Clarification sought for the Babble definition of the term 'oppressive language'.

It depends on your race.

So for example, calling cops pigs is viewed as oppressive by Caissa if an FN says it.  If Michelle says it, it's OK.

Swine though is generally considered non-oppressive, especially if used to describe capitalists, ie "capitalist swine", and is spoken by a settler. It can be confusing.

Hope that helps.

In the babble policy statement (currently under revision) there is a reference to "excluding language," like homophobic, racist, sexist, anti-labour, etc. That certainly fits the bill of "oppressive language."

I usually operate under the belief that language is power: it both reflects and directs the power structures under which we currently live. Many of those power structures are oppressive, so any language which contributes or upholds those power structures remains complicit, if not active agents in that oppression. That's how I would define "oppressive language."

However, because each and every one of us lives within those power structures, they can be hard to see,a nd the language which enables them doubly difficult to identify. That's why the identification of oppressive language has always been an act of becoming, of growth--dynamic and social. It's also why it's hard both to identify (as moderators) and to accept (as its employers). What's often most difficult for babblers to grasp, however, is how since language is power, that power functions differently depending on who uses it--there was a babbler here who used the N-word quite liberally in his posts. This got the back up of several (white) posters, despite the fact that this poster was a young man of colour from a lower-class neighbourhood in the GTA. It doesn't carry the same power with him as it does with, say, Mel Gibson. So I think E. Tamaran's ironic contribution upthread is also very valuable to this discussion. What is it about "pig" that makes it ok to call, say, a sexist movie star a pig, or a capitalist, but not the police? It's pretty clear that ET knows the answer to that question...

I'm not gay but I love that guy!

...

Was this intentional?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, perhaps you could clarify?

Hear, hear, kropotkin.

I'm so shocked it did get him into trouble/sarcasm

So, don't you think the reality you present should not be fought to the utmost degree?  You say it dehumanizes them but that's what the PIGS do everyday.  That's why we call them PIGS (Apologies to the real swine family)

Seriously, you sound so apologetic and trying to condition it as this is the way it is and there's nothing we can do.

I'd also like to point out that the term 'pigs' doesn't appear to be 'oppressive language' here on babble.

Further clarifications, in particular about what anti-labour language would be, is most welcome.

Of course the reality should be fought.  However, the amount of change that needs to take place such that everyone is at equal risk when being impolite to the police is huge.  i mean HUGE.  It's the end game.  We get that we can shut up shop and go home.  Our work here is done.

In the meantime we have to deal with reality.

The other half of the issue is tactical/strategic.  Two sides dehumanizing the opposition is a positive feedback loop, and in this sense positive is not a good thing.  Sometimes catharsis is a good and necessary thing, but in general, we should be looking for ways to make things better, not worse.

And, it seems the PIGS were a little rattled by the white kids calling them PIGS.  It looked they were ready to pounce when the video ended.  Perhaps all the happy go lucky white folk might get a little upset when their kids are the victims.

This isn't meta-analysis, it's just analysis.  Are you really making the claim that not trying to understand the consequences of our actions is better than trying to understand those consequences?

I guess you are.  Dude, the fucking POPO aint ever gonna get it until they feel their brothers and sisters fight back.  Plain language.  The people usually win.  I'm afraid I could be wrong but I'm resolute.

All I can say is that the incessant discussion about the formulation of language used to talk about real things is pretty boring and a distraction from the reality of what is going on. All in all this is becoming a pretty weird web site obsessessed with naval gazing meta-discussions about nothing much in particular.

As for opressive language, if anyone needs a clarification of what that is about it is pretty simple: It means language used to denigrate marginalized sectors of society. It is not about being nice to the persons who enforce the social order.

Therefore, since the police are not a "marginalized" sector of society, the term "opressive language" does not apply to them.

@ Cueball

Perhaps I'm posting in the wrong thread, but since we are talking about name calling, I'm talking.

I don't care about oppressing cops; I call them by their proper name because I expect them to do their damn jobs. It's certainly a bit more productive than calling them stupid names

And I don't think there are too many business owners who lose much sleep over name calling either. I have more important things to be concerned about.

Just a piece of friendly advice to anyone who thinks this kind of language will change anything at all.

Well, RP it's that kind of sloppy thinking that is partly responsible for the powerlessness of the left today.

Sloppy and accusatory language implies lack of support from large segments of the population.

Lack of support from large segments of the population implies political powerlessness.

You seem pretty concerned with this issue, seeing as you are posting. I personally don't give a fuck what people want to call the police. Personally, I try to be respectful to most people, but I am not going to get all up in arms, yet again make post after post advising people on how they should talk about the cops.

However, this discussion is couched in the terms of use policy for this web site. As such, calling the police pigs does not constitute opressive language, because the police are not an marginalized group. There are other kinds of language use included in the term "opressive language". For example, sexist language, which is considered to be derogatory toward women, even if it is not directed at women, for example, many people object to the use of the term "bitch" because it is generally a slur against women, or one that inadvertantly targets women as an object of derrision, even when not used directly against women.

