Found this article in the longreads community arguing why “politically correct” terms shouldn’t be used. You guys have any thoughts?

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyzM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Prescriptions and descriptions are not opposites. They’re orthogonal to each other:

      • when you tell people how things are, you’re being descriptive;
      • when you tell people how things should be, or what they should do, you’re being prescriptive.

      And prescribing is not automatically wrong. For example if I were to tell someone “don’t call us Latin Americans «spic niggers», it’s offensive”, I am prescribing against the usage of the expression “spic nigger”; it is prescriptivism. Just like when someone proposes inclusive language.

      What is wrong is that sort of poorly grounded prescription that usually boils down to “don’t you dare to use language in a different way than I do, or that people did in the past”. It’s as much of a prescription as the above, but instead of including people it’s excluding them.

      Tagging @[email protected], as this addresses some things that they said.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Both “to prescribe against [thing]” and “to proscribe [thing]” are functionally equivalent in this context, at least acc. to how I use both words:

          • to prescribe - to lay down rules on what should be accepted / rejected.
          • to proscribe - to forbid, to strongly recommend against something.

          But I’d rather use the first one here due to the topic, prescriptivism.

      • bgainor
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        This is fair. Usually when I hear “prescriptive” I have a knee-jerk reaction to it as something bad because it’s usually used to refer to people using made-up rules to enforce systems of oppression rather than fight against them like inclusive language does, but I hadn’t thought about it as “prescriptivism for good.”

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The knee-jerk reaction is understandable, since most prescriptions are of the exclusionary type. And at the same time, since linguists say “we’re describing, not prescribing”, people create a false opposition between both things. And, well, if description is scientific and good the prescription ends as “unscientific and bad”, through that opposition.

    • bgainor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Using inclusive language isn’t linguistic prescriptivism. Prescriptivism is saying “this word is incorrect English/doesn’t mean what you are using it for.” Inclusive language is saying “if you use this word, you’re being a jerk.”