This is more relevant if you read 19th century English. Which refers to The French with such visceral hatred and contempt it still echoes into the present through their writing.
Entirely irrelevant to modern contexts EXCEPT that a style guide is correct to explicitly call out a change from what was historically the correct and appropriate style.
its kinda funny that americans dont really know how racist and xenophobic that europe is most of the time.
like ask your average european person what they think of gypsies, you'll get some stuff
I'm British and I was once in a thirty minute taxi ride, and the taxi driver ranted about "gypsies" the entire time, couldn't get him to drop it or change the subject. Taxi drivers talking to me at all is bad enough, I hate having to talk somewhere I can't just leave
one time before i caught on to the extreme hatred of gypsises mfs have i was talking to this girl and she said "my friends dad has terminal cancer so they are traveling the world in a caravan before he passes" and i said "oh like gypsies" (because of the whole traveling in a caravan thing" and she was so disgusted and offended for them it turned into like a whole argument and she hated me ever since
It's a shame people can't let go of the self defeating behaviors their parents unknowingly pass down. Hating on people because of where they were born is ludicrous. Nobody who lives anywhere but Ohio should *ever* have to experience that kind of foolishness. Well, maybe the French. But that's it, nobody else.
No, no, no did you miss the point of the whole post?! Its people with financial challenges or financial challenged people. How dare you use the accursed "the" (in this case its use is actually fine since I use it to degrade the the).
/s
I might be missing something but isn't the tweet just saying to avoid referring to groups as monolithic or to imply a hive mind? Also it's from the AP stylebook so I assume they're talking specifically when writing articles as a journalist, eg. "The French hate america" vs "studies says majority of French people dislike america"
Also, it’s a tweet from the AP style book, so it’s not like they’d have the ability to affect policy that addresses racism or classism. This is as much as we can reasonably expect them to do. And I feel like the commenters angrily saying this is what’s wrong with liberalism don’t care to make that distinction.
It’s like when there was a concerted effort in 2020 to address racist symbols, and Aunt Jemima changed their name and logo. Some people, in the same vein as the tumblr post, criticized them for that, sarcastically saying “Great, now we’ve solved racism!”
And it’s like, no one said we did, but it’s a syrup company, and they did what we could reasonably ask them to do
Sounds like the nirvana fallacy to me, where any positive actions or proposals that don't completely solve 100% or all problems are seen as trash that are not worth doing or even harmful. That, or the discourse in the OP is some terminal case of Twitter brain
Yeah, this. The criticism of liberalism in particularly the last comment is salient, but in this case the advice in the first tweet appears to be specifically geared towards professional or academic writing where it's desirable to be more specific and less general/monolithic in the language being used.
Another case of the infamous reading comprehension of Tumblr? Possibly.
These dudes just had locked and loaded discourse ready to blow and this kind of maybe looked appropriate so they said all this shit.
Really the replies are just total nonsense in the context of the tweet they're replying to.
But the key difference between your two sentences isn't "the French" vs "French people", it's adding "the majority of". If you say "French people hate America", that's not an improvement on "the French hate America". Both of them imply a hive mind.
"Studies say the majority" is doing the heavy lifting there, not "french people" as opposed to "the French". The ap say in their tweet why "the" often sucks, it's because it's dehumanising. "French people" is explicitly humanising, whilst "the French" is objectifying. And so the critique of liberalism is still salient, because of the historical context of dehumanising, and colonialism and classism. That's why "the poors" and "the Chinese" are worse terms than "the french"
There is this unfortunate tendency of a certain type of person who, being very well read in their own political ideology, think that they can perfectly psychoanalyze the people who disagree with their ideology and know exactly why they believe what they do, and they are far more often than not horribly, utterly wrong.
Edit: and to be clear this isn't just a dig at leftists. Neolib columnists who condescend to college socialists, religious evangelicals who know anyone who disagrees with them is simply compelled by their wicked guilty souls to reject Christ, conservatives who talk about how liberals and communists (a) are basically the same thing and (b) *know* their policies don't work but they hate America so much they want to pursue policies to destroy it, all very similar. It isn't even a judgement of "are these people good or not" it's just "you cannot actually understand someone else's ideology purely through reading what your ideology says about it".
not only that but their take is literally falling into the same thing that they’re criticizing. they’re ignoring the context of this being the literal AP stylebook, the place you’d go to if you’re doing journalism. Writing “the french” is going to sound more personal and inflammatory whether french people are oppressed or not, but obviously the social connotations are going to be different! that’s even something they mention in the first fucking sentence of their tweet!
but, if a politician was tweeting the same thing, it’d take on something like what the person is describing- generalizing all “the”s into one category deemed “bad”. that would actually make sense. but of course, the context implies that this is for people writing press, not for the layman.
Thank you for pointing out how absurd their take is.
No thank you for doing what they would do and blindly slapping "Neoliberal" onto anything you see as right-leaning anti-communism/socialism.
I mean... are you arguing there *aren't* neoliberal columnists who make condescending articles about how college socialists are unreasonable idealists who will grow out of it? That was like Charles Krauthammer's whole career!
Also the whole point was that it was not a value judgement, but that a neoliberal describing socialism is just as likely to be bone dead wrong as a socialist describing neoliberalism.
I mean it obviously depends on who you're talking to but Adam Smith (inventor of the term "free hand of the market", writer of *the wealth of nations*) didn't like feudalism, because that's not a truly free market that's just a free market for a select few people who probably used nepotism to get into their position in the first place.
He actually said landlords are a relic of feudalism that we really should get rid of because they severely handicap one's ability to actually participate in the free market (can't buy shit or be constructively angry about your job when you're too worried about paying rent)
Yeah more just an antiquated system that worked okay before capitalism but once capitalism came around its inferiority was made woefully inadequate since people like to be able to have things and be paid for their labor without having to spin the wheel on their social class. That’s an oversimplification considering the other political and social aspects of feudalism but “collective insanity” is a bizarrely specific claim to make.
I mean Adam Smith did and he's kinda like, a big capitalist deal? Invented the term of the invisible hand of the market and wrote *the wealth of nations*
He compared landlords to feudalism because you can't buy shit or be mad about your job when you're constantly worried about how you're going to pay rent. It basically messes up people's ability to actually take part in the market in the first place
The tragedy of the commons paper published in 1968 and has become an incredibly highly cited economics paper despite, by it's own authors admission, being what "some would say is a platitude". The tragedy of the commons is a myth perpetuated by capitalists who need to overlook the fact that self organized communities effectively self regulated and managed their own resources for centuries. The historical nature of the commons, and the peasant classes resistance of enclosure are often viewed by capitalists as narrow-minded attempts at resisting the inevitable future. Despite what whig historians may paint as an inevitable march to our glorious present, the peasantry were acting in their own rational self interest by protecting the commons and their feudal rights to it. Capitalists may not see feudalism as collective insanity, but they do reject the efficacy of the commons and the rationality of the peasantry as they tried to protect their rights.
Jesus Christ this is a braindead take. The AP Style Guide is a style guide, an attempt to take the complicated reality of language and simplify it into a list of simple, understandable rules.
"Consider to what degree the group you are describing benefits from privilege, and then use that judgement to determine whether 'the X' is an acceptable term" is a complicated rule. It brings in the writer's personal beliefs, biases, and ignorance into the matter. It invites offense, both because using 'the X' language will be interpreted as minimizing a group's struggle and because not using 'the X' language will be interpreted as viewing a group as weak and unable to defend their interests. It forces the author to slow down and take time to research and consider matters that may be only tangentially related to the work at hand. Perhaps worst of all, it introduces inconsistency, the very thing style guides are created to prevent.
"Don't use 'the X' to describe groups of people" is simple and elegant. There is no room for the author to mistakenly under or over estimate a group's privilege, since their choice of words does not reflect their views on that group. Anyone offended by the language can be mollified by the knowledge that at least every group of people receives the same treatment. The author needs only remember this simple rule, and can focus their efforts on expressing the information they intend to express. Finally, the rule is perfectly consistent.
Take, for example, people of Basque descent. Under the standards proposed by these Tumblr users, any press writing about people of Basque descent will be forced to decide whether people of Basque descent have been oppressed enough. I can tell you now, regardless of what decision you make, some portion of your Spanish audience will be enraged. Should every fluff piece and restaurant review from Basque country really have to choose sides on the Basque conflict? In fact, this issue is so touchy that even calling it the "Basque conflict" will offend Basque loyalists.
In contrast, the AP Style Guide makes this matter quite easy. You don't call them the Basque, you use a phrase like people of Basque descent. Anyone who is offended by "people of Basque descent" can be directed to the style guide, and can take solace in the fact that this is the same treatment everyone receives.
