Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?
I think these two go hand in hand, when spoken by a human.
Because if I, a person, refer to your humanity in a detached way, it still is implying you are “distanced” from me (the person), contextually.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That’s why it only comes across as offensive when spoken by another human, because they shouldnt be speaking about a fellow specific human in a detached way… on account of them being a human too.
However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious
Sure. The context when it isn’t is if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake.
And, yes, I have met people like this. Usually either younger folks, or ELL.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across and choose to keep doing it anyways now it is intentionally abrasive and will be taken offensively.
Any person who goes “yes I know this pisses people off, and I’m going to do it anyways, even though it’s trivially easy to not to do the thing” is self centered and demonstrating anti social behaviors.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
The infected must maintain a safe distance or remain quarantined to prevent further infection.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism.
However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize.
It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing).
Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them.
Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake
Or they disagree with your take.
Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take.
It’s not a logically necessary take.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole.
Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes.
I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.
People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.
Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.
You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.
I think these two go hand in hand, when spoken by a human.
Because if I, a person, refer to your humanity in a detached way, it still is implying you are “distanced” from me (the person), contextually.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That’s why it only comes across as offensive when spoken by another human, because they shouldnt be speaking about a fellow specific human in a detached way… on account of them being a human too.
Sure. The context when it isn’t is if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake.
And, yes, I have met people like this. Usually either younger folks, or ELL.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across and choose to keep doing it anyways now it is intentionally abrasive and will be taken offensively.
Any person who goes “yes I know this pisses people off, and I’m going to do it anyways, even though it’s trivially easy to not to do the thing” is self centered and demonstrating anti social behaviors.
Aka, an asshole.
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism. However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize. It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing). Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them. Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
Or they disagree with your take. Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take. It’s not a logically necessary take.
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole. Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes. I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”
It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.
People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.
You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.
Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.
You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.