Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Nihilus]

A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .

I think doctors need neither that reminder or the clutter of verbal window-dressing when they are trying to prolong or save lives.

 

[dasmiller]

There was a similar issue among the medical profession where I used to work.
For example, say in a research slide , at a conference or internal meeting, instead of "acromegalics" it would say "patients with acromegaly", or in another field, you might replace "schizophrenics" with "patients with schizophrenia" etc , Still patients, but not completely identified with their condition.
A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .

But doesn't that just compound the problem by identifying them as 'patients' who exist only in the context of symptoms, treatments, and billing, rather than as people with complete lives, relationships, etc? Shouldn't it be "client persons with acromegaly?"

I've always been very dubious about this kind of semantic play.

 

[Nihilus]

They seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that most people, most of the time are simply not willing to go to the additional effort of saying "African-American cismale person" when "black guy" will do the job just as well -- especially when the only reward for that extra effort is avoidance of the microscopic possibility of offending someone, somewhere who might be overhearing the conversation.

I won't even grant them that. The underlying insult is theirs, in the presumption that I'm willfully or ignorantly (or both) choosing to be a secret douche because I've been preemptively painted into a category they presume is "privileged".

It's just a different flavor of the very type of brainless presumption they claim to rally against.

 

[squealpiggy]

And what's more, every time you ban some perfectly cromulent word like homosexual or foreigner and supplant it with a non-offensive new word like same-sex or immigrant, the very same bigots that used the previous term as an insult will adopt the new word and use it as an insult or continue to use the old word.

Here's a pertinent example: When I was a child the word "spastic" would be employed frequently as an insult, based on the the fact that it was used by the Spastics Society to describe patients with cerebral palsy. It's a particularly horrible insult but children are evil.

The charity eventually changed its name from the Spastics Society to Scope. So the use of the term "spastic" has dropped out of playground parlance. Now they call each other "scoper" instead.

 

[Quinn]

Shouldn't it be "client persons with acromegaly?"

Oh sure, if you want to identify them solely in terms of their symptoms and the fact that they're paying you. Just bundles of disease with checkbooks, that's all they are to you, isn't it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They seem genuinely oblivious to the fact that most people, most of the time are simply not willing to go to the additional effort of saying "African-American cismale person" when "black guy" will do the job just as well -- especially when the only benefit from that extra effort is avoidance of the microscopic possibility of offending someone, somewhere who might be overhearing the conversation.

This reminded me of the gyrations a co-worker went through many years ago (before "African-American" was invented) to avoid referring to a black guy as a "black guy". We were at a conference somewhere, and he was trying to point out some guy he had met earlier to me. There was a group of 4 guys standing about 30 feet away, and the conversation went something like this:

Him: Joe's over there.
Me: Which one is he?
Him: He's the...ummmm..guy in the suit.
Me: They're all wearing suits.
Him: He has a red tie on.
Me: Three of them are wearing red ties. Four if you count maroon as red.
Him: He's the one in the middle.
Me: There are four guys. There is no middle.
Him: He's the tall one.
Me: The black guy?
Him: Shhhhhhhhh!!!!! They might hear you!

I am not making this up. Instead of immediately saying "Joe is the black guy", he had to go through 2 minutes of gyrations, just to avoid "black guy".

 

[Quinn]

A reminder that doctors are treating people , not just a bundle of symptoms or syndromes etc .

I think doctors need neither that reminder or the clutter of verbal window-dressing when they are trying to prolong or save lives.

This. Additionally, I would say say that in specific cases where doctors did need such a fundamental shift in outlook, a couple extra words on a slide at a conference would be a poor way of trying to bring it about. In fact, I suspect that if you were able to measure the long-term, cumulative effect of such wording, the negative results of the decreased clarity would outweigh the positive results of the increased personalization.

 

[qwints]

Talking about how everyday language carries harmful implications or presumptions isn't saying that any given speaker is intending to convey those implications when they speak. Consider gender-neutral language as an example, people who tried to advocate the use of gender-neutral alternatives for common terms (e.g. fire fighter for fireman) weren't saying that every person using the gender neutral term was constantly saying that only men could be in that occupation. Rather the language was one part of a larger systemic problem - societal beliefs about the limited role women should play in society.

 

[theprestige]

In the oppressive words thread, someone (ceepolk?) points out that someone who uses the word "homosexual" as a noun is probably a conservative.

I guess what rankles, for me, is the double standard. Of course we are all individual persons. We should keep that in mind, and try not to identify individuals by specific traits. I'm straight, but I'm more than just my sexual preferences. Etc.

Unless, of course, the person happens to be a conservative. Then it's perfectly alright to identify them by a single trait, stereotype them, discriminate against them, and to the maximum extent possible, "erase" them.

I know the A+ forums are supposed to be a safe space to advance the state of the art in social justice thinking... but I'm beginning to wonder if social justice, as a discipline practiced by the mainstream SJWs, is a poisonous idea.

Like the man said:

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Like the man said:

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

What a great quote from Nietzsche. Thanks!

Of course, he's an old white man, so we can disregard it.

 

[Piscivore]

...but I'm beginning to wonder if social justice, as a discipline practiced by the mainstream SJWs, is a poisonous idea.

It is. Any general idea like that is poisonous, because it tends to halt thinking. Look at labor unions; in the 19th century, they were essential because they addressed very specific problems; debt slavery, poor safety, long hours. Even after those specific problems were adressed--elimination of "company towns", minimum wages and maximum hours laws, child labour laws, OSHA, etc.--the unions persisted, but were left looking for new "problems" to solve that many times became simply "get what we can for our own people".

