political foo, social foo: Being respectful

[alpharaposa]

When I was a teenager, my dad was the Conference Scouting Coordinator and head of the local NAUMS chapter and all sorts of things Scouting related. This was still a pretty new thing, so he was building groups and coalitions and having lots of meetings with folks. I came along on a lot of these, as I've always loved Scouting as well, and I found a role in the melee.

One thing was that, while the Boy Scouts were officially the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the Girl Scouts were not the Girl Scouts of America (GSA). They were the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). Being a teenager, I found the distinction dumb, and I remarked on it to my dad.

He shrugged the question of how dumb it might be off. The important thing, he told me, is that this is all new to them, too. So, to show that we respect them and want to include them, it's important that we use the right name. We had a lot of Boy Scouts to whom BSA lingo was like breathing, but we needed to be able to show the Girl Scouts that we took them seriously and that they were important to us, too. So we had to learn and use the GSUSA lingo. To do otherwise would be rude, and would shut them out.

And we had to learn to speak Campfire Boys and Girls. And 4-H. Using the right names in the right places meant that they were welcome and important.

Now, I've twice in the past few months said something when somebody used the term 'antichoice', because those people are the sorts of people that I didn't think would want to be outright rude to others. I got nowhere in both conversations.

So, maybe this will explain. In this big social battle that goes on, using the preferred words and lingo used by the other side is like waving a flag of parley. It shows that you are interested in putting aside the fighting for a bit to discuss why we're here and what we expect to get out of this. We might not get anywhere in the discussion, but we can have it.

Using insider terms is like closing your visor and picking up your shield. Using an inflammatory term that is also used by trolls in internet fora is like picking up a sword. Both of these actions signal that you're not really interested in discussion, at least not with me.

And in that case, I'm don't want to fight in Livejournal or Twitter or Facebook or other such places. If fighting is what you want, I'll meet you at the voting booth and we can see which side prevails there.

And please don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't mean it too horribly, it isn't rude. Imagine telling a room full of gay men that you only use 'fag' to refer to the really flamboyant gay men, and you don't mean the rest of them. You probably won't get a very good reaction from most of the room.

If you don't care about my opinions, that's fine, but be aware of the signals you send by the words you choose.

Comments

[stryck.livejournal.com]

I have seen 'antichoice' used in a manner similar to 'fascist'. That you might not mean it that way doesn't mean it doesn't get used as an insult and a bludgeon often enough in other places.

Simply using the term 'antichoice' over 'prolife' shuts my point of view out of the discussion. By your standards, they might not mean anything different, but it means a great deal to me (as haikujaguar commented). Using the preferred word, the consensus word of polite discussion - prolife - does not shut me out automatically.

If most of the people you talk to use the same lingo, it can be hard to realize just how shocking certain terms may be to a different group. Even things which are not insulting may serve to exclude others from a conversation entirely.

In my conversations about 'antichoice', I compared it to a pro-lifer using 'prodeath'. They're both offensive. A prochoice advocate would recognize the insulting nature of 'prodeath' immediately and seek to defend themselves against it. But then these same people turned around and argued that there was nothing wrong with 'antichoice'.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I've managed to miss those types of pro-choice people!

I've heard a lot more of the insulting and bludgeoning from the pro-life side.

But I'm not saying you're wrong that "anti-choice" has been used that way.

I still don't think it gets to the level of "faggot" though. Are the pro-choice people worrying about getting mugged or murdered or having their children harassed?

[stryck.livejournal.com]

I've run into surprising misinformation about the prolife side of things. I spoke with somebody in passing who didn't know that most prolife organizations support exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest.

If most of the folks you hang out with online are fellow prochoice types, you might never run into the ones who go trolling on sites where prolife types are likely to hang out. However, you might attract other types of trolls. It's easy to assume that the only rude people are the ones on the other side of the debate, if that's the only part of it you ever experience.

[zeeth_kyrah]

I would suggest that the most neutral term would be "anti-abortion", which currently stands outside the implied contexts of "all people must live" (pro-life) and "taking away peoples' rights" (anti-choice), at least so far as I've heard it used.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I think people avoid that term because some people react very strongly to the word "abortion", all by itself. Just as they react to the proper terms for male and female genitalia.

It's just a theory; I could be wrong.

[zeeth_kyrah]

I respectfully suggest that the discussion is sufficiently charged that just mentioning "abortion" as such would not be enough to startle those already going at it. The term "anti-abortion" is focused specifically on the target issue, instead of the widely-used marketing terms with which most people refer to their side of the debate; the fact that those terms are successful is, I think, due to the implied context of related ideas in them and continuous use by the persons and groups which first used and shared them.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that that term "anti-abortion" is focused specifically on the target issue.

I also agree that the term abortion does not startle those already engaged in the debate. However, I think there is a perception that the word itself gets people stirred up and upset, and I suspect that to some more limited degree, that is true.

Startlement is not the only way a word can garner an emotional reaction.

I do agree that the term "pro-life" benefits strongly from the constellation of related ideas implied in the word "life".

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure "anti-abortion" is useful in these terms.

Medically-induced abortion is sometimes the only procedure that can save a woman's life in the event of a truly tragic pregnancy problem. I would not want to outlaw it as a medical procedure. I do want it to be a "this baby is dead anyway, and the mother's in danger, something must be done" last resort for doctors. The ideal is that the doctor attempts to save both patients, but if that's not possible, then having at least one live is better than both dying.

It's elective abortion that the debate centers around for most people.

"Anti-elective-abortion" is fine.