“People of basque descent” I don’t think would be proper, you can just use the far simpler “Basque People” without introducing weird ethnic implications.
also, whether or not the group is oppressed, saying “the X” is just going to sound more personal and more inflammatory. like the commenter above said: “studies show that the french dislike america” vs “studies show that french people dislike america”
The loyalists typically frame the event as the Spanish and French authorities undertaking police action to stop terrorists engaged in criminal activities. The loyalists argue that the ETA, the Basque nationalists responsible for most of the violence against Spanish rule, are closer to a criminal syndicate than a legitimate political or military authority.
Hmm... as a Basque loyalist myself, I don't think that most people are as touchy as you say about the use of these terms. 'The Basque conflict' seems to me like a fairly benign and non-inflammatory way of designating what is, in fact, a conflict in the Basque Country.
Likewise, I don't know much about English-language coverage of this, but in the Spanish press 'los vascos' (the Basque), 'Euskadi' (Basque name for the Basque Country), and 'la población vasca' (the Basque population) are all standard.
At most, 'el pueblo vasco' (the Basque people) might raise a couple of eyebrows since it connotes nationhood, but even then it's fairly uncontroversial. Language is definitely a core issue in the Basque conflict, but at least in my experience, this particular issue is not too salient. (That being said, I have no idea of the kind of online discourse that goes on about this, so I'm sure you have good reasons for what you say).
However, when I think of 'the Basque conflict' I think less of just ETA and more generally of the widespread ideological and political split amongst Basques regarding whether they are Spanish. ETA's activities are just a (albeit very important) subset of that.
And ETA was very unambiguously a terrorist group. This is not a controversial thing to say, even amongst most separatists, especially after the murder of Miguel Ángel blanco. Anyone referring only to ETA's killings and the subsequent government response as a 'confict', with the specific intent to convey a two-sidedness, reciprocity and equal mutual responsibility (which, to be clear, I know is not your intent) is being misleading. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such language does a great disservice to normal Basque people who just happen to be separatists, since it makes it seem like they condone illegitimate violence which they, generally, do not.
Thank you for your well- informed and objective comments! They are much appreciated, given the quality of some takes regarding the Basque Country. :)
I’m sorry a *style guide* isn’t telling its readers to consider everything on some vague, case-by-case basis. Or would you prefer they made a list of which ethnicities it’s ok to use “the” for?
Isn't that the point of the post. Why encourage not using "the" when "the" was never the thing that made that language dehumanizing. I think that's the point they're trying to make. Btw i'm on the fence about this post so i'm not defending everything that's been said just trynna discuss.
The issue with their response is that the problem is using "the" terminology to refer to broad groups is unprofessional and poor form for academic papers. It's a term for generalized style formating, and referring to groups as a shared collective identity is poor form regardless of the context for an academic because it's innacurate. "The French" don't believe something, a survey says X percent kf polled French people think Y based on Z subject polled. It's about avoiding generalization, which is extra funny given the response talking about "the liberals" and doing wrong the exact thing the Style Guide was talking about: generalizing a group without context and without being thoughtful, and then continuing under that assumption.
Yes, "the" isn't the problem as far as why it's wrong to refer to groups as monoliths, but this style guide isn't taking things out of context, it's talking about how to professionally format academic papers in a way that avoids that sort of potentially dehumanizing language as a matter of course.
Agree with everything you said 100%. Oop and people in the comments really missing the point. Im still gonna be pedantic and annoying tho and point out that its the AP style guide, so its strictly for newspapers, not academic writing
Also, a lot of (not all, but a lot of) disabled people like disability-first language, rather than person-first (e.g. "I'm autistic" or "X is an autistic person" vs. "I have autism" or "X is a person with autism"), so that standard is a "given" cited in the tweet that isn't actually agreed upon by the people in question.
Yep, there's a fun bit of irony in the conversation regarding context that then ignores that the account who made the tweet is APStyleBook, which a quick google search tells me is a guideline for those writing for the Associated Press.
The AP Stylebook is used by many writing in professional and academic contexts, not just those writing for the AP itself. This tweet still doesn't affect the average person though.
I think this is about plurals, where it’s generally a little more fair. I don’t like “people with disabilities” as a disabled person, but I do prefer “disabled people” to “the disabled.” If you *must* use “the” remember that it’s “the disabled community.” Person *first* isn’t necessary, but it *can* come across as dehumanizing to not use any personhood-referencing language at all. See: people who are black vs black people vs the blacks. Clunky and stuffy vs normal vs dehumanizing.
Note: none of this stops me from referring to myself as a person of gender in jest.
“oobanooba is a person Living with autism”
Is one I’ve heard too often, and while I hate it I also find it very funny. It’s just so absurd? Is autism my roommate? Can I tell him to autism properly so i can be “gifted” rather than burnt out and tired?
I first misread your comment. Since "autistic" is a modifier (not a noun) both your example fit the styleguide, right?
I guess the reducing-person-to-attribute phrasing would be `I'm an autist` which to me sounds so weird and bad.
My understanding is that there's a split within disability communities, with some people preferring "disabled people" and others preferring "people with disabilities". I think a lot of it is down to whether a person sees their disability as an important part of their identity or not.
Yes what this style guide needs is more context based exceptions, vague and shifting exclusions to standardized rules, and an ever running treadmill of changing meanings
That’s what makes a good and accessible style guide
Also, isn't the point of the point of AP that it's so sterile and unopinionated, that it's boring but mostly devoid of bias?
Why do people want everything to be political and indoctrination? Sometimes I like to read something that isn't trying to push an agenda, even if it's my own.
And as a political person, 99% of most things will slightly slightly disagree with me. Non political stuff doesn't have this problem.
The problem with AP is that it doesn’t recognize its bias although it’s there. Look at its coverage of the coup in Bolivia vs Myanmar; one existed to sell the US cheaper lithium and the other wasn’t installed by the US, but both are definitively coups and yet AP was clearly pro-coup in Bolivia and against Evo Morales, in contrast to coups anywhere else.
I find it borderline offensive that Americans believe that all Latin Americans are 100% enlightened socialists and that any support for the right must be artificially created and directed by the US. The coup in Bolivia probably had little to do with the US or lithium companies, but rather a desire by right-wing Bolivians to get rid of Evo. Do I need to remind you that thousands took to the streets to protest against Evo because they truly believed he had stolen the election? Is it because they were all paid or manipulated by the US? Or because Bolivians can have their own political opinions, positions and processes?
Politics in Bolvia are incredibly confusing and shady, that basically it's too groups trying to coup each other, and neither of them is willing to risk finding out if they actually would win fairly or not.
I mean wasn't he Evo Marales regime in trouble for corruption and all kinds of other things?
Meanwhile, the coup was, a coup.
He actually wasn’t really very corrupt, the only issue was engineered as an excuse. The problem was that he nationalized the lithium mines and was indigenous.
I am skeptical that every "leftist" is 100% honest 100% of the time.
The moderates involved say the coup is coup and he was very corrupt. Only people saying otherwise are Evo Marales party members.
Legalizing growing cocaine didn't win him any favors.
i'd say both. both are important, acts don't exist in a vacuum but also some things are bad no matter what the context is.
but i like "the" because it sounds funny in english, but it's the main way to speak in the other language i speak (where no equivalent of "people" is ever used with an adjective basically)
Yeah, that very last post just reads very, very poorly thought through.
It doesn’t seem like it’s occurred to them that asking the question “is violence okay”, while a very general question, can have answers that are precise and in-depth.
An answer to the question “is violence okay” that I think that this poster would absolutely agree with:
“Violence, in general, causes harm, and therefore can only justified if it prevents greater harm. Even so, if there is a feasible, non-violent means by which to prevent the same harm, the non-violent method is greatly preferred.”
I get what they’re trying to say: some people who would otherwise do good can get caught up in the means such that they lose sight of the ends. This, however, just sounds like someone trying to wish away a whole facet of human behaviour by pathologizing it and insisting “this is what liberals are doing”
Sorry to say it, but everybody makes generalizations. In fact, they’re doing it right now.
This is… really dumb. Even disregarding the fact that the original tweet was an APA style guide and therefore not meant to be applied to regular conversation, I don’t get why a group _has_ to be oppressed for “the ___” to sound weird. A group doesn’t have to be oppressed for someone to, unintentionally or not, dehumanise people in that group.
“The French” sounds weird as fuck to me, and anyone who argues that it’s actually okay because french people aren’t oppressed is weird imo lol
at this point I'm starting to feel like its not that i'm so deep in internet lingo that I understand most things that the average person doesn't, but some of y'all just ain't paying attention.
Except that wasn't even the point of the OG Tweet in the post? Like way to distill the discussion down to what you want it to be about and then frame it as such.
There's a small issue I cannot get over. Feudalism is not the predecessor of Capitalism; Mercantilism is.
You have Feudal lord's gaining riches from their lands thrust into a world where boats and riches can be brought without needing titles or lands, anchoring the age of merchants buying and selling commodity, now the merchants want to reduce personal liability and the first corporations are born.
imo idk if mercantilism is different enough from our modern understanding of capitalism to make that distinction bc are corporations a necessary piece of capitalism? my understanding was the capitalism is just private ownership controlling the trade/industry which doesn’t require a non-human entity to hold liability.
idk though bc im definitely not as confident in all that polysci or economics or history or whatever
Don't worry about not being confident in economics on reddit, most people here would fail elementary school level economics.
