@fallenchemist, why is using a word derived from the idea that gypsies often scammed people entirely inappropriate but not wanting people to compare a violent felonious assault of someone’s body and autonomy to something as trivial as a difficult math test being overly sensitive?
<<<
crazy
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Yikes! I would be in major trouble at UMich. I must use that word at least 10 times a day.
You misunderstand me. I did say that thousands of words could be used in a context that could be considered offensive. The problem as I see it is that people will focus on the word itself to the point where it will become almost unusable in any context. Rape is a difficult word already. No matter the context it makes us flinch (or probably should, at least), but for different reasons than words like gypped or Jewed. Those words cannot be used in any context that is not insulting, even if the user is ignorant of their origin. But at the other end of the spectrum are words like crazy and ghetto. Of course they can be used in contexts that are insulting and hurtful, and might inadvertently hurt people the words were not even directed at.
I just think we are heading down a dangerous road by widening the net too much. I understand you think that people can differentiate between the use of a word in proper context and its use in a negative context. That has not been my experience with the media and when you get the whole public involved. As soon as one person is insulted by the mere use of a word that was originally meant to only be “bad” in a certain context, the person using that word will be shamed or worse, as my example showed. There should be a somewhat brighter line between words that are virtually always bad, and those that are not. For those more ambiguous cases we do indeed need to raise our kids and teach people to think before they speak. I have no argument with that. I just don’t think campaigns like this will have that limited an effect, but instead hold the potential, if it catches on at a lot of schools, to go too far. Unintended consequences and all that.
An example of how context can change an inappropriate word to a perfectly fine word:
“John could not help but feel nauseous every time he read about slavery. He was colored…”
The word “colored” is horrible, right? But continue to read:
“John could not help but feel nauseous when he read about slavery. He was colored by his vast experience working with victims of modern day slavery.”
Let’s add “colored” to the list. Just in case someone is ignorant enough to use it inappropriately.
LOL
Dave Daly · Shop @ Coach at T. C. Williams High School
“Parents who paid tuition to this institution got gypped.”
The Best Comment I Have Ever Seen.
My son is an out of state freshman at umich, $16,000 is less then half of one semester of his fees.
At new student orientation, one of the things in their bags was a pin that said, “Respect”. No one told them to put them on and yet almost everyone was wearing it. These are very bright kids. I believe they want to do right. There are posters and pamphlets and the like all over campus with positive, uplifting, socially and environmentally positive sayings and slogans. I love this campaign, nothing wrong with pointing out that something you are saying could be viewed as offensive or ignorant. How are you going to know if no one tells you? If no one told my very white boy that he couldn’t say the n word just because his black friends do would turn out very bad. Isn’t the point of education to enlighten you? Sure some of the words are silly, but I bet that is also by design. 
As always, you take what you’ve learned and decide how, if, or when you are going to use it.
I would be interested in understanding the design concept behind putting in “silly words”.
I understand that the motives are good, and the obvious positives that go with this kind of campaign. I just think that by putting in these “silly words”, and thus by implication all kinds of similar and associated words, it actually weakens the message by inviting ridicule and ignoring potential unintended consequences. For example, people used to say (and maybe still do) “let’s go slumming”. Can’t see how that is very different than “that’s so ghetto”. Hmm, slope get’s slipperier all the time. As an aside, there is an Irving Berlin song called Slumming on Park Avenue. That must be verboten now. Just think of all the people that song offended and they couldn’t say anything. Why isn’t that on the list?
My point, which I am trying to make so forgive the slight hyperbole, is that the other side of all this is the inevitable expansion of said “forbidden” terms. And trust me, these kids want to be accepted in their community so they are definitely now forbidden via social pressure. Speech becomes constrained and people are a little, or even a lot, less free than they used to be. Not to mention the kinds of other consequences I have already pointed out. It is analogous in many ways to the trade offs we make between civil liberties and safety. Often when you increase one you lessen the other. How much speech are we willing to give up to be politically correct to the nth degree?
@fallenchemist I’m a little confused. The first time you mentioned using the “slippery slope argument” I thought you were just being glib. Now I’m not too sure. You do understand that invoking “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy, right?
