will do so again.

Dictionaries describe, they do not prescribe. And they do an imperfect job of it because it often takes ten to fifteen years for a new word, or a new usage of a word, to become recorded in most dictionaries. As such, dictionaries do not always reflect how words are used in the wild.

Using dictionary definitions in a discussion like this doesn't actually help because all you're doing is quibbling about specific meanings in a language that is constantly fluid - and, I might add - different all over the planet. As I said before (you might have missed that too), I have never heard the word "alien" applied to humans, except in conversations with people from other countries, or in pop culture from other countries. It's just not a word that is used in that way here.

This is why arguing by dictionary is a poor form of argument. Most of the time we know what you mean anyway, and quibbling over exact definitions isn't very helpful.

I may have to steal that one, that's just too perfect.

Feel free.

So your default stance is that people have to worst intentions all the time? I'd find it hard and exhausting going through life that way.

No, it isn't. I'm actually pretty optimistic in general. But not everyone is like me, and some - yes, even some people on this board, in this thread - tend to assume the worst. Like you just did when you suggested that my default stance is that people have to worst intentions (sic - I assume it's a typo).

 

[arthwollipot]

You should apologize if the listener misunderstood or misinterprets, this means you are responsible for how the word is interpreted in the listener's mind. That's how you suggested it.

No. You should apologise for inadvertently causing offense. You are not responsible for the offense being taken, but you are responsible for the words that caused it.

And here you're saying the exact same thing again. The fault is not on the utterer if the meaning is derived in the listener's mind.

See above.

In your own words, the offense is strictly taken, not given, because whether the meaning and intent is offensive is formed in the listener's mind. When I say 'ignorant' meaning 'unknowledgeable' and you take it as a mere pejorative, that's on you, I have nothing to apologize for. I can only correct you that I did not mean to use it pejoratively, because it is not a mere pejorative. It actually has a descriptive and useful meaning.

See above.

The victim here is someone who deliberately chooses to be a "victim" by assuming the worst intentions.

Victim is such a hyperbolic term here. Victim of words?

Yes, victim of words. Like I said, words can discriminate and marginalise. Deliberately causing offense because either you don't care whether someone is offended or not, or because you believe that you should have the right to offend people, is a form of violence.

 

[arthwollipot]

There is no fallacy in explaining what I mean. That's all I've done. I used the word "ignorant", you took it as a pejorative, and I explained that I meant it quite literally.

For some reason, you think that's "appeal to dictionary". I'm not sure how you think conversation actually works.

I'm not sure how you think dictionaries work.

And whose fault is that? When I explain, for instance, that the word "alien" has a technical meaning, that it means "non-citizen" and nothing more, then there should be no issue at all.

And yes, in a perfect world where spherical cows fall in a vacuum, that should end the subject. But we're in the real world here, and words can discriminate and marginalise. Words wound. I once had a friend, until I said something dumb and offensive because I was being stupid at the time, and now she will have nothing to do with me. My words wounded her, and no amount of apology or explaining "what I really meant was..." is going to fix that.

Take a piece of paper. Crumple it up into a ball. Then flatten it out again. Can you see the creases? The wounds caused by words are like that.

I don't think I've said anything of the sort.

I have been discussing words that have commonly accepted meanings, but meanings that some people are evidently unaware of. The word "******" has no commonly accepted meaning that is free of negative connotations, far as I know. If I say to my interlocutor that, when I say "******", I just mean "person of African descent" with no disparagement intended, he is in a good position to point out that no one will hear the word that way, that this is not how it is commonly used, and to insist that a word has its own private meaning is to invite misunderstanding and offense.

Compare that now to the examples I used. The word "alien" has a specific legal meaning, one that does not include any negative connotations but expresses a plain fact. The interlocutor who takes offense at that word is in the wrong, not the person who uses it.

I disagree, and have explained at length, that the word "alien" does not include any negative connotations.

Happy to help you illustrate what you're talking about, but from where I sit, you have odd notions about communication and meaning.

I can see that, yes. But that's not my fault. I'm just stating facts - you are the one who's interpreting them wrongly. How is that my fault?

 

[phiwum]

I'm not sure how you think dictionaries work.

Well, let's talk about that, then.

Here's how I think dictionaries work. They record the common meanings of words. They are useful because sometimes we see an unfamiliar word, or a familiar word used in an unfamiliar way, and we can try to deduce the intended meaning of that word by looking in a dictionary.

If we are arguing, for instance, whether the word "alien" is always a negative term or whether sometimes it is used in a neutral manner, then looking in a dictionary is appropriate.

If we are arguing over what one of us actually meant when using the word "alien", then the dictionary is not so useful. The person who used the word is the authority here, although a dictionary can help him understand that, whatever his intentions, he misused the term.

And yes, in a perfect world where spherical cows fall in a vacuum, that should end the subject. But we're in the real world here, and words can discriminate and marginalise. Words wound. I once had a friend, until I said something dumb and offensive because I was being stupid at the time, and now she will have nothing to do with me. My words wounded her, and no amount of apology or explaining "what I really meant was..." is going to fix that.

Take a piece of paper. Crumple it up into a ball. Then flatten it out again. Can you see the creases? The wounds caused by words are like that.

We are going quite afield from the issue at hand, which is the appropriateness of the use of "alien" to describe non-citizens, not the issues you had with your friend. It is a meaning that, far as I understand it, is used legally. It is synonymous with "non-citizen".

Now, don't get me wrong. If I think that large numbers of persons do not know the literal meaning I intend, and that they will take offense at "alien", then the word "non-citizen" may be prudent, cumbersome as it is. But, the person who takes offense at my use of the word "alien" and who retains that offense despite a clear explanation of the relevant meaning is the one at fault in any dispute. Of course, it can be better to avoid dispute, but this does not change the situation.

I disagree, and have explained at length, that the word "alien" does not include any negative connotations.

In fact, you haven't. You've blathered[1] about "othering" and were once pressed to look at the dictionary, where you carefully pointed out various definitions that were not the relevant definition, and you missed the ones that mattered. You did not explain at length why your willingness to take the term as insulting is reason to believe that it is insulting.

Immigration attorneys use the term "alien". You know that, right? They have to, because the law uses the term[2]. Are they insulting their clients? Or are they using a term-of-art that has no negative meaning?

I can see that, yes. But that's not my fault. I'm just stating facts - you are the one who's interpreting them wrongly. How is that my fault?

I suppose you think that's clever, but I don't see it. I have discussed carefully explaining one's meaning when there is disagreement. You are pretending that I've said the speaker is always right or something.

But, so long as you use a juvenile smiley face rolling his eyes, you may well pretend to have the upper hand. Kudos, you clever person, you!


[1] Just to be clear, yes, I know this is pejorative. In fact, I intentionally claim that your so-called explanations are obviously lacking any reason.

[2] If I'm mistaken here, someone can correct me.

 

[Steve]

If I were one of the others, I'd find the term more offensive than alien.

With "illegal alien", it mightn't be a floral noun, but it does describe what the person actually is. It doesn't confer anything than the status of being an illegal alien in a country.

"Other" implies something different from the main group.

"It's one of those other kids, quick hide."

"Who are these other people you've invited for dinner tonight?"

One of these things is not like the other.

Next time someone dreams up an idiot term, they should maybe ask the other person how offensive they find it.

One funny point, Arth's favourite dictionary, Merriam-Webster lists this description for "other" as point 5.

disturbingly or threateningly different

We are the other people
We are the other people
We are the other people
You're the other people too
Found a way to get to you . . .

Mother People - Frank Zappa

 

[rwguinn]

No. You should apologise for inadvertently causing offense. You are not responsible for the offense being taken, but you are responsible for the words that caused it.

See above.

See above.

Yes, victim of words. Like I said, words can discriminate and marginalise. Deliberately causing offense because either you don't care whether someone is offended or not, or because you believe that you should have the right to offend people, is a form of violence.

In the life you lead, respect is a 1 way street?

 

[Dani]

Dictionaries describe, they do not prescribe. And they do an imperfect job of it because it often takes ten to fifteen years for a new word, or a new usage of a word, to become recorded in most dictionaries. As such, dictionaries do not always reflect how words are used in the wild.

Using dictionary definitions in a discussion like this doesn't actually help because all you're doing is quibbling about specific meanings in a language that is constantly fluid - and, I might add - different all over the planet. As I said before (you might have missed that too), I have never heard the word "alien" applied to humans, except in conversations with people from other countries, or in pop culture from other countries. It's just not a word that is used in that way here.

This is why arguing by dictionary is a poor form of argument. Most of the time we know what you mean anyway, and quibbling over exact definitions isn't very helpful.

I agree that dictionaries do not perfectly reflect usage, and I'll add that nitpicking about correct meanings instead of focusing on what the interlocutor meant generally distracts attention from the main subject and more often than not adds little to the discussion.

The typical exception is precisely when we specifically argue about meanings. Your argument as far as I see is that we can't completely rely on dictionary definitions in this type of debate because they don't describe usage with perfect accuracy, but I haven't seen that you presented a compelling alternative to solve this type of dispute so far.

In other words, I accept your premise that dictionary definitions are imperfect, but I don't see an argument for a more refined way to accurately describe meanings of words when these disputes arise.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

If you say something, and you are made to realise that they have interpreted your words differently than they were intended and have taken offense, then yeah, if you want to continue meaningful conversation with that person, you should apologise for causing offense and find a less ambiguous way to say what you mean.

Egads! Good luck with that approach, especially in this day and age, and especially if you're a cisgendered, heterosexual, white male in the United States (or on the Internet). You're setting yourself up for a busy year.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I am looking for respectful but not PC statements.

Here are a few:

"Nice hat."
"Gee, I really like your pants."
"You really can play the guitar pretty well."
"I admire your approach to things"
etc...

Is that what you were looking for or did I misunderstand the question?

As for what specific incidents, I would say it is most times he opens his mouth.

Which is a general statement, not a specific incident.

 

[phiwum]

I'll grant that it may be a cultural thing. There are some significant differences between the ways some words are used in America and the way I am used to hearing them. Apart from when I'm chatting with people from other countries on the internet, I virtually never hear the word "alien" applied to people at all - and when I do, the intent is never friendly. So I may be arguing about an issue of dialect. But...

Let's talk about this claim.

You say that "alien" is never applied in a "friendly" manner to persons. Of course, I don't claim that it is a friendly term, merely that it is a neutral term in certain contexts, and particularly in the context of immigration (in a legal sense).

We can learn that the term means "non-citizen" at Wikipedia, and that it is defined in the British Nationality Act 1981. We can find that it is used in the Australian constitution, though there is some dispute over the meaning of the term.

Now, I don't know whether Arthwollipot is from either of those nations, nor whether Canada uses the term. I don't know if Arthwollipot is from an English-speaking nation. But I do know that this shows that the term "alien" is used in a legal sense outside the United States, and this sense is non-pejorative.

And it's a useful term. Not everyone non-citizen in the country is an immigrant. Those who study abroad are, at least in the U.S., non-immigrant aliens. If they overstay, they are not illegal immigrants (unless they intend it to be permanent), but they are illegal (or, better, unauthorized) aliens.

NOTE: I just learned that some laws in the U.S. use the term "illegal alien" while others use the term "unauthorized alien". I prefer the latter, since it is, to my mind, more precise.