Treating Other People With Respect

[arthwollipot]

Arth's favourite dictionary

I don't have a favourite dictionary. In fact, if you've followed my arguments, you'll see that I'm generally against using dictionary definitions rather than how the word is actually used by real people in real conversation. This is how we got into the disagreement over the word "respect", remember? You were arguing from the dictionary, I was arguing from common use.

Dictonaries are useful, as far as they go, but they describe, they do not prescribe. And their descriptions are generally five to ten years out of date anyway. English often changes so fast that dictionaries can't keep up.

So yes, while the dictionary definition you have provided does in this case support my argument, I would still recommend against arguing by dictionary.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, and if we do want to go with dictionary definitions, the many definitions provided at The Free Dictionary (which sources multiple dictionaries at once and is actually my favourite dictionary) is replete with words like strange, different, outsider, excluded, even repugnant. Synonyms include outsider, interloper, trespasser, exotic and gringo - which is noted to be disparaging.

 

[Corsair 115]

Suggested pronoun usage from the University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusiveness. Is this treating other people with respect? Or is going beyond the bounds of reason?

Not connected in the slightest. You are not responding to my post. Maybe some straw man you've constructed.

And you are not one to talk about not answering questions.

Shall we continue this fencing or shall we lower our rapiers and call it a day? I'm not backing down and neither are you. Stalemate.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't have a favourite dictionary. In fact, if you've followed my arguments, you'll see that I'm generally against using dictionary definitions rather than how the word is actually used by real people in real conversation. This is how we got into the disagreement over the word "respect", remember? You were arguing from the dictionary, I was arguing from common use.

Sure. I'm just pointing out the obvious that "other" by its definition describes something outside and that it does have dubious connotations, but the word or your usage won't bother me at all, because I won't be using it in that context.

The problem is that when you get into "othering" is that it's just stupid. It takes a premise to the extent that it appears parody. The first thing that springs to my mind is that The Onion probably started it.

But go ahead; I just don't see it catching on.

 

[Shepherd]

To me, the connection is blatantly, painfully obvious. I really don't understand how you could possibly believe that it isn't. No, honestly, I really don't.

For lack of other apparent common referents, I am forced to go to pop culture for an example. In the movie Alien, the eponymous Alien isn't some nice guy who trims the bushes. It's a monstrous, murderous creature that kills as many people as it can just because it enjoys that sort of thing. They could have called the monster "Xenomorph", or "Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal", or something else, but that wouldn't have conveyed the sense of weirdness, the sense of differentness, or the sense of dangerousness that the writers wanted for their monster. No - for that, they had to go with Alien - a word that, above all else, conveys that this thing is not like anything else that we are familiar or comfortable with, or feel safe around.

In short, I have to say - with all possible respect - that if you do not understand why calling a person an "alien" is a method of othering them, then despite your claim you do not understand what othering is.

It may once have been true that the word "alien", like the word "retarded", could be used non-perjoratively, but it's been at least forty years since that was true. Some day it may be true that the word "immigrant" is similarly changed, but until then it is a more acceptable way of describing people than calling them an "alien" is.

"Alien" is the correct word to describe the people in question. It is also a word used throughout the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, and here is how that act defines its use:

(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

So, the people in question are, of course, OTHER than U.S. citizens and nationals, like it or not.

Yours seems to be, then, an argument from ignorance (and cartoon and science fiction).

 

[Upchurch]

Shall we continue this fencing or shall we lower our rapiers and call it a day? I'm not backing down and neither are you. Stalemate.

Stalemate? You've been demonstrably incorrect and you call it a draw because you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit that you just misread a post.

 

[Distracted1]

The Lady who guards New York Harbor:


Once Americans took great pride in those words. Now they seem false, hypocritical. Many argue we should have strict racial quotas lest our vaunted 'racial purity' becomes too diluted. We don't want poor people -- they'll probably require social services -- or huddled masses: we want professionals with college degrees and skill sets that are marketable, in demand by American businesses. (And if they'll work for less money than native-born Americans they get bonus points!)

Wretched refuse? The homeless?

Seriously?

Early founding documents described certain classes of people as 3/5 ths of a human being.

