Re: <nettime> New Inclusive English

Yes to "I find the link with Protestant ethics, a spiral of
purity, an interesting angle."
I will take an historically well known episode of that ethic : prohibition.

I not consume much alcohol. I mostly hate the effect it has on the attitude of people beyond a quite low threshold.
But I think most will agree that the prohibition was an awful social experiment.
But it did not prevent the "war on drugs". But in the latter case there is a strong argument that it was introduced with full awareness of the negative consequences, and that they were the true motivation.

I do not know if the advocates of doing this new moral push top down are aware of the probable major side effect : a even greater inability to communicate between "left" and "right"; and probably a further splintering of the "left".

You can propose new ways of _expression_, if they take hold it's all good. Imposing them is mostly counter-productive.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 at 07:45, paul <paul@denknerd.org> wrote:

Hey all,

I read this article yesterday:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/equity-language-guides-sierra-club-banned-words/673085/
(or https://archive.is/iPQ2D).

I'm almost concerned to open this can of worms, for reasons that
are touched on in the article i'm sharing -- one takes a risk by
asking questions about the Inclusivity™ orthodoxy. I hasten to
add that i am all for more diversity where often there
isn't/wasn't much, for more equitable outcomes in society,
etc. etc., because clearly, we (i can only speak for those places
i have experienced living) are a very long way away from living in
just society. Having said all of that, i jokingly refer to
Inclusive™ language since it seems to indeed be something co-opted
by? invented by? pushed by? commercial entities to display their
credentials, similar to how we might observe "greenwashing".

Like the author of the article, of course there are linguistic
habits that are best relegated to history. But more and more i'm
observing New Inclusive English being suggested: people in my
circles avoid talking about things like "brown-bag sessions" (a
phrase i already disliked, but for other reasons - it's so
American! [sorry, US-ian]). Something that rubs me up the wrong
way about a lot of these euphemisms is that their etymology (as
far as i can tell) has no racist meaning - surely a brown-bag
harks back to bringing one's lunch in a... brown paper bag? It's
almost as if, indeed, people have sat down to look for potentially
offensive words. Scraping the proverbial barrel of offence.

The thing is, though, i'm looking for something of a sense-check
-- because i'd be sad if i'm being taken in by a right-wing rag
(is it?), or by conservative agendas (is it?), etc. Is this just
me worrying about becoming apostate as the article describes, of
being a "bad person", basically. Because my upbringing makes me
want to say the right things, rather than think too hard for
myself. I find the link with Protestant ethics, a spiral of
purity, an interesting angle. But i'm wondering if folks here
have more nuanced things to say about the little article, or will
i just be shooting fish in a barrel?

All the best, tell me i'm not a neocon,
p.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: