The issue isn’t changing language, it’s quickly changing language

Lingo is used by groups the world over to communicate about complex topics quickly. A side effect of this is that use of lingo excludes those who aren’t familiar with the terms. In most settings (like workplaces) this is a necessary evil and newcomers quickly catch on and the language is not a barrier to them being a part of the group while everyone communicates efficiently.

What’s going on here is lingo being used because of the side effects, not in spite of them. Lingo is rapidly created and viciously enforced to tighten group bonds and identity based on ideology by using language to distance the group from outsiders.

Don’t know the latest terms? You aren’t consuming the right media. Better watch these videos and read these articles that reinforce the group’s ideology.

Didn’t use the newest lingo? You aren’t spending enough time on the right sites and platforms. Here, this echo chamber will get you up to speed.

Did you use a term incorrectly? Here comes the negative peer pressure to keep you in line with the group.

Don’t be surprised that you lose the support of the average person when you isolate yourself from them by rapidly creating new lingo.

Given that partisans have created an “us versus them” world, don’t be surprised where people who could have been allies end up when your use of new language makes them realize they aren’t in the club anymore.

According to that link the study was conducted in 1983 and counts shouting as abuse.

I’m gonna get eviscerated for saying this, but take what you hear here with a grain of salt.

Lemmy doesn’t exactly reflect the experience of the average American.

Going to get?

No, that’s Fig 15.

They live next door to the much more famous Getty Images.

Probably not related, but I tell people I got a new car when it was definitely certified pre-owned.

And anywhere that wants an indoor performance of the 1812 Overture.

I spent years being horrible to women and drinking because of the resentments I had.

Don’t make my mistake.

Victimhood does not magically bestow virtue.

Victimhood is not a free pass to behave immorally.

Victimhood is not permission to be prejudiced.

Victimhood does not give a person permission to hate.

Mistrusting half of the human population because of the genes they were born with isn’t being cautious, it’s being prejudiced.

I was sexually assaulted by a female family member as a child. Repeatedly. I was then made to believe that that was “fun” and to seek it out.

My experience does not under any circumstances allow me to be a misogynist.

I find bigotry wrong. It took a lot of years to process what happened to me at the ripe old age of six, but it was my moral responsibility to do so rather than to take the shortcut to hatred.

By your logic a person who gets assaulted by a black person allowed to prejudge all black people.

I feel perfectly fine saying that’s morally wrong.

Stereotyping people based on aspects of their personality they were born with is wrong. Period.

Not making me feel better about my previous statement…

Because the gun laws in place are about as far as things can go without repealing the second amendment. Further laws are either doomed to fail or make only marginal differences.

Those bills and proposals waste precious political capital that could otherwise be used passing laws that address the root causes of homicide.

They’d have my vote, along with probably tens of millions of other independents.

Honestly, gun control is the “poison pill” of the Democratic platform. They’ve got a ton of great ideas and policies but demand one of your civil rights in exchange. Even for people who aren’t into guns, the idea giving up any civil right is problematic to say the least.

When politicians are looking to score points with the public will they enact expensive social safety nets, or will they push for cheap and quick weapon bans?

Do politicians care about efficacy, or do they care about appearing to take action?

If a person’s goal is to reduce homicides the means need to be decoupled from the argument. It’s highly counterintuitive, but four decades of US domestic policy have proven that if the means of homicide are a part of the discussion politicians will focus on it in order to look like they’re doing something without spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money - efficacy be damned.

The US public and Congress have been making a mistake for 40 years by getting distracted by the “how” and not focusing on addressing the “why”.

Don’t make the same mistake.

It’s not just hair, it attraction in a marriage.

We’re talking about a major voluntary change to a person’s appearance made repeatedly despite their spouse’s objections. While the wife is absolutely free to do whatever, the lack of consideration speaks volumes.

Imagine if he shaved off his eyebrows off and his wife said he looked weird like that. He likes it, she hates it and finds it ugly. He absolutely, undeniably has the right to keep his eyebrows bare as a baby’s bottom.

In our hypothetical, him not trying to make a compromise (like trimming his eyebrows halfway or tweezing them) means that he’s totally OK with his spouse finding him repulsive and is not willing to budge an inch for her sake. He’s going to do what he wants, her feelings of attraction towards her spouse are simply unimportant to him.