We adjust to changing circumstances, or the descendants of those huddled masses suffer the consequences of denying reality for the sake of sentiment.

 

[Distracted1]

To me, the connection is blatantly, painfully obvious. I really don't understand how you could possibly believe that it isn't. No, honestly, I really don't.

For lack of other apparent common referents, I am forced to go to pop culture for an example. In the movie Alien, the eponymous Alien isn't some nice guy who trims the bushes. It's a monstrous, murderous creature that kills as many people as it can just because it enjoys that sort of thing. They could have called the monster "Xenomorph", or "Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal", or something else, but that wouldn't have conveyed the sense of weirdness, the sense of differentness, or the sense of dangerousness that the writers wanted for their monster. No - for that, they had to go with Alien - a word that, above all else, conveys that this thing is not like anything else that we are familiar or comfortable with, or feel safe around.

In short, I have to say - with all possible respect - that if you do not understand why calling a person an "alien" is a method of othering them, then despite your claim you do not understand what othering is.

It may once have been true that the word "alien", like the word "retarded", could be used non-perjoratively, but it's been at least forty years since that was true. Some day it may be true that the word "immigrant" is similarly changed, but until then it is a more acceptable way of describing people than calling them an "alien" is.

I read all five of the comics you linked. I confess to having had no prior knowledge of "othering".
If the comics described it correctly, it would seem that referring to someone as an alien doesn't fit the definition of " othering", since "alien" is a clearly defined category. For example, a form might give the following options:

__ Native
__ Naturalized citizen
__ Alien
__ Other*

It seems that your assertion that "alien" is othering (which you assert is bad) stretches the definition of that practice to the point wherein any word used to distinguish an individual from a particular group meets the criteria.

 

[phiwum]

Okay, and if we do want to go with dictionary definitions, the many definitions provided at The Free Dictionary (which sources multiple dictionaries at once and is actually my favourite dictionary) is replete with words like strange, different, outsider, excluded, even repugnant. Synonyms include outsider, interloper, trespasser, exotic and gringo - which is noted to be disparaging.

Words have many meanings, as you know. The first meaning for alien in that dictionary is pretty apt.

Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign​

The legal definition is even more apt.

An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.​

It's true that "alien" has other meanings, some of which have negative or scary connotations. Personally, I don't think that matters all that much -- or at least, it shouldn't. I receive tickets for parking violations without thinking about rape. I can read about retarded economic growth without thinking of intellectual slurs. And so on.

Do you really think that egos are so fragile (or that English skills are so pathetic) that we can't use "alien" in its legal sense without making non-citizens feel inferior, strange or otherwise bad?

 

[Upchurch]

Early founding documents described certain classes of people as 3/5 ths of a human being.

We adjust to changing circumstances, or the descendants of those huddled masses suffer the consequences of denying reality for the sake of sentiment.

That's a great point. I'm going to try to remember that for the next Second Amendment thread I'm in.

 

[Distracted1]

That's a great point. I'm going to try to remember that for the next Second Amendment thread I'm in.

Thank you.
Apropos to a discussion about fitting people into particular groups based upon a single data point is your implication (perhaps unintentional-if so disregard) that someone who thinks we would benefit by curtailing immigration must also belong to the group that wants unfettered firearms access to all.

 

[Corsair 115]

Stalemate? You've been demonstrably incorrect and you call it a draw because you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit that you just misread a post.

Well, so much for extending an olive branch. Let me know when you figure out how you missed my point and when you deign to answer relevant questions put to you. Our business is concluded.

___


Now, anyone care to comment on the University of Tennessee's pronoun usage recommendations? Is it treating people with respect or is it bordering on silliness?

 

[arthwollipot]

Suggested pronoun usage from the University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusiveness. Is this treating other people with respect? Or is going beyond the bounds of reason?

Seems to me that this is advising staff to ask students what pronouns they prefer, and then use those pronouns.

I can see nothing even remotely silly about that.

 

[arthwollipot]

I read all five of the comics you linked. I confess to having had no prior knowledge of "othering".
If the comics described it correctly, it would seem that referring to someone as an alien doesn't fit the definition of " othering", since "alien" is a clearly defined category. For example, a form might give the following options:

__ Native
__ Naturalized citizen
__ Alien
__ Other*

It seems that your assertion that "alien" is othering (which you assert is bad) stretches the definition of that practice to the point wherein any word used to distinguish an individual from a particular group meets the criteria.