The "Social Justice" people don't tend to address specific problems, they pay lip service to them because they want to get people to think like them and accept their values and the problems are the justification they use to do it. The worse thing in the world for a SJer is for progress to actually be made; that puts into question the need for their larger agenda; and hence, the legitimacy of their organisation and the power they have in and from it is in jeopardy.

 

[qwints]

the unions persisted, but were left looking for new "problems" to solve that many times became simply "get what we can for our own people".

Isn't trying to get members the best possible deal for their labor what a union is supposed to do?

they want to get people to think like them and accept their values

Are you saying this is people shouldn't want to try and persuade others they're correct? The problem seems to be with the way one arrives at one's beliefs about reality and not with whether one decides to talk about them or not.

The worse thing in the world for a SJer is for progress to actually be made;

Have you seen any behavior or statements that support this assertion?

 

[Quinn]

Talking about how everyday language carries harmful implications or presumptions is saying that any given speaker is intending to convey those implications when they speak.

[Bolding mine.]

Before responding, I wanted to clarify: Was the bolded word a typo, by any chance?

 

[recursive prophet]

WOW! I find I am increasingly grateful to A+ for stimulating so many incredibly insightful posts itt. As H'ethetheth-yo dude-can verify, just a few talented contrarians can really help us learn by virtue of explaining all the fundamentals in detail.

It occurred to me I might post some of these replies on the TR sister thread, but have decided to go with a link as there are so many that have really enhanced my understanding of wtf is going on at A+. Trying to reach such a comprehension has long been my goal in reading their comments.

Special kudos this round to Quinn and Nihilus, and I guess I should mention I'm using oldspeak here, and not implying special as in needs like we do in newspeak.

IMVHO the core issue in this latest segue is that nouns describe states of being while adjectives are purely descriptive attributes and leave lots of room for others. "My neighbor is a Jew," through years of cultural events, would more like be said by a bigot than those who would say "my neighbor is Jewish," but one of many aspects of his reality.

 

[qwints]

@Quinn, it is indeed a typo. I meant to say the opposite.

 

[Piscivore]

Isn't trying to get members the best possible deal for their labor what a union is supposed to do?

Is "getting the best possible deal" for minorities what "social justice" is supposed to do? Even at the expense of others?

Are you saying this is people shouldn't want to try and persuade others they're correct?

Replace "persuade" with "coerce" and answer for yourself.

The problem seems to be with the way one arrives at one's beliefs about reality and not with whether one decides to talk about them or not.

How so?

Have you seen any behavior or statements that support this assertion?

Yes. Look at the chaotic clusterhump third wave femisism has become because they don't have a specific problem like voting rights to organize around... so everything involving gender becomes a "problem" for them to solve, and the more problems there are, the more reason for them to be activists.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

This. Additionally, I would say say that in specific cases where doctors did need such a fundamental shift in outlook, a couple extra words on a slide at a conference would be a poor way of trying to bring it about. In fact, I suspect that if you were able to measure the long-term, cumulative effect of such wording, the negative results of the decreased clarity would outweigh the positive results of the increased personalization.

There's no decrease in clarity, it still describes the same. Patient is the catch all term. Also patients with one condition may well have other related (or not) condition. They could be under the care of several teams, eg surgical/endocrine etc
I think some of the pressure for this change of emphasis actually may have come from patient support groups that are sometimes involved in organising or promoting awareness of a particular condition and have had representatives, or even speakers, at conferences with academics too.
I'm not saying it has any profound effect on attitudes. What medics use as shorthand amongst their own may differ.
Oh and its' not about who to bill, this is the UK NHS I'm taking about.

 

[Nihilus]

Rather the language was one part of a larger systemic problem - societal beliefs about the limited role women should play in society.

It is only a "systematic problem" to the degree that actual oppressive/demeaning actions are taking place either tangibly or in the minds of (in this case) misogynists. Otherwise, it's just a linguistic quirk; like driving on a parkway and parking on a driveway.

The sad thing is, there are still a handful of issues that merit consideration and there are still psychotic over-testosteronic (yep; just made that word up) men who non-consensually speak and act that way towards women. Everyone with a competent brain thinks they're idiots, including the men A+ers are busy strawmanning into the same category because the word "fireman" was used.

"Privilege" is just the sad idea that indirect residuals from a previous era of bigotry or oppression should be highlighted with yellow marker, with anyone who could possibly play the victim getting their turn in line to ask for compensation...instead of letting the ending throes of niche stupidities die out on their own.

 

[jhunter1163]

Most of the community that I've dealt with (as in "gay community", not A+ community) use "gay", have repatriated "queer", and among friends will often use terms like "queens" and "homos", but I sincerely doubt that they'd take it well if, say, George Will used either of those.

Do those words have different meanings within the gay community? Does "queen" imply someone who prefers the feminine role, for example?

 

[kmortis]

This. Additionally, I would say say that in specific cases where doctors did need such a fundamental shift in outlook, a couple extra words on a slide at a conference would be a poor way of trying to bring it about. In fact, I suspect that if you were able to measure the long-term, cumulative effect of such wording, the negative results of the decreased clarity would outweigh the positive results of the increased personalization.

Didn't Stephen Pinker write about how the idea of "change your language, change your thinking" is putting the cart before the horse? I'd have to go and reread his books, but I could swear that he did in deed say that...Blank Slate, I think.