More on the “Shall we erase women? No let’s not” controversy.
In other words it wasn’t necessarily political, or exclusively political – it may also (or entirely) have been about not befuddling the listeners.
Language matters.
Not impartial language
Comments
4 responses to “Not impartial language”
-
It is deliberate virtue signalling. But who? Are the journalists being told to use this language by editors, or are they doing it on their own? Is there that much pressure to use ideological language, will they get fired or go unpublished if they don’t submit? I think it’s chickenshit at best, whether the pressure comes from a small but loud group of TRA’s, or if they are just so weak minded they go with whatever trendy lingo the twans communinny insists on. Spineless inarticulate snowflakes or what? Stupidness?
-
Twiliter, I suspect BBC staff are told to use this language by editors and Stonewall/IDE consultants, and are self-censoring to avoid the sort of “pour encourager les autres” disciplinary inquiry that Ms Croxall faced.
The BBC Style Guide entry for Gender/Sex is enlightening, although I’m surprised that “same-sex marriage” is still encouraged. LGBT activist groups have moved on to calling them “same-gender marriages.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/g
-
I wonder this all the time. I think much of it is just basic conformity = knowing it’s the done thing among the Right Kind of People, so one has to do it to be among those people. It sort of spirals. Everybody thinks it’s the done thing so it becomes entrenched as the done thing.
But working against that is how absurd it is. Why the absurdity is not more of an obstacle is a mystery to me. I do not get it.
-
Groupthink and herd mentality are powerful motivators (I guess?). Also tribalism, which our beloved Arty has articulated so well. Can’t these individuals think for themselves? My guess is no.
Leave a Reply