No it isn’t, necessarily, and I am not asserting it will certainly go down that path but only that it is likely to. Don’t start an off-topic debate about that here. I think the meaning is clear to most people.
First of all, we are not talking a lot of money here. 16 K is chump change (I think the word “chump” is inoffensive enough - except perhaps to chumps…lol ) for U Mich. Frankly, I think that it is good for people to be aware that some of the words they use can be offensive to others, as many people might not know the etymology of some of the words and expressions they use without meaning to offend, nor do they realize how hurtful those words and expression can be. The first time I heard someone say “He really jewed him down” it set my teeth on edge. That said, up until a few years ago, I never had realized the etymology of “to gyp” and how offensive it could be to others.
And for the record, University of Vermont just spent over 80K to go gender neutral on campus, allowing students to pick their preferred pronouns in classes and within the bureaucracy, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/a-university-recognizes-a-third-gender-neutral.html
A good university should not be a place where everyone on campus agrees about everything and sees everything through the same pair of glasses.
So, as ridiculous/limited/juvenile as I (and clearly others here) think the U Mich campaign is, others fervently believe it is worthwhile and will cause students to pause and think about what they say.
I believe that’s the mark of a good university. The point isn’t whether the campaign will actually result in the abolishment of the dozen or so words/phrases listed. The point is that it might trigger people to think about something they hadn’t thought about before. If even 100 kids on campus have engaged in the debate that we adults have engaged in on this board, I would be thrilled.
Now this University of Vermont thing… hmmmm!!! @LoveTheBard
U MICH IS WATCHING YOU.
@fallenchemist: Do you have a problem with people saying that the words gypped and jewed shouldn’t be used? If you do, then I’ll acknowledge that you’re being consistent but absolutely using the slippery slope fallacy to say that an inclusive language campaign that does not carry any punitive weight means we are heading towards speech police (which obviously means we’re going to go beyond speech police and institute thought police and if you disagree with me, ask yourself why that jump is illogical but your jump isn’t?). You can also ignore the rest of my post because it will be irrelevant to you. For you (or anyone else) who says they absolutely won’t tolerate someone using “gypped” but will tolerate someone saying a test raped them or using the word insane in an insulting context, read on.
If you’re saying that gypped and jewed are in a separate category from the other words then I ask why? You say it’s because there is no appropriate context for those words but for for decades (centuries?) it was considered perfectly appropriate and not offensive to use the word gypped. The association between gypsies and scams is long and deep and considered by many to be a given. It started in the 16th and 17th centuries (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=146785) 1889 is the first documented use of the word: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/82874#eid2134863 and the concept of gypsy scams extends well into the 2000s: http://www.policemag.com/channel/gangs/articles/2001/06/gypsies-kings-of-con.asp
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/30/local/me-gypsy30
http://www.reidsitaly.com/planning/safety/gypsies.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226580.stm
Why, after all these years, is it now not acceptable to you to use the word or for police to target notorious “gypsy scams”? http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-07-03/news/fl-gypsy-crime-groups-20110703_1_gypsy-criminals-bunco-investigators-police-focus
An example of the opposite would be the word queer. It started as a word that had nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. It then became a slur for the LGBTQ community and has since been reclaimed as an acceptable umbrella term for non heteronormative/cisgendered sexual orientations/identities. Brown has a student group called the Queer Alliance. It will probably never have a student group named the N-word Alliance.
According to the TOS of this website, I cannot use a 4 letter synonym for the word feces. It will automatically be starred out. Similarly I can use procreate but not a 4 letter synonym for it. I can say female dog but not a 5 letter synonym for it. I can say anus but not a 7 letter synonym for it. The context means nothing to the site admins and I would be punished for using those words regardless of how I was using them.
Which do you think is a more offensive piece/use of language, calling someone an anus or using a 7 letter word to talk about your own anus? Society has dictated that one is and the other isn’t despite the fact that it’s completely backwards. Society changes over time - and we are now acknowledging that in addition to words being hurtful because of racial discrimination, they can also be hurtful based on sexual violence, mental illness, and other things. You’re welcome to decide that you’re not going to expend the energy to think about others’ feelings when you speak - but ask yourself how you would feel if society decided that your name was an acceptable insult and it became ubiquitous (e.g. in the How I Met Your Mother universe everyone used the “pull a mosby” phrase). Would you want people to be more mindful and not use your name and instead use some other, better word, or would you be ok with everyone saying “you’re being too sensitive” or “I mean I guess but it’s just so inconvenient to not use that word.”
