Honestly, I don't mind scrapping the word "homophobia." We should call it what it is - hatred, bigotry, discrimination, ignorance, whatever, instead of "fear." But I can also understand why some might be side-eyeing this.
Imagine that, a colloquial term that doesn't mean exactly the same as its technical/medical/scientific meaning or its root words. Is the AP going to nix "theory" except for its precise scientific meaning too? Ooh, how about "awesome" because that means something different in post-1960s America than it did before or what it means in other English-speaking countries. I know when I say something is "awesome" I don't mean it fills me with awe akin to a deep religious experience at the omnipotence of God.
Words change. They mean things more than just their roots indicate.
Breaking "phobia" down to just "fear" ignores, as well, the cultural connotations of what "fear" meant to the ancient Greeks and what "fear" means to us. Saying "phobos" is "fear" is a simplistic translation and loses meaning in the process. Not just screaming and running away, fear is the emotion felt in response to a perceived threat.
This comment is beautiful and you should feel good.
Regulation of language to the degree that AP and other organizations does it, just skeeves me out. It's full of classism, racism, and transphobia and even sexism. As one person on Tumblr put it, why should the common person care to be thrown dictionary definitions, especially of their oppression at them, when their oppressions have been defined by the people who regulate language? Wealthy, white men.
Unless I can't understand what someone is saying, I won't even correct them, it's just pretentious to me.
Oh yay, the AP prescriptively telling people that their commonly used language isn't good enough again.
I can understand the problems with both terms, but eliminating the words isn't really going to help anything. And someone tell me how "anti-gay" is supposedly more neutral than homophobia?
I think eliminating or scare-quoting "ethnic cleansing" is a good journalistic move, because it's too easy for stories to be twisted by using the approved language (see: how Faux news frames almost anything, ever) -- and since it's only the AP style guide, the prescriptivism doesn't bother me that much.
Homophobia, though, is a much more loaded discussion, as can be seen anywhere on this thread.
Ethnic cleansing I can somewhat understand. It's outdated and abused by people, as you say. But yeah, I think homophobia being removed is a highly loaded move, and not one that I particularly approve of.
To be fair, I don't approve of organizations like the AP in general though, as you might have guessed.
I think in this case I get their point. I know there's arguments on both sides of using homophobia - but they're not suggesting that people change their language. What they are saying is that in news reports, language might need to be more precise than in daily use. I totally agree that "ethnic cleansing," is a really lousy phrase. It really soft pedals a lot of the horror of what is essentially genocide by another name
( ... )
Comments 96
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Imagine that, a colloquial term that doesn't mean exactly the same as its technical/medical/scientific meaning or its root words. Is the AP going to nix "theory" except for its precise scientific meaning too? Ooh, how about "awesome" because that means something different in post-1960s America than it did before or what it means in other English-speaking countries. I know when I say something is "awesome" I don't mean it fills me with awe akin to a deep religious experience at the omnipotence of God.
Words change. They mean things more than just their roots indicate.
Reply
Reply
Breaking "phobia" down to just "fear" ignores, as well, the cultural connotations of what "fear" meant to the ancient Greeks and what "fear" means to us. Saying "phobos" is "fear" is a simplistic translation and loses meaning in the process. Not just screaming and running away, fear is the emotion felt in response to a perceived threat.
Reply
Regulation of language to the degree that AP and other organizations does it, just skeeves me out. It's full of classism, racism, and transphobia and even sexism. As one person on Tumblr put it, why should the common person care to be thrown dictionary definitions, especially of their oppression at them, when their oppressions have been defined by the people who regulate language? Wealthy, white men.
Unless I can't understand what someone is saying, I won't even correct them, it's just pretentious to me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
EDIT: I can't spell today.
Reply
I can understand the problems with both terms, but eliminating the words isn't really going to help anything. And someone tell me how "anti-gay" is supposedly more neutral than homophobia?
Reply
Homophobia, though, is a much more loaded discussion, as can be seen anywhere on this thread.
Reply
To be fair, I don't approve of organizations like the AP in general though, as you might have guessed.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment