I recently used the the word “Jews” in a draft, and someone suggested that might be offensive, and that I should instead used something like “people of Jewish descent.” I asked around, and while most people didn’t see any offense, at least a few thought that a few others would take offense.
When I'm on a shift at the hospital with many other specializing doctors and various healthcare practitioners, I definitely want my title to be specific to effectively assume my role in said establishment. On the other hand if I'm a student at a girl's Catholic school, "student" suffices. The rest is assumed, as I am a part of the majority.
Nope. Those of you in this category generally don't use it because most of you hetero cis males surround yourselves with only other hetero cis males/females. There's no real need and far fewer opportunities to be more specific. If you moved in a more "diverse group" of humans, you would note much more frequent and much more specific identifiers like these being used (and not in a denigrating way).
I've never heard of "libby", but I've heard the slur "glibertarian" -- which is a counter-example to the "short words are insults" stylized fact. Portmanteaus are a great way to fnord up a label.
It's funny when people are so used to using 'African-American' they use this to refer to black people in different countries.
Note 'white heteronormative cisgendered male' is long, and those of us in the category generally don't use it because its either used to denigrate us, or if simplified would be a signal of 'bad' ethnic chauvinism (majority groups can't be tribal without suggesting Nazi sympathies).
I think both the insisters and the flouters tend to be surly, although in different ways and with different objectives.
You may be right - the norm-enforcers may be surlier than those who are too busy doing their own thing to keep up with word fashions. I'll pay more attention.
Interestingly, former CNN anchor Jim Clancy just had his three decade career at CNN ended after being denounced for being too well informed about another culture. Clancy used the word "hasbara" to reply to a tweet from a man in the hasbara business.
More research turned up *Fedora* and *Neckbeard*. Do you suppose Ron Paul supporters are indifferent between being called *Libertarians* or *Neckbeards*?
As a libertarian I would feel annoyed at being called a "libby", but would probably get used to and eventually welcome it. Lets face it, "libertarian" is a mouthful.
However, I am surprised not to see Robin's nail appear in this post: the word "status". To me, the use of longer names seems to confer more status; a signal of "you're worthy enough to devote extra syllables to". Some examples:
-The ridiculous lists of titles nobility used to announce themselves.-"Potus", or "mister president"?-"Your honor", or "judge"?-"Doctor", or "Doc"etc.
I cannot think of a single instance in which a shorter title would seem to confer more status than a longer one, at least for an individual.
It might be interesting see if there is a correlation between the use of "POTUS" vs. "president" and the president's approval rating.
"you can probably get away with whatever you want as long as you somehow convey attitudinal neutrality". Alas, that didn't age well.
When I'm on a shift at the hospital with many other specializing doctors and various healthcare practitioners, I definitely want my title to be specific to effectively assume my role in said establishment. On the other hand if I'm a student at a girl's Catholic school, "student" suffices. The rest is assumed, as I am a part of the majority.
Nope. Those of you in this category generally don't use it because most of you hetero cis males surround yourselves with only other hetero cis males/females. There's no real need and far fewer opportunities to be more specific. If you moved in a more "diverse group" of humans, you would note much more frequent and much more specific identifiers like these being used (and not in a denigrating way).
'Founder of' is one counter-example.
I've never heard of "libby", but I've heard the slur "glibertarian" -- which is a counter-example to the "short words are insults" stylized fact. Portmanteaus are a great way to fnord up a label.
There are plenty of very stupid "Jews."
It's funny when people are so used to using 'African-American' they use this to refer to black people in different countries.
Note 'white heteronormative cisgendered male' is long, and those of us in the category generally don't use it because its either used to denigrate us, or if simplified would be a signal of 'bad' ethnic chauvinism (majority groups can't be tribal without suggesting Nazi sympathies).
Rajin cajuns comes to mind as the cajun was once considered and insult.
I think both the insisters and the flouters tend to be surly, although in different ways and with different objectives.
You may be right - the norm-enforcers may be surlier than those who are too busy doing their own thing to keep up with word fashions. I'll pay more attention.
Interestingly, former CNN anchor Jim Clancy just had his three decade career at CNN ended after being denounced for being too well informed about another culture. Clancy used the word "hasbara" to reply to a tweet from a man in the hasbara business.
It was widely felt that Clancy had it coming.
If Evelyn Waugh referred to an American as a Yank he was not being complimentary.
Soviet propaganda tended to be full of multi-syllabic slurs.
How many sports teams have adopted slurs on themselves?
Fighting Irish, Yankees, Dodgers, Sooners.
Is Cornhusker a name that started out as an attack?
One pattern is that some very successful groups adopt slurs directed at them: Tories, Whigs, Impressionists, etc.
Perhaps groups that do that tend to be more successful?
More research turned up *Fedora* and *Neckbeard*. Do you suppose Ron Paul supporters are indifferent between being called *Libertarians* or *Neckbeards*?
As a libertarian I would feel annoyed at being called a "libby", but would probably get used to and eventually welcome it. Lets face it, "libertarian" is a mouthful.
However, I am surprised not to see Robin's nail appear in this post: the word "status". To me, the use of longer names seems to confer more status; a signal of "you're worthy enough to devote extra syllables to". Some examples:
-The ridiculous lists of titles nobility used to announce themselves.-"Potus", or "mister president"?-"Your honor", or "judge"?-"Doctor", or "Doc"etc.
I cannot think of a single instance in which a shorter title would seem to confer more status than a longer one, at least for an individual.
It might be interesting see if there is a correlation between the use of "POTUS" vs. "president" and the president's approval rating.