As such, using the epithet "pigs" does not constitute opressive language, either because it targets an marginalized group, or because is an inadvertant slur against pigs. Pigs, the animal, are not protected under the user agreement as such, so comparisons made between the police and the animal "pigs" do not constitute opressive language against pigs, the animal, despite the fact that most pigs generally behave better than some cops who are sometimes described as pigs.

In summary, "opressive language" does not mean "name calling". So I guess you are right, and you are in the wrong thread.

Indeed, this discourse enters into the very same world of things such as "reverse racism", whereby people spend hours upon hours trying to undermine the message of anti-racism dialogue by going on about the opression of white people because of things like affirmative action programs.

I normally don't call the police pigs either, just so pissed right now about the way people are reacting.

@ Cueball

Thanks for taking to the time to explain - seriously. It shows a measure of mutual respect which I appreciate.

To be clear, I don't care what others call the cops, as I said upthread and  I realize that "pig" is an accepted epithet here.

The reason why I don't use it has nothing to do with it being oppressive or not. I hadn't actually thought about that. way. It is because cops have all the power of the law and the state behind them, and that is never going to change. They need to be reminded that they have a responsibility to be peace officers, especially when they act in a shameful, vicious or criminal way. I won't use that word because it gives them more excuse to act like beasts, and it takes me down to that level as well.

But I only speak for myself, and I only mentioned it here because we were talking about the use of the word "pig".

(edit)

And like I said, calling businesspeople that is just funny, IMO.

@ RevolutionPlease

No, actually that's not where it was going.

I'm hearing you 6079, just not loudly.  I hear the poor around me like a vuvuzela.

Cueball, your post at #25 is an excellent description of what oppressive language is. We are, in fact, tweaking the babble policy right now, and may include that.

Yiwah, is this enough clarification, since it seemed to only be about the word "pigs"? Or do you still need some examples of anti-worker language?

"Un-read masses"

"The great unwashed"

"Brainwashed workers"

"Lazy workers"

"Minimum wage is too high"

"Immigrants come to Canada and take away jobs from Canadians" (that's anti-worker and racist, just wanted to give you a two-for-one there.)

All those above are paraphrases from words used non-ironically here. None of those are acceptable. 

Actually, I didn't think the term 'pigs' was anything but a thread-drift, and was not a part of my original question.

Thank you for the anti-labour language examples, I simply honestly couldn't think of anything on my own.

No, but seriously...is sheeple oppressive language?  It's somewhat akin to the idea of 'unwashed masses' in the sense that, doesn't it mean the uneducated mindless followers-along?

Unionist: "That's anti-sheep language."

Shame on you, you should be sheepish.

Your puns are oppressive.

Actually I will post in this forum in the manner I want to. I do not have to follow your protocol. I was not impolite or rude so who are you to tell me the style of my posts is not acceptable. 

And thank you for making my point about the salmon shirt because the only people more hated by police than natives at protests are people dressed in black.  The demonization of these misguided people is going to lead to the deaths of one of them as inevitably as I can predict somewhere in Canada in the next month or two a police officer will commit a homicide involving a native person and not be held criminally responsible.  I get that and I get the fact that the person shouting pig at that cop if he had been dressed in black would likely have been arrested and beaten while in custody.  

Catchfire wrote: I don't know, it's mutton to write home about. No need to go on the lamb.

To which Caissa warned him: Ewe better stop it!

"Scab" is the only labour slur I could come up with last night... what is the position on that term here?  My father was a union man for most of his working years and so I don't really see 'scab' as an oppressive term since it describes someone who threatens labour solidarity.  However, have arguments been made here that this term could perhaps be denigrating workers as well? 'Scabs' are usually extremely marginalised workers.

Ah, another term I've seen someone (not here) get fairly upset about was 'wage slavery'.  It was used in a fairly derogatory context, but I could sort of see the point that it was somewhat demeaning.

Gosh -- I hope that labour struggles are still considered fundamental to left politics on babble? And Marxian or more broadly socialist theory?

By that I don't mean that criticism or discussion of the state of the union movement in Canada should be out of court, nor that everyone has to self-identify as a Marxist or socialist. But expressions like "scab" and "wage slavery" have specific meaning in the context of those foundational movements. It seems to me that questioning that rhetoric from some imagined abstract and objective pov (I call it that because I don't fully understand it) is getting dangerously close to the logic of, eg, men's rights politics.

This is not my view of the above thread.  Someone not you posted a link to a youtube video of a man shouting pig at a cop.  You made a comment on it and so did I.  Just because you post a comment first does not mean when I comment on the same Youtube video I am putting words in your mouth.  They were my words not yours. I wrote you didn't.  Am I not supposed to post about issues you have already posted about? I did not quote you or name you but you channeled my mind and determined I was smearing you by commenting on the same thing as you did.

You then demanded I explain myself and when I tried to comply with your request you are now complaining about my reply.  I did not engage you until you asked for the engagement. You have no fucking idea of my INTENT and if you are reading my mind then get the fuck out of my private space.