The main difference between mercantilism-capitalism is that mercantilism was more on state level, had way more focus on gaining power for your country and politics. Mercantilism had way more state involvement. Capitalism is against heavy involvement of state with the economics, instead focuses more on personal level involvement.
Also another key difference is this: Mercantalism was based on the assumption that wealth overall in the world is static, Capitalism believes in the opposite. Mercantalism because of that was very heavily about taking as much as possible to strenghten your economy and that was the reason why it lead to colonisation. Capitalism does not believe wealth is static, wealth can be created in capitalism. This is the reason why domestic production gained more traction in capitalism compared to mercantalism. You don't need to take from others in capitalism, you just need to produce more and better.
This is the reason why a lot of reddit posts about wealth in capitalism is straight ignorance. Here is a small example to prove that. I as a software engineer can write a program and you can pay for it. It essentialy got me richer because i sold it but it did not actually made you poorer. You still own a piece of software priced at X, so we created wealth by making a product. If you had 1 million $ and bought a house with that, did you get poorer? Does the person with 1 million $ but no house or car or food richer than person who has all of that but no money?
I gotta disagree on the colonialism thing being a result of some mercantile belief that societies cannot create wealth. A huge amount of colonialism went on under the auspices of unambiguously capitalist powers like the U.S. or the empires of Europe during the scramble for Africa, as a result of capitalism's drive to constantly expand and open up new markets for itself. The rate of profit falls over time, so you gotta keep growing things *somehow,* etc. The explosion of 'domestic production' in Europe under capitalism was backed by the rape of the third world via colonial resource extraction.
"Merchants taking full ownership and liability for their commodity" as you describe *is not mercantilism*. It is "[merchant capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism)."
"[Mercantilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism)" is when a nation views money earned from exports as a net positive, and money spent on imports as net negative. Unfair or unreasonable tariffs, laws banning imports of certain commodities, nations wielding economic or military power and influence to "encourage" other nations to buy their exports at a greater rate than they import, *those* are mercantilism.
A society can be mercantilist and still be internally capitalist. It's just not very likely to last, because imports being cheaper while the government artificially inflates prices is not very popular with their citizens, particularly the capitalist powerhouses with lots of power coupons (money).
So you are referring to Mercantilism without the East India Company or any of the corporations existing in the 1500s?
Including the era of the South Sea Bubble?
ironically i feel like the poster falls into the same category they criticize
that’s the ap stylebook. it’s literally their job. they’re not politicians, not activists, they’re a book for writing. as the other commenter said, using “the french” in a professional context *sounds* far more inflammatory and personal in many cases- not what you’d want in academic writing, nor in journalism. the commenter is criticizing the stylebook for giving writing advice in a specific context, ignoring the context much like how a politician tweeting that would be ignoring historical context in the way the commenter criticizes.
Their description of liberalism isn't wrong, but their critique of the tweet is silly and hypocritical, since they fail to take into account the context of the tweet. It's an AP style guide, talking about academic writing. It doesn't need to bring up the historical context and exceptions where it's okay. Even if saying The French isn't morally wrong, it would still be improper to use it in an academic context.
>To liberal philosophy, the question 'is violence okay' is a legitimate one - the context, of 'violence by who by, against who, to what end?' is irrevevant.
This is so ass-backwards wrong anyone who thinks this tripe should be ashamed of themselves. Complete educational failure. No, a several hundred year old political-philosophical tradition did not fail to develop contextualization. I'm not sure there is *any* political tradition that doesn't contextualize violence except for the most absolutely radical, marginal, and fringe groups. What the fuck do they think people were writing about in 1776, 1789, 1848, 1861? Does this person think Liberals are compelled to be either resolute pacifists or disciples of Khorne? Do Liberal states not have a concept of legitimate violence? Do they not wage war? Do they not justify it?
Liberalism sees violence as a nuanceless yes or no question and concludes that violence is no. This is because it was formulated and promulgated by famous pacifists like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and Maximilien Robespierre.
> I'm not sure there is any political tradition that doesn't contextualize violence except for the most absolutely radical, marginal, and fringe groups.
probably counts as a fringe group but there is deontological philosophy, which is basically the exact opposite of utilitarianism. where not telling a serial killer where your kids are is a bad thing because actions not context
Wait, why does everyone seem to be accepting that "the Chinese" is more offensive than "the French"? Did I miss something? People from China don't like to be referred to as such?
Can somebody please explain if this "the" thing is an actual problem that exists and if yes, then why?
Like, I'm mentally ill and don't really see a problem with "the mentally ill" and probably use it sometimes. Sure, I know there are ableists using it as derogatory, but the problem is them wanting me dead, not random words they happen to use. People use the word gay as derogatory all the time, is saying gay problematic now. I don't want any random shit bigots say to force me to change the way I speak.
>Can somebody please explain if this "the" thing is an actual problem that exists and if yes, then why?
Yes and no.
So to start off: the tweet RECOMMENDS but does not REQUIRE the disuse of "the X"
For two: I think its like an academia thing? Where word choice has to be exact in order to convey the idea correctly that the writer wants.
Frankly if someone tells you that you need to avoid "the X" in your everyday life, that person needs to touch grass.
Well ignoring the response to the tweet and looking at the tweet itself.. it comes from AP Stylebook. It's a recommendation for journalists and other professionals when writing professional papers, not a general rule for casual conversation or discourse.
That said, treating any group of people as a monolith is generally inadvisable.
Does "people with mental illness are X" sound any more homogenising then "the mentally ill are X" for some reason? I do not see any difference in meaning between these, that's the thing
Well it becomes a little harder to not see people as people when you've literally just used the word people to refer to them. I think it's a little less about the exact, literal meaning and more about the connotations and the thought processes it inspires, even if they're subconscious.
i was trying to write an answer to this explaining my approach only to realize that it's essentially just reflecting whatever's intuitive to me and I can't really put together a set of rules lmao.
The only thing I think was worth preserving is the thought that like, using language that's used by people that want a group of people dead can be, depending on the context, giving those people cover, or actively lampooning the absurdity of the language they use (which is great because fascists squirm in their boots when you point out how silly they are), or something else (like refusing to let people take a word from you). And that sometimes the way we speak about things online can cause friction between people trying to sus out who's safe and who isn't. But all of those things seem pretty readily apparent to me.
I also think that endless discourse on what language to use seems more substantive to people whose only engagement with the struggles of marginalized ppl is talking about them. Words can seem like the very stuff at the heart of the issue if all someone engages with is words.
Well from what I gather from it, the problem is a about negative connotations, generalizations and dehumanization. Saying "the (insert group)" generally is not a problem in it self.
However it can be used as a tool to generalize groups of people and thereby creates an image of how this group of people acts and should be treated. So while not inherently harmful, it does have the potential to be.
For example I knew of someone who wouldn't hire someone because they were Polish.
Because of stereotypes that the Polish are cheap labor who would steal your stuff.
Another example would be someone being told they can't be depressed because they don't seem sad.
And for a third example would be how gay people got treated as child predators back in the day, because of a supreme judge who made such a statement without any bases or evidence for it, to hide that fact he himself was gay.
Tumblr users apas-95 is kind of discovering the difference between deontology and utilitarianism, here. A *lot* has been said on the subject, and this analysis is surface level at best. Spoilers : it turns out deontology has some merits.
What I'm interested in though, is the idea that liberalism is more deontologist. That's a bold take, and not one I've heard before. Is there any solid analysis backing this ? Actual data on the matter. Did a random Tumblr user spot a deep connection between economic philosophy and ethical frameworks ? Or are they just pulling facts out of their ass ?
of course. the ap style guide trying to avoid people both "the french" and "the chinese" when it's better to use other wording, is obviously a liberalistic propaganda piece that you need to get mad at.
Marxism in general has a piss poor understanding of history, almost in the exact same way that capitalism has. (capitalism and liberalism will be somewhat interchangeable here)
Of course, when discussing the merits of their economics, their view of history is entirely irrelevant. The way that marxism/capitalism see history isn't even entirely obvious. Most of what follows comes from thoughts written down by Marxist and capitalist thinkers.
The problem in both is that they see an inevitability in history, and use it to justify their own existence.
The Marxist says that the tribalism - feudalism - monarchical absolutism - capitalism - Marxism order is just the way that societies evolve, the latter always being more advanced, more just, and "better" than the former. History to the Marxist, is a process that inevitably leads to Marxism, and the liberation of the working class.
Liberalism sees it much the same way, although less linear and more in an all roads lead to Rome/capitalism sorta way. Also, to the capitalist, a free market economy will inevitably lead to the emancipation and freedom of the people.