A form might give those options. Do you have an example of a form actually giving those options?

"Alien" is a clearly defined category, yes. I will concede that point.

What I will not concede is the point that describing someone as "alien" is an insult, because of the negative connotations attached to the word. Calling someone an "alien" is not respectful, and it is not courteous. It is telling that person that you believe them to be an interloper, that they are in a place where they do not belong, that they are an outsider. That they are not "us" - that they are "other than us" - that they are different, aberrant, exotic. The fact that it is used in legislation does not make this untrue.

And, just as an aside, I find it totally hilarious that a number of people have come back to me with dictionary definitions after I just got done explaining why I believe arguing by dictionary is invalid.

 

[qayak]

That's a great point. I'm going to try to remember that for the next Second Amendment thread I'm in.

But you need to understand why they were classed that way or you risk looking like an idiot. It had nothing to do with the value of a human being and everything to do with limiting the strength of Southern, pro-slavery states that wanted to count slaves as part of the population so they would have more representation while at the same time not allowing the slaves any rights.

The 3/5 was a compromise after northern politicians suggested they be allowed to count their homes and livestock as they were property too, just like slaves were in the South.

The 3/5 ths made it so that in southern states it required 50, 000 people for a representative instead of 30, 000.

 

[Lorentz]

And, just as an aside, I find it totally hilarious that a number of people have come back to me with dictionary definitions after I just got done explaining why I believe arguing by dictionary is invalid.

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

 

[Upchurch]

Well, so much for extending an olive branch. Let me know when you figure out how you missed my point and when you deign to answer relevant questions put to you. Our business is concluded.

First, you never did answer my question from way back, so you have no right to complain.

Second, you clearly didn't even understand what you were responding to. Your question doesn't make sense, given the context. Your "olive branch" is merely an attempt to drop the subject without admitting you made a simple reading comprehension mistake.

ETA: And because you are having such a hard time, allow me reiterate what you claimed to be responding to:

People who immigrated into this country LEGALLY, but their visa has expired, are not accurately called illegal immigrants. Their legal status is in limbo. Undocumented immigrants describes them accurately enough, more so than illegal immigrants.

 

[arthwollipot]

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Except that Humpty was arguing for full linguistic relativism, whereas I am not.

 

[phiwum]

A form might give those options. Do you have an example of a form actually giving those options?

"Alien" is a clearly defined category, yes. I will concede that point.

What I will not concede is the point that describing someone as "alien" is an insult, because of the negative connotations attached to the word. Calling someone an "alien" is not respectful, and it is not courteous. It is telling that person that you believe them to be an interloper, that they are in a place where they do not belong, that they are an outsider. That they are not "us" - that they are "other than us" - that they are different, aberrant, exotic. The fact that it is used in legislation does not make this untrue.

None of the above is true.

The term "alien" has a fairly precise legal meaning. Calling someone an alien just means that he is not a citizen. It doesn't mean that they are in a place they don't belong. It doesn't mean they are exotic. It does mean they are different than citizens in one respect: citizens are citizens, and aliens are not.

It's true that "alien" has other meanings, and an ignorant person may interpret the word in the wrong way. This might be a reason not to use the word -- perhaps we should avoid giving ignorant persons the wrong impression.

But you are being ridiculous when you claim that the word "alien" means a person who is exotic, doesn't belong, etc. It doesn't. And you're being even more ridiculous when you pretend that the meaning of the word doesn't depend on the intentions of the person using it, or commonly accepted definitions. That's precisely how meaning is derived.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I read all five of the comics you linked. I confess to having had no prior knowledge of "othering".
If the comics described it correctly, it would seem that referring to someone as an alien doesn't fit the definition of " othering", since "alien" is a clearly defined category. For example, a form might give the following options:

__ Native
__ Naturalized citizen
__ Alien
__ Other*

It seems that your assertion that "alien" is othering (which you assert is bad) stretches the definition of that practice to the point wherein any word used to distinguish an individual from a particular group meets the criteria.

Thank you, the highlighted is exactly what I was trying to convey myself.