[SummerlyMars]

This is something that's been on my mind for years. Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group[1]. If someone has any amount of hostility to that group, then using these terms is going to cause them to get angry/frustrated with what you have to say instead of actually listening to your argument on its own merits... or at least that's what I've noticed about myself. For a long time, certain terms or expressions would irritate me so much that I'd ignore what the person using them had to say, even though afterwards I found I usually agreed with much of it. Even knowing now that I have this response and actively trying to avoid it, it's still difficult to ignore.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

[schoen]

It's also frustrating that every common term for some concept can easily acquire connotations that suggest a particular affiliation. For example, there's no easy way to refer to people who are present in a country in violation of its immigration laws without either conveying a connotation of sympathy or hostility toward them. "Undocumented immigrant" is criticized by anti-immigrant groups as (maybe intentionally) implying that someone's unauthorized immigration status is a mere bureaucratic oversight or accident, while "illegal immigrant" is criticized by pro-immigrant groups as (maybe intentionally) denying someone's personhood or inherent worth (as if there were something inherently illegal about the person).

I think I've seen someone try to use "unauthorized migrant" but there is even a prospect of getting pushback from people who hear this and assume that it must have been chosen in order to avoid showing support for their own "side".

This difficulty repeats itself a lot!

[nkurz]

> It's also frustrating that every common term for some concept can easily acquire connotations that suggest a particular affiliation.

Upvoted, but for sake of example I'll mention that your use of "anti-immigrant groups" can be one of those loaded terms. While there likely are some people who are actually against all immigrants, the more common position is to support legal immigration (with differing opinions on how restricted this should be) while being against illegal immigration (with differing opinions on how those who break these laws should be treated).

Since there aren't mainstream groups who think of themselves as universally "anti-immigrant", it tends to be used only as a pejorative. I think a reasonable general principle is to try to use terms that people choose to apply to themselves. On the other hand, I don't know that there is an equivalent descriptor that everyone would consider fair. Language is hard!

[manicdee]

"Illegal immigrant" is quite plainly an anti-refugee phrase that was invented to criminalise people seeking refugee status. It's never been used otherwise.

"Undocumented immigrant" does technically describe a person's status but it's only used in relation to certain types of foreign visitor. Across the white English speaking world we'll almost universally use "undocumented immigrant" to refer to brown-skinned people, while we use "visa overstayers" to refer to white-skinned people.

Some guy from India comes to work for a cousin's business on a sponsored work visa and stays a week too long? Undocumented immigrant.

Some white woman from the UK comes to work for a major tech company and stays a few years too long? She just overstayed her visa.

Then to round of the discussions about words changing in meaning over time, remember when holding thumb and forefinger together in a circle was just "the game" and you'd do things to get your friends to look — at which point they'd lose "the game"? But these days, it's only a white power symbol, thanks to some anonymous idiot on 4chan.

It's a crazy world that changes so quickly. I can understand why some people want the world to stay just the same for a decade or two. But that can't be done. We have to adapt or die.

[sneak]

> Some words or turns of phrase identify you as a member of a group

Sometimes readers jump to that conclusion, but it's frequently or even usually untrue, while a shibboleth conceptually is something that can only be done by a member of a certain group. Contrariwise, for example, both feminists and anti-feminists could use such "group identifier" terms as cited in the article ("patriarchy", "emotional labor", et c). Using those terms absolutely does not denote to anyone which group you are in, and people who continue as if it does are clearly making an error.

I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group, to get readers to question the usefulness or applicability of their stereotypes. I have no idea if I achieve my goal or if I just confuse people. Having read your comment, a lot of my writing exists to trigger[1] people who take your view (in addition to conveying useful information for the people who don't fall for the stereotype trap).

I reject the entire idea of the concept that using a word makes you a member of some group and thus permits a word-reader to infer some information about you. That's just bias, something we should all be looking out for and frustrating when possible.

[1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless.

[SummerlyMars]

> I reject the entire idea of the concept that using a word makes you a member of some group and thus permits a word-reader to infer some information about you. That's just bias, something we should all be looking out for and frustrating when possible.

I agree, and I should've made that clear in my comment. Word usage doesn't guarantee group membership, but they can still lead to someone assuming you are a member of this group. I don't believe it makes a difference to what I'm saying if a stereotype is accurate or not, but rather whether your conversation partner thinks it's accurate. Should people do this? No, probably not. Do they? I believe so.

To abstract my argument further, when we converse, we speak words which convey information. Some of that information is intentional on our parts (we choose words to make our point), and some is unintentional (others interpret words counter to how we meant them). It's probably impossible to avoid transmitting unintentional information completely, but attempting to minimize it seems like a useful goal, especially when we think our information is important enough to spread to others.

> I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group, to get readers to question the usefulness or applicability of their stereotypes. I have no idea if I achieve my goal or if I just confuse people.

I don't know either, but I think this approach has value.

[sebastialonso]

I think that's one of the main points of the article. And arguably, a point that perhaps every reader should take with them after reading it.

Not that "using some words give the listener implicit information about you", but that if some words activate some bias in the listener, than perhaps is better to avoid them, only for a while. Maybe wait until a common set of understanding has taken root before taking out the lingo.

This is only relevant if your intent is to actually reach across the aisle and understand where the ignorance/hate/whatever comes from; in essence to engage meaningfully for both parties, not necessarily convince.

If that's not your intention, then probably you'll feel offended at the discouragement of using some words. I'd say bias is the ultimate enemy here, and unfortunately, it's very hard to defeat bias head on, it's easier to lay a trap for it and slowly chip it away. I wouldn't say "patience" is a quality of any kind of discourse nowadays, from any "side".

[Hyp3rion]

> I am a big fan of using contentious terms but then in close proximity expressing views slightly incongruent or even outright contradictory to those held by a stereotypical member of one of the term-using group

If done well it can induce some cognitive dissonance in the reader and really make them question their positions. It's also a good way to weed out people who you couldn't have a conversation with in the first place. IE: if someone will reject your entire point because you use the phrase 'intersectional' while making an argument, then chances are they're more emotionally invested than intellectually invested in the ideas. At which point you're working with an ideologically driven reader. They tend to be more unwilling to reconsider positions.

[klodolph]

> [1]: this one wasn't planned, but is funny nonetheless.

Can you explain the joke for me? I’m not sure I get it.

Edit: To be clear, I understand what the word “trigger” means and its connotations.

[mancerayder]

The media's helped with that, and the meme-ifcation and the 'mic drop' one-liner culture of social media. If someone's trying to lay out a nuanced argument, or even discussion point (even if they show no preference towards one side), a magic word will cause many readers to make drastic assumptions about the speaker/writer's state of mind and intentions.

There's this embedded pseudo-psychoanalytic aspect in people I never saw before the last few years. We know it well with people we KNOW, our family or friends, and in arguments, but the fact that it happens with complete strangers is ..really weird!

Then add partisan politics and it's a giant weird nightmare to have conversations with people who are over-excited with lower attention spans.