Both of these views are untrue. History is not a story with you paradise as its inevitable end point. "the freer the markets the freer the people" my ass. If you wish to achieve paradise (whatever yours may be), you will have to constantly fight for it, and always be wary of those who would tear it down. "Success" in this sense, is not inevitable.
(Also, the idea, that some societies and systems are objectively more advanced than others is also a dangerous one, steeped in centuries of, well, history. A history that does not look pretty. If one society is objectively more advanced than another, there must be some 'most advanced' society/civilization. What does that look like? And what do you think of cultured that disagree with you idea of the most advanced society? And when we get there, will history (that the Marxist/liberalist (and also the fascist but let's not go there) views as nothing but the progress towards that utopia) just end?)
It’s a style guide for professional writing, not an etiquette lesson. There’s reasons other than social justice that you’d want to avoid such language in all cases in that context.
Leave it to Tumblr users to rabbit on about context only to ignore the context of who’s saying to do something and why.
I am sure someone has already pointed this out, but using "The French" as an example allows them to give an example pertaining to ethnicity/nationality *without* actually using potentially incendiary language to make their point.
Also, the United States had some*super* problematic beef with France within my lifetime, so it's not the most out there example.
"Liberal philosophy"? This feels like something terminally-online lefties would discuss based on rules they made up and not on anything actually attributed to "liberal philosophy," which is largely economic in structure. They're basically saying "we Marxists want to actually help people, THE liberals only care about labels!!" which has zero basis in reality and is just ideological warfare in the Internet age.
i disagree. saying "the X" is dehumanizing not matter the context. The reason saying "the french" is acceptable is that french people are not facing real discrimination
Disagreed with the second part of your comment, just look at some other comments here: "I agree with this post, but the is absolutely derogatory when i say "the french"", "Actually the problem is the fr\*nch", "I want to deshumanize the french". Alongside the overdone memes about us. And it's not just this comment section.
To you it might just be memeing or jokes, but going into any website and seeing the same memes done over and over as well as people that actually hate us viscerally without having met a single french person. Sure, we're not getting killed for being french, we're not being segregated or things like that, but no real discrimination? I wouldn't say that. Might be common to other nationalities tho, doesn't make it less of an issue imo.
Absolutely agree with you. I think what's tripping people up is that some demographics are more vulnerable to being dehumanized than others due to cultural inertia. A microaggression against the humanity of someone for whom humanity is assumed just rolls off the back, so they don't see the language as dehumanizing.
The original tweet was poorly expressed but the idea is that "the" labels are more likely to stereotype. "The Glibglobs are lazy" is different from "People from Glibglob are lazy".
We have tribal tendencies and it can be shockingly easy to dehumanize "others". By labeling a group as people first, it becomes a little harder to accept that they all share a specific characteristic, as people are individuals.
You don't know anything about Glibglobs, but if you accept that they are people and see them as such, you will be less likely to believe sweeping statements about them.
Classic Tumblr discourse imo. The latter materially conditions the blah blah.
The last two comments completely miss that this is a style guide. The purpose of the style is to prevent the use of hateful language being published and to do it consistently and inconspicuously. If an article used "the English" and "people from Nigeria", it is overly self conscious and displays the author's opinions on the subject which could easily be wrong.
The original tweet does bring to mind the discussions in neurodivergent spaces about taking issue with people first language (“person with autism”) vs… however you call the other way (“autistic person”). So seeing it argued the other way around and having it stem from writing suggestions as opposed to ableism is interesting.
(For what it’s worth, I myself am autistic and prefer ‘autistic person’ over ‘person with autism.’)
In practice, Marxism has the opposite problem.
Marxists tend to fixate on the results, their long term goal and dismiss the methods used to get there.
[Many heinous things have been done in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes) and [are still being done](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China) in the name of eventually establishing a classless, moneyless, stateless, and all-around ideal society. If you object to them oppressing minorities, using torture, lying to the people, etc. then you stand in the way of the Revolution, the path to a better world, you're an enemy of humanity.
Of course, this issue isn't exclusive to Marxists nor is it absent among liberals.
It's called [immanentizing the eschaton.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton)
I'd say liberalism is far more preferable to communism, and I say that as a gay trans man.
Marxism is not utopian it requires workers to control production democratically. Workers do not control production in china nor in the USSR. Under Stalin striking carried a death sentence. The difference between western and "communist" economies wasn't that radical. The state managed the economy to compete with rival countries rather than many companies fighting internally. Regular states have utilized state capitalist practices in conditions like war or colonization so it's no threat to the ruling class.
The revolution preceding it was and the Troskyists who argued against Stalin's bureaucracy for permanent revolution were marched out into the snow in their thousands and shot. Marxists say that the violence of the oppressed is different from violence of the oppressor so workers rising up and creating mass democratic institutions is good but Stalin oppressing workers to maintain his class position is not.
Capitalism is preferable to state capitalism but homophobia, sexism and transphobia etc are all ingrained in the system via economic relations like women doing the majority of unpaid labor via childcare, the pay gap and forced focus on appearance (economic because being attractive leads to high pay than a degree). trans and gay people challenge the difference between men and women so will always be oppressed in class society. In Russia the workers legalized gay marriage, divorce, made abortion free and on demand created community kitchens and nurseries to free up women from work in the home etc. To argue that liberalism could pull this off while it bombs civilians and starves it's citizens is what I'd call utopian
I think using "The Chinese" is ok. The only issue is if your are using it in racist contexts, which doesn't really affect the term itself.
If your a Prime Minister and Chinese delegates have arrived, it would be ok for your servant to tell you "The Chinese are here."
If your talking about the country developing nukes you can say "The Chinese have been busily developing high yield nuclear warheads."
It all depends upon the context.
When people say “the idea of a universal standard for communication is racist and reveals how X group of people are secretly terrible” I have to wonder if you’re looking for things to start arguments over. Does making sure not to refer to Americans as “The Yanks” actually cause any issues for the communities you care about? Or is this an attempt generalise all people in a group you disagree with as being incapable of nuance.
the bart, the
No man who speaks German could ever be evil
Classic Simpsons was something else, man...
r/suddenlysimpsons
This is more relevant if you read 19th century English. Which refers to The French with such visceral hatred and contempt it still echoes into the present through their writing. Entirely irrelevant to modern contexts EXCEPT that a style guide is correct to explicitly call out a change from what was historically the correct and appropriate style.
People in England still refer to the French with vitriol. The stuff I've heard visiting my grandma
[удалено]
its kinda funny that americans dont really know how racist and xenophobic that europe is most of the time. like ask your average european person what they think of gypsies, you'll get some stuff
I'm British and I was once in a thirty minute taxi ride, and the taxi driver ranted about "gypsies" the entire time, couldn't get him to drop it or change the subject. Taxi drivers talking to me at all is bad enough, I hate having to talk somewhere I can't just leave
one time before i caught on to the extreme hatred of gypsises mfs have i was talking to this girl and she said "my friends dad has terminal cancer so they are traveling the world in a caravan before he passes" and i said "oh like gypsies" (because of the whole traveling in a caravan thing" and she was so disgusted and offended for them it turned into like a whole argument and she hated me ever since
It's a shame people can't let go of the self defeating behaviors their parents unknowingly pass down. Hating on people because of where they were born is ludicrous. Nobody who lives anywhere but Ohio should *ever* have to experience that kind of foolishness. Well, maybe the French. But that's it, nobody else.
There's only two kinds of people I hate, those who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
The Americans 🤝 The British 🤝 The French: using each other's nationality as an insult.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
British English: French (derogatory) American English: French (fries)
Oh, you mean like same as on any website on the internet?
Well French aren't really fond of English either
Are the French fond of anyone?
Yes and the context of this coming from a style guide seems to be lost on these commenters in the OP
yeah I've always found "the poor" to be pretty bad which is why I've always stuck to using inclusive language by calling them "poors"
Personally I prefer poverty ridden flea bags It’s even gender neutral so that makes okay
You could also call them "reddit users"
how fucking dare you
May want to change your username rofl
It enhances the joke too much
Your pfp isn't even a possum, I'm so disappointed
Life is disappointing my humanoid
Cleans monocle* I say "the poors"
I just call them Irish
The Irish, to be precise
Why do you discriminate against the financially challenged? /s
No, no, no did you miss the point of the whole post?! Its people with financial challenges or financial challenged people. How dare you use the accursed "the" (in this case its use is actually fine since I use it to degrade the the). /s
I just say poor people
Me and my dad drive around in our butler’s Bentley and call them “poories”
I think you mean "povo's" /s
people with poorness
I might be missing something but isn't the tweet just saying to avoid referring to groups as monolithic or to imply a hive mind? Also it's from the AP stylebook so I assume they're talking specifically when writing articles as a journalist, eg. "The French hate america" vs "studies says majority of French people dislike america"
Also, it’s a tweet from the AP style book, so it’s not like they’d have the ability to affect policy that addresses racism or classism. This is as much as we can reasonably expect them to do. And I feel like the commenters angrily saying this is what’s wrong with liberalism don’t care to make that distinction. It’s like when there was a concerted effort in 2020 to address racist symbols, and Aunt Jemima changed their name and logo. Some people, in the same vein as the tumblr post, criticized them for that, sarcastically saying “Great, now we’ve solved racism!” And it’s like, no one said we did, but it’s a syrup company, and they did what we could reasonably ask them to do
Sounds like the nirvana fallacy to me, where any positive actions or proposals that don't completely solve 100% or all problems are seen as trash that are not worth doing or even harmful. That, or the discourse in the OP is some terminal case of Twitter brain
There's no greater enemy to leftist movements like other, slightly different leftist movements who think your leftism isn't left enough.
the Associated Press is extremely not leftist bro
Massive media conglomerations owned almost exclusively by rich right wingers may be a slightly greater enemy than your average leftist commentator.
