#like it's obvious when it's a hindu-swastika argument

[revcleo]

I would like for people to stop using etymology as a reason why to not use a word in the modern day. It is fine to have other reasons. Using the history of a word to say why the modern usage is bad, is a very bad argument.

These words all have quite different beginnings to their current meanings (ty to the online etymological dictionary)

pencil (n.)

mid-14c., pencel, "an artist's small, fine brush of camel hair," used for painting, manuscript illustration, etc., from Old French pincel "artist's paintbrush" (13c., Modern French pinceau) and directly from Medieval Latin pincellus, from Latin penicillus "painter's brush, hair-pencil," literally "little tail," diminutive of peniculus "brush," itself a diminutive of penis "tail"

guy

"fellow," 1847, American English; earlier, in British English (1836) "grotesquely or poorly dressed person," originally (1806) "effigy of Guy Fawkes," leader of the Gunpowder Plot to blow up British king and Parliament (Nov. 5, 1605). The effigies were paraded through the streets by children on the anniversary of the conspiracy.

[aside: he was not the leader, Catesby was the leader, Guido was the gunpowder expert]

satire (n.)

c. 1500, "a literary work (originally in verse) intended to ridicule prevailing vice or folly by scornful or contemptuous expression," from French satire (14c.) and directly from Latin satira "satire; poetic medley," earlier satura, in lanx satura "mixed dish, dish filled with various kinds of fruit," literally "full dish," from fem. of satur "sated" (from PIE root *sa- "to satisfy").

book (n.)

Middle English bok, from Old English boc "book, writing, written document," generally referred (despite phonetic difficulties) to Proto-Germanic *bōk(ō)-, from *bokiz "beech" (source also of German Buch "book" Buche "beech;" see beech), the notion being of beechwood tablets on which runes were inscribed; but it may be from the tree itself (people still carve initials in them).

sugar (n.)

late 13c., sugre, from Old French sucre "sugar" (12c.), from Medieval Latin succarum, from Arabic sukkar, from Persian shakar, from Sanskrit sharkara "ground or candied sugar," originally "grit, gravel" (cognate with Greek kroke "pebble").

And that's not even counting otherwise innocuous words which have taken up slur meanings over time, i.e. Special, Coloured, Fairy

[definitelynotplanetfall]

so about that orientation/preference brouhaha

Having slept nonzero hours and having mulled this over a bit

I don’t exactly have a horse in this race as a filthy Fake Pseudo Ace That Doesn’t Even Have The Decency To Be Aro Or Gay Or Even Completely Ace I Mean Stolen Valor Much. It’s literally impossible to criminalize not having sex. Utterly unenforceable. I get that I’m not being targeted here and my opinion doesn’t really matter except as a barometer for “is planetfall a good person” (which I am not, and could have told you without any of the fuss). I have no specific love for the phrase “sexual preference,” I don’t think I have ever even used it, but also it’s such a nothing distinction. I do not care that Important Organizations declared it offensive years ago, because the reasoning they used to do so is silly, and of the people I’ve seen saying it definitely is not offensive what on earth are you on about, a bunch of them are LGBTQ.

And again, to address the issue that spawned this specific instance of this discourse, given Barrett’s record and the way homophobes do seem to insist on saying preference, it probably is a signal she intends to use her power in bigoted ways.

But like.

First of all, it is incredibly foot-shooty to say the evidence of her prejudice is the fact that she said “sexual preference” and not “sexual orientation,” which requires a fair bit of contextual understanding to see what the problem is and looks like pedantic hair-splitting without that knowledge, when shit like this exists.

Second - I’m sort of Von Wokensteining here, and to my understanding this entire argument started from one tweet or something similar, and it’d be misleading to assert “this one tweeter is the avatar for progressivism!“

EDIT: That’s not correct, it was a senator at her hearing rather than a rando providing commentary. I should have confirmed this myself and only learned it a few days later. This shows how accusations are taken out of context and passed around demanding judgment. I definitely could have spent more time reading about this incident, because I am a shitty excuse for a person with unlimited time. Every random Joe Blow does not have that luxury.

In my defense I was not paying attention to the hearing because I just assumed she would be maximally bad on all issues, considering who appointed her, and that was not a swamp I really wanted to wade through.

However.

People rushing to defend the assertion that “sexual preference” is self-evidently offensive gives at the very least an impression of a unified ideological coalition.

And, I said this in the last post but it bears repeating, the left lost the right to use “born this way” rhetoric the moment it became a semi-common talking point that you need to challenge your attractions if you aren’t attracted to an adequate cross-section of your area’s ethnic makeup or whatever. To intentionally try to change your attractions. To choose your attractions, if I may be so bold.

The charge against “sexual preference” is that it implies that orientation is a choice, which is supposedly hopelessly reactionary. Even ignoring for a moment that it does not in fact imply this, you do not get to tell people it is indefensible to IMPLY things that your side SAYS OUTRIGHT.

