I'm probably the complete opposite. I think that whichever word best communicates an idea is the word that should be used. Only with one golden rule. If either your intention is to offend or a likely side-effect of your language is that offense will be taken; then you should think twice.
Well, yes, but that's exactly my point. Often a likely side-effect
is offence.
Do you think the best way to communicate your displeasure with the actions of a mentally healthy person is to call them a retard?
Language is a dynamic phenomenon. It is so related to the way a person thinks that any move to control language is a move towards controlling thought. Some people may think this is desirable but they should really question whether they are in any position to make this call.
I am not out to control people's use of language, but it is important to me to raise people's consciousness about the meanings of the words they use and the potential for harm that may come from using them.
The word "gay" is such an iteresting case in point that it deserves a little paragraph of its own.
I am led to believe that in British playgrounds the word "gay" is moving away from meaning "homosexual" to actually meaning simply "crap". As in "Those trainers are gay" which means simply "those shoes are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" as opposed to "those shoes are what a homosexual would wear". If someone wants to victimise someone for actually being homosexual then words like "queer, queg, puffy, f*ggot, ar*se-bandit(M) or carpet-muncher(F) etc, etc.." are used. Interestingly the word "queer" which was once perjorative is now being used by some homosexuals as merely descriptive (CF the debate about the word N*gger).
However, the word "gay" still means "homosexual", and I think that people are still aware of the connection between the derogatory meaning and the meaning associated with homosexuality. And I also think that the continued association between negativity and "gay" is damaging.
Incidentally, I prefer the word "queer" to any other term when describing my own sexual orientation. But then, the word has been reclaimed. The opposite thing is happening to "gay".
Some homosexuals apparently are not too keen on this use of the word "gay" to mean "crap". Ironically the word "gay" went through a similar transformation though about 50 years ago when some straight people got upset that it no longer meant "happy or care-free" and started to mean "homosexual".
I think that the latter transformation from "gay" meaning "homosexual" to "gay" meaning "bad" is far more problematic than the earlier transformation, because the word "gay" now denotes a distinct group of people. When "gay" meant "carefree" and came to mean "homosexual", no group of people was victimised by that transformation because there is no distinct group of happy, carefree people who are already a minority suffering social struggles. The same is not true of "gay" meaning "homosexual".
I simply find it unacceptable to use the name of any group of people, particularly an innocent minority, as a derogatory term.
Language is in a constant state of flux and trying to stop the changes, even if they are regrettable, is as futile as trying to stop the seasons changing. As well as being futile though, I think it can be ethically questionable.
Nor am I suggesting trying to halt changes in the language.
But I do think it is both reasonable and appropriate to suggest to people that someone might be offended by what they're saying.
"Gay" is actually a particularly important example because it's very likely, especially in playgrounds, that there will be people around who are struggling with their sexuality. I have first-hand experience of being very troubled by the use of the word "gay" as a derogatory term because it made me worry, as a young non-heterosexual person, about the way I would be treated if I were to reveal my sexual orientation to the people around me.
I think thats backwards. Its the way we understand the world which shapes the way we use language. Modern people try to shape understanding by adjusting language, but I dont see how it can work, because words are symbols for things, not the things themselves. Whether you say a person is retarded vs. mentally challenged, or crippled vs. physically disabled, well get the same mental idea. You could invent a brand new word snarfum for homosexuality, but once you understood the meaning, it wouldnt change the idea its describing. And it wouldnt change your perceptions of the idea if you view it negatively when symbolized by one word, youll still view it negatively when symbolized by another.
Homosexuals commandeered the word gay because, well obviously, what could be less derogatory, and more positive than happiness? But the change of word did not change the way we understand the idea, the opposite happened the way we understand the word changed. Gay, a word which once meant happy, is now used by some as an insult.
I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the words "gay" or "retarded" when they are correctly applied (to homosexuals and people with certain kinds of mental illness accordingly). What I do have a problem with is people using words like "gay" and "retarded" to
insult one another.
The implication is that to describe someone as a homosexual or a mentally ill person is insulting, and that it is an appropriate manner of sniping at people. If someone described everyone they didn't like using a derogatory word for a Jewish person, would you think that was okay?
And language does affect the way we look at the world. You can read WatersMoon's post above for one example. Another one is the famous study in which people were shown a video of two cars driving into one another. Depending on what words were used in the question, people estimated radically different collision speeds. ("How fast were the cars going when they smashed into one another?" produced higher estimates than "How fast were the cars going when they contacted one another?")
Maybe, but I think people who feel like you are well-meaning and usually have good intentions. I think ultimately revising language is simply ineffective.
Yet it is now unacceptable to use all kinds of language which is nowadays deemed offensive but which was perfectly acceptable in the past.