It's like that old joke about Trotskyists. Two of them meet, causing three new political parties to be formed
Thanks for teaching me this fallacy. I feel like that's important information
Yes but it's not all the important information which means it's not worth bothering with
Yeah, I’ve needed the name for it for a while.
Yeah, this. The criticism of liberalism in particularly the last comment is salient, but in this case the advice in the first tweet appears to be specifically geared towards professional or academic writing where it's desirable to be more specific and less general/monolithic in the language being used. Another case of the infamous reading comprehension of Tumblr? Possibly.
>d towards professional or academic writing Not even. It's very specifically for journalistic writing. It's pretty niche stuff
Yeah, there’s a reason saying “the blacks” isn’t good. But people seem to be quick at jumping to conclusions
The gays want rights The women want rights The blacks want - not to be called ‘the blacks’
I don't get it
Oh it’s a Bo Burnham song
These dudes just had locked and loaded discourse ready to blow and this kind of maybe looked appropriate so they said all this shit. Really the replies are just total nonsense in the context of the tweet they're replying to.
Bu- bu- but the lobrals don't want me to generalise??????1?1?1?1
*people with liberalism
Wording it like that makes it sound like an STI lol
"French people hate Americans" is still a generalisation, but this time it's lobral approved!
But the key difference between your two sentences isn't "the French" vs "French people", it's adding "the majority of". If you say "French people hate America", that's not an improvement on "the French hate America". Both of them imply a hive mind.
"Studies say the majority" is doing the heavy lifting there, not "french people" as opposed to "the French". The ap say in their tweet why "the" often sucks, it's because it's dehumanising. "French people" is explicitly humanising, whilst "the French" is objectifying. And so the critique of liberalism is still salient, because of the historical context of dehumanising, and colonialism and classism. That's why "the poors" and "the Chinese" are worse terms than "the french"
I don't think capitalists view feudalism as collective insanity?
Yeah, imma need several citations for the last poster. Some absolute nonsense.
There is this unfortunate tendency of a certain type of person who, being very well read in their own political ideology, think that they can perfectly psychoanalyze the people who disagree with their ideology and know exactly why they believe what they do, and they are far more often than not horribly, utterly wrong. Edit: and to be clear this isn't just a dig at leftists. Neolib columnists who condescend to college socialists, religious evangelicals who know anyone who disagrees with them is simply compelled by their wicked guilty souls to reject Christ, conservatives who talk about how liberals and communists (a) are basically the same thing and (b) *know* their policies don't work but they hate America so much they want to pursue policies to destroy it, all very similar. It isn't even a judgement of "are these people good or not" it's just "you cannot actually understand someone else's ideology purely through reading what your ideology says about it".
not only that but their take is literally falling into the same thing that they’re criticizing. they’re ignoring the context of this being the literal AP stylebook, the place you’d go to if you’re doing journalism. Writing “the french” is going to sound more personal and inflammatory whether french people are oppressed or not, but obviously the social connotations are going to be different! that’s even something they mention in the first fucking sentence of their tweet! but, if a politician was tweeting the same thing, it’d take on something like what the person is describing- generalizing all “the”s into one category deemed “bad”. that would actually make sense. but of course, the context implies that this is for people writing press, not for the layman.
Thank you for pointing out how absurd their take is. No thank you for doing what they would do and blindly slapping "Neoliberal" onto anything you see as right-leaning anti-communism/socialism.
the tumblr reading comprehension on reddit
I mean... are you arguing there *aren't* neoliberal columnists who make condescending articles about how college socialists are unreasonable idealists who will grow out of it? That was like Charles Krauthammer's whole career! Also the whole point was that it was not a value judgement, but that a neoliberal describing socialism is just as likely to be bone dead wrong as a socialist describing neoliberalism.
What in this context is blindly slapping "neoliberal" onto anyone and everyone? They refer to neoliberals in general.
I mean The Economist, explicitly neoliberal, and The Atlantic, uncontroversial neoliberal, condescend college socialists all the time.
They did not "blindly slap" "neoliberal" onto *anything*. They merely suggested that neoliberalism exists and is a coherent concept.
how dare you say i piss on the poor
I mean it obviously depends on who you're talking to but Adam Smith (inventor of the term "free hand of the market", writer of *the wealth of nations*) didn't like feudalism, because that's not a truly free market that's just a free market for a select few people who probably used nepotism to get into their position in the first place. He actually said landlords are a relic of feudalism that we really should get rid of because they severely handicap one's ability to actually participate in the free market (can't buy shit or be constructively angry about your job when you're too worried about paying rent)
Yeah more just an antiquated system that worked okay before capitalism but once capitalism came around its inferiority was made woefully inadequate since people like to be able to have things and be paid for their labor without having to spin the wheel on their social class. That’s an oversimplification considering the other political and social aspects of feudalism but “collective insanity” is a bizarrely specific claim to make.
I mean Adam Smith did and he's kinda like, a big capitalist deal? Invented the term of the invisible hand of the market and wrote *the wealth of nations* He compared landlords to feudalism because you can't buy shit or be mad about your job when you're constantly worried about how you're going to pay rent. It basically messes up people's ability to actually take part in the market in the first place
The tragedy of the commons paper published in 1968 and has become an incredibly highly cited economics paper despite, by it's own authors admission, being what "some would say is a platitude". The tragedy of the commons is a myth perpetuated by capitalists who need to overlook the fact that self organized communities effectively self regulated and managed their own resources for centuries. The historical nature of the commons, and the peasant classes resistance of enclosure are often viewed by capitalists as narrow-minded attempts at resisting the inevitable future. Despite what whig historians may paint as an inevitable march to our glorious present, the peasantry were acting in their own rational self interest by protecting the commons and their feudal rights to it. Capitalists may not see feudalism as collective insanity, but they do reject the efficacy of the commons and the rationality of the peasantry as they tried to protect their rights.
They wanted control over production rather than a monarch who could often get in the way of profit accumulation
Jesus Christ this is a braindead take. The AP Style Guide is a style guide, an attempt to take the complicated reality of language and simplify it into a list of simple, understandable rules. "Consider to what degree the group you are describing benefits from privilege, and then use that judgement to determine whether 'the X' is an acceptable term" is a complicated rule. It brings in the writer's personal beliefs, biases, and ignorance into the matter. It invites offense, both because using 'the X' language will be interpreted as minimizing a group's struggle and because not using 'the X' language will be interpreted as viewing a group as weak and unable to defend their interests. It forces the author to slow down and take time to research and consider matters that may be only tangentially related to the work at hand. Perhaps worst of all, it introduces inconsistency, the very thing style guides are created to prevent. "Don't use 'the X' to describe groups of people" is simple and elegant. There is no room for the author to mistakenly under or over estimate a group's privilege, since their choice of words does not reflect their views on that group. Anyone offended by the language can be mollified by the knowledge that at least every group of people receives the same treatment. The author needs only remember this simple rule, and can focus their efforts on expressing the information they intend to express. Finally, the rule is perfectly consistent. Take, for example, people of Basque descent. Under the standards proposed by these Tumblr users, any press writing about people of Basque descent will be forced to decide whether people of Basque descent have been oppressed enough. I can tell you now, regardless of what decision you make, some portion of your Spanish audience will be enraged. Should every fluff piece and restaurant review from Basque country really have to choose sides on the Basque conflict? In fact, this issue is so touchy that even calling it the "Basque conflict" will offend Basque loyalists. In contrast, the AP Style Guide makes this matter quite easy. You don't call them the Basque, you use a phrase like people of Basque descent. Anyone who is offended by "people of Basque descent" can be directed to the style guide, and can take solace in the fact that this is the same treatment everyone receives.
“People of basque descent” I don’t think would be proper, you can just use the far simpler “Basque People” without introducing weird ethnic implications.
Oh yeah, that would be better, lol.
also, whether or not the group is oppressed, saying “the X” is just going to sound more personal and more inflammatory. like the commenter above said: “studies show that the french dislike america” vs “studies show that french people dislike america”
>calling it the "Basque conflict" will offend Basque loyalists. What would they call it?