Also, quite frankly, I consider myself to have been made more ace during my lifetime by certain prevalent messages (and other hyper-targeted ones), and like, if the argument is actually that non-innate sexualities are illegitimate, does that mean that there can be no moral objection to someone raping me because the sky wizard said so?

[edit: screaming redacted]

It literally does not matter whether who you’re attracted to is a choice or inborn or whatever because that is not the moral dimension, the moral dimension is “does it hurt anyone?” which it fucking doesn’t why is this so difficult

I don’t give a shit about the rhetoric. The rhetoric sucks. The rhetoric is wrong.

Third, I’m extremely suspicious of any sort of euphemism-treadmill type anything, but one thing that’s especially suspect is when someone says “X term is offensive to Y demographic” against the wishes of that demographic. Like, my circles are not the widest, but I have mostly seen LGBTQ people being upset at being spoken for against their own wishes, sometimes with people chiming in and helpfully saying “no, see, you should be offended! This article says you are offended so stop pretending not to be!”

I am not trying to make a false equivalency of the relative badness levels but please, try to appreciate the poetic irony in unironically deploying “The Dedicated Truth Decreer said the innocuous-on-its-face thing was bad” in this of all possible situations.

It’s the “listen to X (I am not X, and X that disagree with me are not real X so don’t listen to them)” thing. The entire authority of that sort of article rests on the authors speaking for groups, so when members of that group say “this is bullshit pedantry and not offensive, and in fact your declaring it offensive on my behalf makes me feel less safe in places purportedly organized for my benefit” does in fact undermine the authority of those declarations.

Fourth, this is not as strong of an argument and really super tangential, but I’m personally sick of people just... giving things up because bad people claim them. I don’t extend this infinitely, so for instance Hindus trying to reclaim the swastika are probably right on the level of “it is wrong that this important symbol from our culture has been made synonymous with the greatest evil in living memory, and this change should be reverted,” but it’s so culturally ingrained that I don’t know if it is possible to fix at this point.

However, I remember when a bunch of Nazis were like “we own Pepe the frog now” and the response to this was like, “Yeah! Let them grab whatever culture they want, it is tainted by their even saying they want it! Also all Pepe memes made before this point are retroactively fascist!” and just...

That’s fucking transparently stupid. That specific thing has abated and you can find lefty Pepe memes now, nature is healing etc etc, but the “anime = fascist” thing hasn’t and it’s so so mind-numbing that you would just cede entire genres of art and start asserting that anyone who enjoys them is automatically irredeemable without considering what effect this might have on how unhinged you look or your ability to say your ideal world is better than theirs. I remember arguing with someone about this circa 2016 and I said something to the effect of “well what if instead of next they claim jazz” and they said it would suck that nobody could listen to jazz anymore. (iirc, this person was white which makes it extra hilarious/depressing, but the forum thread where it happened seems to be deleted so assume I made this up from whole cloth)

The reason I bring this up is part of the reason people say “it implies orientation is a choice” is because that’s what homophobes say it means (in contradiction to the literal words, naturally) and why they insist on using it. It’s less of a concrete thing, but the two feel isomorphic.

Lastly... OK so in my other post I used sort of a cringy programming metaphor, because I was half asleep so the only part of my brain still functioning was “comprehension of programming problems” amirite fellas. I don’t like definition debates in general but it seems like a lot of the people insisting “preference = choice” are using different definitions, so this is mostly just to show how that is not the only obvious interpretation.

A sexual orientation is a description of what gender(s) someone wants to have sex with.

A preference is a description of what someone wants.

Therefore a sexual orientation is a type of preference.

Note that nothing there says anything about origin or mutabiliy. Just that if you ask someone what their orientation is, you will get information about what they do and don’t want.

I need to stress that based on the context that sparked off this debacle I can understand why someone’s interpretation of the phrase might be “orientation is a choice” - even though I think it’s wrong to assume that’s what is meant by the phrase inherently, it’s a reasonable reaction to pattern-match talking points.

But the other thing is that it’s probably wrong to perma-delete the phrase because it isn’t gibberish.

What I mean by that is I get frustrated whenever someone is talking about an expenditure of energy and time related to feelings, and someone else comes along and screeches “THAT’S NOT WHAT EMOTIONAL LABOR MEANS”

and yes, that is not what the jargon phrase “emotional labor” means

but the person you’re yelling at was in fact describing labor that is emotional, and due to the way English works, you are allowed to delete the “that is” and move the adjective before the noun. Some would even recommend this in the name of concision. (And as I’ve said before, “emotion work” as a substitute phrase is...linguistically unpleasant to say the least.)

Saying that you can’t say “sexual preference” is sort of in the same boat. People will want to talk about preferences that are sexual, because there are more variables than just orientation, but those things still matter and should get a category name and look the entire argument falls apart if you don’t make bizarre assumptions about the connotations of the word “preference” and there are only so many ways I can state that fact.

IN SHITTY CONCLUSION

The fact that I wrote out a giant post defending a phrase I don’t otherwise care about reveals some sort of deep moral failing.