@iwannabe_Brown
You just are not getting what I am saying, and I don’t know how to make it any clearer. I know that I made my position abundantly clear on
BTW, the answer is no, I don’t have any problem with people saying they should not be used, I have said that several times in my posts. Those words are rooted in gross stereotype of entire cultures and ethnicities and so are distinct from other categories of slurs, which can be argued about separately. The statement that they used to be “OK” is not exactly true. I am sure they were never OK with the groups being slurred, or I am sure with a minority of others more sensitive to these issues. But yes, clearly they used to be more widely accepted throughout whatever portion of society remained when you subtract the groups being slurred. The fact that it has taken a large portion of the rest of society centuries to catch on is not relevant to this issue. Yes, words evolve and society evolves. But there most certainly was a time when the words “gay” and “queer” offended nobody. Clearly that makes them different. Personally I think it is unfortunate that the use of those words is more limited even in well meaning people due to social convention. But that is the way it is. And if you think it is OK if words like “crazy” and “ghetto” and “slums” go down that same road, then that is your opinion. Frankly I do not like it at all, and I think campaigns like this run the risk of making exactly that happen. It certainly has happened with other words.
Oh, and the whole “your own name being an insult” thing, like Benedict Arnold, is extremely rare and requires some level of fame before it could actually become a phenomenon outside of your own social circle. The use of a fictional TV show to make that point is beyond absurd, but if that were a real situation the only people that knew what “pulling a Mosby” was numbered what, about 7 or 8? And Ted seemed to take it just fine, so not a real great example on several levels.
Anyway, I have made my thoughts on this as clear as I think I can, so if you want to post about it again feel free, but addressing it to me will most likely be useless.
The Inclusive Language Campaign is part of the campus-wide “Expect Respect” campaign (http://urespect.umich.edu/?tab=favorites), sponsored by the Student Life office, part of Diversity and Inclusion (http://studentlife.umich.edu/identity-justice). Perhaps we should include that in our discussion of the $16K spent.
Language is a beautiful and fluid thing. There will always be people pushing the envelope and creating new phrases and meanings out of old words. Some of these attempts will be harmful and some will be really clever; some will stick and some will be punished and die.
I do not like a campaign that seeks to punish and kill a few select words that may or may not be offensive to very few people. Some things just can’t - and shouldn’t - be regulated on a college campus. Word choice is one of those things in my opinion.
Words such as the “n” word have been outright banned in our society NOT because some authority declared them illegal, but because informed and enlightened society put natural pressure on the speakers to stop using these words.
So where does the U Mich campaign fall? At this point, I have come around to believe that the campaign is not at attempt at an outright ban, but rather an attempt to make people think about their word choices. That’s ok with me.
I’m shocked that a university would spend 16 grand to educate teenagers!
I think many of you are quibbling about specific words on this list, which is to be understood. I will point out, though, that one of the first quibbles, about “gypped,” was entirely wrong and indicated a failure to understand the significance of the term. Some of the other quibbles are similar. I myself, quibble with some of the terms–I will not stop using the term “crazy,” for example.
Quibbles aside, I see nothing wrong with this campaign. It is similar, perhaps, to a campaign to remind people not to litter, or to put the toilet seat down. At a college with students from all over, it’s not such a bad thing to have some reminders about good manners. It’s bad manners to use offensive language–although we may well disagree on what specific terms are offensive.
One question that does haunt me, though: Is it offensive to refer to a “Jew’s harp?”
@hunt - I do not know what a Jew’s harp is. I guess I will google it.
“off-topic”? I understand that you appear passionate about this topic and have attempted to explain yourself, but your opinions eventually all come down to the slippery slope fallacy. How is it “off-topic” to point this out? Are you somehow beyond reproach? Was your comment meant to prevent me and others from questioning your personal opinions?
@CCadmin_Sorin