Wouldn't it depend on how it's used?  If you're laughing at someone for being 'stuck in wage slavery', that's quite different from bewailing your fate as a wage slave in a job you hate and which dehumanises you.

In my old school view a scab is a scab is a scab.  Capitalists exploit workers and try to pit them against each other in the race to the bottom.  Scabs are like the Universal Soldier they make their own decisions.  They choose to stand with the employer instead of standing with the workers. 

Wage slave is a more nuanced term for me.  If a middle manager with pension and benefits talks about wage slavery because he can't afford to retire at 55 that in my mind is an oppressive use of the term.  For a poor marginalized person from a minority it is their life reality that really is akin to slavery so I don't have a problem with it being used in that context.

Just a gentle reminder that we are simply having an open and I assume friendly discussion here, and if someone mentions a term it doesn't mean we're trying to stamp on anyone's right to use it.

(edit) I don't think we should have to repeat that caveat in every post.

On the word "scab", I know it is a technical term and I have no problem with it being used in that context. I don't support the practice at all (although I know some people are driven to do it by desparation).

I only mention it because I know it is sometimes used out of context against some workers who are not scabs - simply because they are non-union.

But to be clear - I am not trying to tell anyone not to use the word "scab".

I understand, Smith. I didn't mean to snap at you -- sorry if it sounded that way.

No problem. I know that text can be a pretty harsh medium to read through sometimes.

As I said, I was actually surprised (since Maysie brought it up) that "scab"- and similar terms like blackleg -  is the only actual blue collar slur I can think of. Anyone aware of any more?

Blackleg?

Sheesh. The point of controlling oppressive language is not to come up with a list of anti-labour, racist, sexist or homophobic terms on some sort of blacklist. The point is to think about the language you use and how it functions in our society. If you use a word or phrase that someone says is offensive, or oppresses a marginalized group, think about why that utterance has the meaning it does: does it rely on sexist structures? Does it employ a racist logic which sees POC undervalued? Does it lean on offensive stereotypes or cultural assumptions? I don't see how a list of verboten terms helps anyone at all.

Oh Catchfire. I lub you.

@ Catchfire

I'm not actually trying to compile a slang dictionary. Sorry it seems that way (though I don't think I was limiting my comments to that).

I just find if odd that there don't seem to be any actual anti-worker slurs other than "scab" (edit) And I know it is only a slur when used out of context - before I get called on it.

But I withdraw the call; as you say, it's not necessary.

Sorry, I was under the impression that babble had a problem with right wing trolls as well...that was brought up in another thread.  The point being, Marxists and socialists might not be using the terms the way I mentioned, but others are...so knowing when it's offensive is going to depend on the context of what was said, not simply that it was said.

Never mind.

Um...pardon me for deferring to what I believed was your greater experience with labour issues, versus my own particular focus which is Aboriginal in nature?  I'm not sure how you're managing to take that as antagonistic.

"Condescends to you" is a rather poor choice of terms unless being condescending was the intent.  I didn't actually think it was.

Again, all I was asking was that people not jump to conclusions when less 'obvious' oppressive language is used.

It would also be really, really nice if people would stop assuming anger/rage/infuriation in someone's 'tone'.

BTW, "lemmings" is an unfair term, an invention of DisneyCorp. for a plot structure for their rather Ayn Rand-ish agenda. The myths surrounding the rodent are thousands of years old though.

Harper's billion dollar extravaganza hinged around language. To get the police to 're-define" themselves, they had to be thrust into a military and adversarial role. Calling them "pigs" was part of that two week long training. I feel sure that the "black block" role in the drama would not be left to my local anarchist! The person at both ends of the billy club are transformed.

We do need to confront authority though. Scab, union replacement worker, temporary relief worker, just in time solution, contract worker, migrant special project worker are all the same person; pawns in the play of poor against poor.

ed/sp of course

Out of curiosity, was the term "redneck" originally anti-worker?  I'm not familiar with the etymology of the term, but it seems to imply someone who has been outside with the sun beating down on the back of his/her neck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

FWIW

Of course the capitalist elite are far worse than the dupes that do their bidding.  My apologies if anything I wrote gave you a different impression of my opinion of scabs.  I believe if you are starving you should steal food from a business not take another person's job for less money.

I must add a modifier so as to comply with people's insistence on not offending anyone sensibilities.  Please leave alone small business owners who are good people and only steal from small business owners who you know to be money grubbing capitalists not true friends of the working person.

What is pink collar?

This would be a separate topic, but I think it's fair for people to observe that levels of unionization in Canada are now very low, which means that a lot of vulnerable people end up feeling they have to do whatever they can do to pay the rent. That's not the fault of organized labour, far from it, but it is a situation the movement has to respond to imho. I understand why people feel that way.

Pink Collar. Although I am gob-smacked that someone hasn't heard this designation before.

How about glass ceiling?

The most depressing stats I've seen lately are that as more educated women enter into profesional jobs the gender gap in wages has actually gotten worse.