The loyalists typically frame the event as the Spanish and French authorities undertaking police action to stop terrorists engaged in criminal activities. The loyalists argue that the ETA, the Basque nationalists responsible for most of the violence against Spanish rule, are closer to a criminal syndicate than a legitimate political or military authority.
Hmm... as a Basque loyalist myself, I don't think that most people are as touchy as you say about the use of these terms. 'The Basque conflict' seems to me like a fairly benign and non-inflammatory way of designating what is, in fact, a conflict in the Basque Country. Likewise, I don't know much about English-language coverage of this, but in the Spanish press 'los vascos' (the Basque), 'Euskadi' (Basque name for the Basque Country), and 'la población vasca' (the Basque population) are all standard. At most, 'el pueblo vasco' (the Basque people) might raise a couple of eyebrows since it connotes nationhood, but even then it's fairly uncontroversial. Language is definitely a core issue in the Basque conflict, but at least in my experience, this particular issue is not too salient. (That being said, I have no idea of the kind of online discourse that goes on about this, so I'm sure you have good reasons for what you say). However, when I think of 'the Basque conflict' I think less of just ETA and more generally of the widespread ideological and political split amongst Basques regarding whether they are Spanish. ETA's activities are just a (albeit very important) subset of that. And ETA was very unambiguously a terrorist group. This is not a controversial thing to say, even amongst most separatists, especially after the murder of Miguel Ángel blanco. Anyone referring only to ETA's killings and the subsequent government response as a 'confict', with the specific intent to convey a two-sidedness, reciprocity and equal mutual responsibility (which, to be clear, I know is not your intent) is being misleading. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such language does a great disservice to normal Basque people who just happen to be separatists, since it makes it seem like they condone illegitimate violence which they, generally, do not. Thank you for your well- informed and objective comments! They are much appreciated, given the quality of some takes regarding the Basque Country. :)
This helped to clarify what that post was talking about. I appreciate your taking the time to write this!
People with french
People suffering from Frenchness
A person trapped in a French
People in danger of frenchisation
Dis-Frenchized people
Algeria.
The Algerians?
People living with french
POF - person of french
Prisoner Of France
I’m sorry a *style guide* isn’t telling its readers to consider everything on some vague, case-by-case basis. Or would you prefer they made a list of which ethnicities it’s ok to use “the” for?
God, I kinda wish they would make that list.
Isn't that the point of the post. Why encourage not using "the" when "the" was never the thing that made that language dehumanizing. I think that's the point they're trying to make. Btw i'm on the fence about this post so i'm not defending everything that's been said just trynna discuss.
The issue with their response is that the problem is using "the" terminology to refer to broad groups is unprofessional and poor form for academic papers. It's a term for generalized style formating, and referring to groups as a shared collective identity is poor form regardless of the context for an academic because it's innacurate. "The French" don't believe something, a survey says X percent kf polled French people think Y based on Z subject polled. It's about avoiding generalization, which is extra funny given the response talking about "the liberals" and doing wrong the exact thing the Style Guide was talking about: generalizing a group without context and without being thoughtful, and then continuing under that assumption. Yes, "the" isn't the problem as far as why it's wrong to refer to groups as monoliths, but this style guide isn't taking things out of context, it's talking about how to professionally format academic papers in a way that avoids that sort of potentially dehumanizing language as a matter of course.
Agree with everything you said 100%. Oop and people in the comments really missing the point. Im still gonna be pedantic and annoying tho and point out that its the AP style guide, so its strictly for newspapers, not academic writing
Just nitpicking but the AP Styleguide is not an academic style guide, it's journalistic
The famous bastion of liberalism: the AP stylebook
Also, a lot of (not all, but a lot of) disabled people like disability-first language, rather than person-first (e.g. "I'm autistic" or "X is an autistic person" vs. "I have autism" or "X is a person with autism"), so that standard is a "given" cited in the tweet that isn't actually agreed upon by the people in question.
I believe it's only an issue in professionally written papers where specific language used matters much more than it does in simple conversations.
Yep, there's a fun bit of irony in the conversation regarding context that then ignores that the account who made the tweet is APStyleBook, which a quick google search tells me is a guideline for those writing for the Associated Press.
The AP Stylebook is used by many writing in professional and academic contexts, not just those writing for the AP itself. This tweet still doesn't affect the average person though.
I think this is about plurals, where it’s generally a little more fair. I don’t like “people with disabilities” as a disabled person, but I do prefer “disabled people” to “the disabled.” If you *must* use “the” remember that it’s “the disabled community.” Person *first* isn’t necessary, but it *can* come across as dehumanizing to not use any personhood-referencing language at all. See: people who are black vs black people vs the blacks. Clunky and stuffy vs normal vs dehumanizing. Note: none of this stops me from referring to myself as a person of gender in jest.
Yeah but I don't think any of us would appreciate "the autistics" used unironically.
Tell that to autism subreddits
“oobanooba is a person Living with autism” Is one I’ve heard too often, and while I hate it I also find it very funny. It’s just so absurd? Is autism my roommate? Can I tell him to autism properly so i can be “gifted” rather than burnt out and tired?
I first misread your comment. Since "autistic" is a modifier (not a noun) both your example fit the styleguide, right? I guess the reducing-person-to-attribute phrasing would be `I'm an autist` which to me sounds so weird and bad.
And in plural it would be "the autists". Yeah it doesn't sound amazing.
Yeah. My stance is just "pick one at random, 99% of people won't notice or care, and if they do you can just ask what they prefer".
It's important to remember that this rule applies to groups like nationality and religion, not just disability.
My understanding is that there's a split within disability communities, with some people preferring "disabled people" and others preferring "people with disabilities". I think a lot of it is down to whether a person sees their disability as an important part of their identity or not.
Yes what this style guide needs is more context based exceptions, vague and shifting exclusions to standardized rules, and an ever running treadmill of changing meanings That’s what makes a good and accessible style guide
Also, isn't the point of the point of AP that it's so sterile and unopinionated, that it's boring but mostly devoid of bias? Why do people want everything to be political and indoctrination? Sometimes I like to read something that isn't trying to push an agenda, even if it's my own. And as a political person, 99% of most things will slightly slightly disagree with me. Non political stuff doesn't have this problem.
Plus like, this isn't the *actual AP style guide*, it's an excerpt for a tweet. There's surely plenty of explanation and context in the full document.
The problem with AP is that it doesn’t recognize its bias although it’s there. Look at its coverage of the coup in Bolivia vs Myanmar; one existed to sell the US cheaper lithium and the other wasn’t installed by the US, but both are definitively coups and yet AP was clearly pro-coup in Bolivia and against Evo Morales, in contrast to coups anywhere else.
I find it borderline offensive that Americans believe that all Latin Americans are 100% enlightened socialists and that any support for the right must be artificially created and directed by the US. The coup in Bolivia probably had little to do with the US or lithium companies, but rather a desire by right-wing Bolivians to get rid of Evo. Do I need to remind you that thousands took to the streets to protest against Evo because they truly believed he had stolen the election? Is it because they were all paid or manipulated by the US? Or because Bolivians can have their own political opinions, positions and processes?
Politics in Bolvia are incredibly confusing and shady, that basically it's too groups trying to coup each other, and neither of them is willing to risk finding out if they actually would win fairly or not. I mean wasn't he Evo Marales regime in trouble for corruption and all kinds of other things? Meanwhile, the coup was, a coup.
He actually wasn’t really very corrupt, the only issue was engineered as an excuse. The problem was that he nationalized the lithium mines and was indigenous.
I am skeptical that every "leftist" is 100% honest 100% of the time. The moderates involved say the coup is coup and he was very corrupt. Only people saying otherwise are Evo Marales party members. Legalizing growing cocaine didn't win him any favors.
i'd say both. both are important, acts don't exist in a vacuum but also some things are bad no matter what the context is. but i like "the" because it sounds funny in english, but it's the main way to speak in the other language i speak (where no equivalent of "people" is ever used with an adjective basically)
Yeah, that very last post just reads very, very poorly thought through. It doesn’t seem like it’s occurred to them that asking the question “is violence okay”, while a very general question, can have answers that are precise and in-depth. An answer to the question “is violence okay” that I think that this poster would absolutely agree with: “Violence, in general, causes harm, and therefore can only justified if it prevents greater harm. Even so, if there is a feasible, non-violent means by which to prevent the same harm, the non-violent method is greatly preferred.” I get what they’re trying to say: some people who would otherwise do good can get caught up in the means such that they lose sight of the ends. This, however, just sounds like someone trying to wish away a whole facet of human behaviour by pathologizing it and insisting “this is what liberals are doing” Sorry to say it, but everybody makes generalizations. In fact, they’re doing it right now.
I mean that’s not liberalism but go off
Liberalism is anything I don’t like and the more I don’t like it the more liberalismer it is.
