me trying not to make a joke about the dentally ill
1 Like
4 Likes
It sounds like their point is that it is not the attribute; it’s just the way you say it.
Apparently, “The rich” would also be dehumanizing, but I kind of doubt such people are broken up about being described that way.
It probably hits harder when it’s a negative attribute.
I don’t think it’s about negative or positive, I think it’s about “the xxx” implying a non-human monolith of whatever, while saying “people who are xxx” retains some of the humanization (like literally using the word “people”)
I think it’s a nitty, minor point (the type of point that probably belongs in a style guide!) that has been amplified due to misunderstanding and fake outrage, social media’s specialty
3 Likes
Agree with all that. I’m still gonna wait for a rich or college-educated person to claim they feel dehumanized when referred to as “the college-educated” or “the rich”. Might be a while.
It’s even rare when it’s negative, but I have actually encountered that.
I’d feel much more humanized if people would write “eat rich people” on the gates of my mansion instead of “eat the rich”
4 Likes
Well, that happened faster than I thought!
James Fallows in the Atlantic, 1983:
It was a gradual thing, but at some point we simply stopped using “illegals” in polite society to describe migrants. Expanding the recognition of humanity seems like a good thing. There’s a power dimension, which is why “the rich” seems much less objectionable than “the homeless”.
I don’t know if this general trend is accelerating, but I think it’s becoming more common to see “homeless people” than “the homeless” these days. And although Ron DeSantis probably thinks it’s “woke”, the use of “slaves” is giving way to “enslaved people” over the past few years.
I’m sure there’s a lot of interesting research on how languages evolve to reflect the changing political and cultural zeitgeist.
1 Like
The LA Times seems to exclusively use “people experiencing homelessness” now.
Trying to order checks on bofa. Options are 40 or 80. No units given. $25 for the base simple check - quantity “40”.
That has to be 40 or 80 checkbooks right? Not 40 or 80 checks for $25? Seems like a shit ton of checkbooks.
lol that’s gotta be checks, can you imagine 40 checkbooks?
and lol 80
That’s insane for checks. And why could you not order more than 80 checks at a time? Usually I’d get a box with like 10 checkbooks in it.
I feel like anytime I’ve ever ordered checks it’s been like 2-3 checkbooks.
In this case it’s the term itself that is problematic. It was replaced by “undocumented”. That’s a big jump. Going from “the undocumented” to “undocumented people” is what we’re talking about. That’s a much smaller step.
1 Like
I guess the old days of getting a box of checkbooks are over.
Also they try to scam you with a $15 delivery fee. I love how dealing with my bank is like dealing with a scam artist waiting to prey on me any chance it gets.
1 Like
Lol I’m pretty sure 40 checks would last me the rest of my life. I’d be shocked if I even hit double digits tbh
4 Likes
What’s “bofa?”
2 Likes
My guess: Bank of America (no clue if that’s correct or not)