Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Robin
The ferocity of many of the reactions to the initial post, most from "men of a certain age"
|
I have to admit - the framing of those who ask for the use of inclusive language as people who have 'renounced the use and authority of reason' and who hold 'humanity in contempt' was certainly a reply that made me do a double-take.
"I don't understand and/or can't empathize with X, therefore doing X is entirely unreasonable and illogical" is certainly another common thread in these debates.
Since you mentioned prescriptivism: I find that it's a common way in which language is used as a tool to exclude or otherwise denigrate people belonging to certain groups. At the same time, it serves to identify oneself as belonging to a (supposedly) high-prestige in-group, e.g. of the 'refined' people that speak 'properly' and use 'logical' language (as if the latter two were a thing). Whether it's done consciously or not, it often seems to me like an attempt to establish authority over the discourse.
It's probably also not entirely unrelated to the fact that attacking someone for their lack of adherence to entirely arbitrary linguistic rules is typically easier than engaging with the actual arguments they're making. Yes, I'm still angry about the time someone tried to use a "black people speak degenerate English"-type argument as 'evidence' as to why the problems that black people face in the US are 'entirely home-made' and their plight to end systemic racism is therefore unfounded. An extreme example, to be sure, but I guess it illustrates the point I'm trying to make.