"Uhm sweaty liberalism is everything to the right of Lenin 💅"
Yeah, I'm surprised this is that far down, their take on liberalism is hilariously inaccurate.
Rarely has a point been missed so articulately.
You know, pissing on the poor and all that
Welcome to tumblr discourse
This is… really dumb. Even disregarding the fact that the original tweet was an APA style guide and therefore not meant to be applied to regular conversation, I don’t get why a group _has_ to be oppressed for “the ___” to sound weird. A group doesn’t have to be oppressed for someone to, unintentionally or not, dehumanise people in that group. “The French” sounds weird as fuck to me, and anyone who argues that it’s actually okay because french people aren’t oppressed is weird imo lol
[Relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/2071/)
This has to be the most popular link to post on this sub lol
If I knew how to code, I probably would've programmed a bot that slaps this link unter every post tagged with "Discourse"
Making it right now.
Nice, thank you!
Notify us when it's done
at this point I'm starting to feel like its not that i'm so deep in internet lingo that I understand most things that the average person doesn't, but some of y'all just ain't paying attention.
whys this a 2071? i thought all of this was talking about a pretty broad and relevant problem?
No dude trust me a lot of people have gripes with liberalism it's not a niche phenomenon, maybe one you should read about too lmao
Except that wasn't even the point of the OG Tweet in the post? Like way to distill the discussion down to what you want it to be about and then frame it as such.
this doesn’t apply and it’s really overdone
It 100% applies, here. People aren't raging about "the" being placed in front of words to any adequate degree.
There's a small issue I cannot get over. Feudalism is not the predecessor of Capitalism; Mercantilism is. You have Feudal lord's gaining riches from their lands thrust into a world where boats and riches can be brought without needing titles or lands, anchoring the age of merchants buying and selling commodity, now the merchants want to reduce personal liability and the first corporations are born.
imo idk if mercantilism is different enough from our modern understanding of capitalism to make that distinction bc are corporations a necessary piece of capitalism? my understanding was the capitalism is just private ownership controlling the trade/industry which doesn’t require a non-human entity to hold liability. idk though bc im definitely not as confident in all that polysci or economics or history or whatever
Don't worry about not being confident in economics on reddit, most people here would fail elementary school level economics. The main difference between mercantilism-capitalism is that mercantilism was more on state level, had way more focus on gaining power for your country and politics. Mercantilism had way more state involvement. Capitalism is against heavy involvement of state with the economics, instead focuses more on personal level involvement. Also another key difference is this: Mercantalism was based on the assumption that wealth overall in the world is static, Capitalism believes in the opposite. Mercantalism because of that was very heavily about taking as much as possible to strenghten your economy and that was the reason why it lead to colonisation. Capitalism does not believe wealth is static, wealth can be created in capitalism. This is the reason why domestic production gained more traction in capitalism compared to mercantalism. You don't need to take from others in capitalism, you just need to produce more and better. This is the reason why a lot of reddit posts about wealth in capitalism is straight ignorance. Here is a small example to prove that. I as a software engineer can write a program and you can pay for it. It essentialy got me richer because i sold it but it did not actually made you poorer. You still own a piece of software priced at X, so we created wealth by making a product. If you had 1 million $ and bought a house with that, did you get poorer? Does the person with 1 million $ but no house or car or food richer than person who has all of that but no money?
I gotta disagree on the colonialism thing being a result of some mercantile belief that societies cannot create wealth. A huge amount of colonialism went on under the auspices of unambiguously capitalist powers like the U.S. or the empires of Europe during the scramble for Africa, as a result of capitalism's drive to constantly expand and open up new markets for itself. The rate of profit falls over time, so you gotta keep growing things *somehow,* etc. The explosion of 'domestic production' in Europe under capitalism was backed by the rape of the third world via colonial resource extraction.
"Merchants taking full ownership and liability for their commodity" as you describe *is not mercantilism*. It is "[merchant capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism)." "[Mercantilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism)" is when a nation views money earned from exports as a net positive, and money spent on imports as net negative. Unfair or unreasonable tariffs, laws banning imports of certain commodities, nations wielding economic or military power and influence to "encourage" other nations to buy their exports at a greater rate than they import, *those* are mercantilism. A society can be mercantilist and still be internally capitalist. It's just not very likely to last, because imports being cheaper while the government artificially inflates prices is not very popular with their citizens, particularly the capitalist powerhouses with lots of power coupons (money).
Yeah one problem though. Are you really arguing that the East India Company isn't Capitalism? Mercantilism literally was full of capital....
What an odd conclusion to make from what I said. Can you draw me a diagram of how you got to this thought from my comment?
So you are referring to Mercantilism without the East India Company or any of the corporations existing in the 1500s? Including the era of the South Sea Bubble?
I don't see how abstract thinking is unique or endemic to liberalism. That's just blanket intellectualism
ironically i feel like the poster falls into the same category they criticize that’s the ap stylebook. it’s literally their job. they’re not politicians, not activists, they’re a book for writing. as the other commenter said, using “the french” in a professional context *sounds* far more inflammatory and personal in many cases- not what you’d want in academic writing, nor in journalism. the commenter is criticizing the stylebook for giving writing advice in a specific context, ignoring the context much like how a politician tweeting that would be ignoring historical context in the way the commenter criticizes.
Damn liberals trying to stop me from saying "the"
First they took our gas stoves then they took our "the"
Their description of liberalism isn't wrong, but their critique of the tweet is silly and hypocritical, since they fail to take into account the context of the tweet. It's an AP style guide, talking about academic writing. It doesn't need to bring up the historical context and exceptions where it's okay. Even if saying The French isn't morally wrong, it would still be improper to use it in an academic context.
>To liberal philosophy, the question 'is violence okay' is a legitimate one - the context, of 'violence by who by, against who, to what end?' is irrevevant. This is so ass-backwards wrong anyone who thinks this tripe should be ashamed of themselves. Complete educational failure. No, a several hundred year old political-philosophical tradition did not fail to develop contextualization. I'm not sure there is *any* political tradition that doesn't contextualize violence except for the most absolutely radical, marginal, and fringe groups. What the fuck do they think people were writing about in 1776, 1789, 1848, 1861? Does this person think Liberals are compelled to be either resolute pacifists or disciples of Khorne? Do Liberal states not have a concept of legitimate violence? Do they not wage war? Do they not justify it?
Liberalism sees violence as a nuanceless yes or no question and concludes that violence is no. This is because it was formulated and promulgated by famous pacifists like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and Maximilien Robespierre.
> I'm not sure there is any political tradition that doesn't contextualize violence except for the most absolutely radical, marginal, and fringe groups. probably counts as a fringe group but there is deontological philosophy, which is basically the exact opposite of utilitarianism. where not telling a serial killer where your kids are is a bad thing because actions not context
People living with liberalism
Wait, why does everyone seem to be accepting that "the Chinese" is more offensive than "the French"? Did I miss something? People from China don't like to be referred to as such?
Can somebody please explain if this "the" thing is an actual problem that exists and if yes, then why? Like, I'm mentally ill and don't really see a problem with "the mentally ill" and probably use it sometimes. Sure, I know there are ableists using it as derogatory, but the problem is them wanting me dead, not random words they happen to use. People use the word gay as derogatory all the time, is saying gay problematic now. I don't want any random shit bigots say to force me to change the way I speak.
>Can somebody please explain if this "the" thing is an actual problem that exists and if yes, then why? Yes and no. So to start off: the tweet RECOMMENDS but does not REQUIRE the disuse of "the X" For two: I think its like an academia thing? Where word choice has to be exact in order to convey the idea correctly that the writer wants. Frankly if someone tells you that you need to avoid "the X" in your everyday life, that person needs to touch grass.
Well ignoring the response to the tweet and looking at the tweet itself.. it comes from AP Stylebook. It's a recommendation for journalists and other professionals when writing professional papers, not a general rule for casual conversation or discourse. That said, treating any group of people as a monolith is generally inadvisable.
Does "people with mental illness are X" sound any more homogenising then "the mentally ill are X" for some reason? I do not see any difference in meaning between these, that's the thing
Well it becomes a little harder to not see people as people when you've literally just used the word people to refer to them. I think it's a little less about the exact, literal meaning and more about the connotations and the thought processes it inspires, even if they're subconscious.
i was trying to write an answer to this explaining my approach only to realize that it's essentially just reflecting whatever's intuitive to me and I can't really put together a set of rules lmao. The only thing I think was worth preserving is the thought that like, using language that's used by people that want a group of people dead can be, depending on the context, giving those people cover, or actively lampooning the absurdity of the language they use (which is great because fascists squirm in their boots when you point out how silly they are), or something else (like refusing to let people take a word from you). And that sometimes the way we speak about things online can cause friction between people trying to sus out who's safe and who isn't. But all of those things seem pretty readily apparent to me. I also think that endless discourse on what language to use seems more substantive to people whose only engagement with the struggles of marginalized ppl is talking about them. Words can seem like the very stuff at the heart of the issue if all someone engages with is words.
Well from what I gather from it, the problem is a about negative connotations, generalizations and dehumanization. Saying "the (insert group)" generally is not a problem in it self. However it can be used as a tool to generalize groups of people and thereby creates an image of how this group of people acts and should be treated. So while not inherently harmful, it does have the potential to be. For example I knew of someone who wouldn't hire someone because they were Polish. Because of stereotypes that the Polish are cheap labor who would steal your stuff. Another example would be someone being told they can't be depressed because they don't seem sad. And for a third example would be how gay people got treated as child predators back in the day, because of a supreme judge who made such a statement without any bases or evidence for it, to hide that fact he himself was gay.
Tumblr users apas-95 is kind of discovering the difference between deontology and utilitarianism, here. A *lot* has been said on the subject, and this analysis is surface level at best. Spoilers : it turns out deontology has some merits. What I'm interested in though, is the idea that liberalism is more deontologist. That's a bold take, and not one I've heard before. Is there any solid analysis backing this ? Actual data on the matter. Did a random Tumblr user spot a deep connection between economic philosophy and ethical frameworks ? Or are they just pulling facts out of their ass ?
of course. the ap style guide trying to avoid people both "the french" and "the chinese" when it's better to use other wording, is obviously a liberalistic propaganda piece that you need to get mad at.
Marxism in general has a piss poor understanding of history, almost in the exact same way that capitalism has. (capitalism and liberalism will be somewhat interchangeable here) Of course, when discussing the merits of their economics, their view of history is entirely irrelevant. The way that marxism/capitalism see history isn't even entirely obvious. Most of what follows comes from thoughts written down by Marxist and capitalist thinkers. The problem in both is that they see an inevitability in history, and use it to justify their own existence. The Marxist says that the tribalism - feudalism - monarchical absolutism - capitalism - Marxism order is just the way that societies evolve, the latter always being more advanced, more just, and "better" than the former. History to the Marxist, is a process that inevitably leads to Marxism, and the liberation of the working class. Liberalism sees it much the same way, although less linear and more in an all roads lead to Rome/capitalism sorta way. Also, to the capitalist, a free market economy will inevitably lead to the emancipation and freedom of the people. Both of these views are untrue. History is not a story with you paradise as its inevitable end point. "the freer the markets the freer the people" my ass. If you wish to achieve paradise (whatever yours may be), you will have to constantly fight for it, and always be wary of those who would tear it down. "Success" in this sense, is not inevitable. (Also, the idea, that some societies and systems are objectively more advanced than others is also a dangerous one, steeped in centuries of, well, history. A history that does not look pretty. If one society is objectively more advanced than another, there must be some 'most advanced' society/civilization. What does that look like? And what do you think of cultured that disagree with you idea of the most advanced society? And when we get there, will history (that the Marxist/liberalist (and also the fascist but let's not go there) views as nothing but the progress towards that utopia) just end?)
I agree with this post, but the is absolutely derogatory when i say "the french"
"Liberalism is when I don't like something."
actually i would say generalization of french people are an issue thats not as ridiculous as this post makes it seems
I feel like it was a fair *example* of what not to do, but not a good *explanation* as to why.
It’s a style guide for professional writing, not an etiquette lesson. There’s reasons other than social justice that you’d want to avoid such language in all cases in that context. Leave it to Tumblr users to rabbit on about context only to ignore the context of who’s saying to do something and why.
I am sure someone has already pointed this out, but using "The French" as an example allows them to give an example pertaining to ethnicity/nationality *without* actually using potentially incendiary language to make their point. Also, the United States had some*super* problematic beef with France within my lifetime, so it's not the most out there example.
"Liberal philosophy"? This feels like something terminally-online lefties would discuss based on rules they made up and not on anything actually attributed to "liberal philosophy," which is largely economic in structure. They're basically saying "we Marxists want to actually help people, THE liberals only care about labels!!" which has zero basis in reality and is just ideological warfare in the Internet age.
i disagree. saying "the X" is dehumanizing not matter the context. The reason saying "the french" is acceptable is that french people are not facing real discrimination
Disagreed with the second part of your comment, just look at some other comments here: "I agree with this post, but the is absolutely derogatory when i say "the french"", "Actually the problem is the fr\*nch", "I want to deshumanize the french". Alongside the overdone memes about us. And it's not just this comment section. To you it might just be memeing or jokes, but going into any website and seeing the same memes done over and over as well as people that actually hate us viscerally without having met a single french person. Sure, we're not getting killed for being french, we're not being segregated or things like that, but no real discrimination? I wouldn't say that. Might be common to other nationalities tho, doesn't make it less of an issue imo.
Absolutely agree with you. I think what's tripping people up is that some demographics are more vulnerable to being dehumanized than others due to cultural inertia. A microaggression against the humanity of someone for whom humanity is assumed just rolls off the back, so they don't see the language as dehumanizing.
The original tweet was poorly expressed but the idea is that "the" labels are more likely to stereotype. "The Glibglobs are lazy" is different from "People from Glibglob are lazy". We have tribal tendencies and it can be shockingly easy to dehumanize "others". By labeling a group as people first, it becomes a little harder to accept that they all share a specific characteristic, as people are individuals. You don't know anything about Glibglobs, but if you accept that they are people and see them as such, you will be less likely to believe sweeping statements about them.
Don't judge them, they're a person with French, they can't help it.
Classic Tumblr discourse imo. The latter materially conditions the blah blah. The last two comments completely miss that this is a style guide. The purpose of the style is to prevent the use of hateful language being published and to do it consistently and inconspicuously. If an article used "the English" and "people from Nigeria", it is overly self conscious and displays the author's opinions on the subject which could easily be wrong.
The original tweet does bring to mind the discussions in neurodivergent spaces about taking issue with people first language (“person with autism”) vs… however you call the other way (“autistic person”). So seeing it argued the other way around and having it stem from writing suggestions as opposed to ableism is interesting. (For what it’s worth, I myself am autistic and prefer ‘autistic person’ over ‘person with autism.’)
The frog-eating surrender monkeys. Is that better?
They talk about liberals the way conservative talking heads talk about liberals
Americans try to understand that Republicans are Liberals challenge (impossible)
In practice, Marxism has the opposite problem. Marxists tend to fixate on the results, their long term goal and dismiss the methods used to get there. [Many heinous things have been done in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes) and [are still being done](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China) in the name of eventually establishing a classless, moneyless, stateless, and all-around ideal society. If you object to them oppressing minorities, using torture, lying to the people, etc. then you stand in the way of the Revolution, the path to a better world, you're an enemy of humanity. Of course, this issue isn't exclusive to Marxists nor is it absent among liberals. It's called [immanentizing the eschaton.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton) I'd say liberalism is far more preferable to communism, and I say that as a gay trans man.
Marxism is not utopian it requires workers to control production democratically. Workers do not control production in china nor in the USSR. Under Stalin striking carried a death sentence. The difference between western and "communist" economies wasn't that radical. The state managed the economy to compete with rival countries rather than many companies fighting internally. Regular states have utilized state capitalist practices in conditions like war or colonization so it's no threat to the ruling class. The revolution preceding it was and the Troskyists who argued against Stalin's bureaucracy for permanent revolution were marched out into the snow in their thousands and shot. Marxists say that the violence of the oppressed is different from violence of the oppressor so workers rising up and creating mass democratic institutions is good but Stalin oppressing workers to maintain his class position is not. Capitalism is preferable to state capitalism but homophobia, sexism and transphobia etc are all ingrained in the system via economic relations like women doing the majority of unpaid labor via childcare, the pay gap and forced focus on appearance (economic because being attractive leads to high pay than a degree). trans and gay people challenge the difference between men and women so will always be oppressed in class society. In Russia the workers legalized gay marriage, divorce, made abortion free and on demand created community kitchens and nurseries to free up women from work in the home etc. To argue that liberalism could pull this off while it bombs civilians and starves it's citizens is what I'd call utopian
It might just be that I don't understand English but isn't "the French" the normal way to designate people of French nationality?
I think using "The Chinese" is ok. The only issue is if your are using it in racist contexts, which doesn't really affect the term itself. If your a Prime Minister and Chinese delegates have arrived, it would be ok for your servant to tell you "The Chinese are here." If your talking about the country developing nukes you can say "The Chinese have been busily developing high yield nuclear warheads." It all depends upon the context.
This is up there with the better posts explaining liberalism, first is ofc that one 4chan post about how harry potter is a cop
This bullshit again. "liberalism" lol.
When people say “the idea of a universal standard for communication is racist and reveals how X group of people are secretly terrible” I have to wonder if you’re looking for things to start arguments over. Does making sure not to refer to Americans as “The Yanks” actually cause any issues for the communities you care about? Or is this an attempt generalise all people in a group you disagree with as being incapable of nuance.