this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
618 points (88.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

29805 readers
779 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

most sociologists and some psychologists would refer to this as a subconscious, or subdued form of racism.

it is kind of silly a the end of the day. How a terminology originally referring to a power dynamic. Has been so excessively ingrained in relation to race (which isn't very historically relevant) such that even using these terms in a generic capacity, not relating to in any form what would constitute this "negative slavery" concept, that it makes people feel uneasy, summarizes rather weirdly, the human condition.

maybe this is just my autism speaking, but i see so little resemblance contextually, and almost zero historical relevance that i see almost no connection between the words and the practices at hand. Like you could do a wikipedia speedrun from technology to slavery, but you could also do that from any topic, to slavery. Everything is so interconnected there is nothing pure anymore.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the inverse - "I asked x number of black people and they were OK with it" or even "I assume y% number of black people are ok with it" subject to the same criticism?

I am white so we're probably getting to the edge of propriety in this conversation.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

yeah they're both equally susceptible to the same problem. Ultimately though, one of the things we can best do to examine something like this is relate it to other similar concepts/problems. PTSD for example, hearing a certain word or phrase may make you deeply uncomfortable or uneasy. It's not recommended to simply cope with that, or stop hearing those terms. It's recommended to learn how to work with and against it, in order to become a more functional human. And you could argue a similar thing in regards to master/slave terminology being used.

You could also expand into the general normalization of a concept. For example curse words are only bad because we deem them to be. If a white guy explains the architecture of a piece of software using master/slave terminology to a group of people which includes black people, specifically in the country of america. It might be weird, but realistically, it probably shouldn't be. Why? It's simple, there's nothing that prevents this from being a presentation from a black person explaining an architecture using a master/slave architecture in the exact same manner as the white guy, to a room of people that includes white people. Is that weird? I see no reason for it to be weird there either.

The entire reason the master/slave terminology is frowned upon is because of the power balance in that specific situation, however if there is no power imbalance, it's debatable as to whether it matters or not. It's perfectly fine in the BDSM space even between white/black people because it's a consented accepted terminology in that specific context. So we could even extend the social acceptableness of it based on who consents to experiencing that dialog.

There are a lot of ways to look at and think about things, ultimately it's probably worth not thinking all too hard about most things as they don't lead to much.

I am white so we’re probably getting to the edge of propriety in this conversation.

definitely, but that's part of the fun, if you can't discuss things in a philosophical manner whats the point of even asking the question in the first place.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or isn’t the other half of that …… if you have a toxic personality and wish to change that, there may be no single fix but to pay more attention to many small habits contributing to that toxicity.

This whole conversation reminds me of the similar one many years ago, about crude jokes and pictures/calendars in the workplace. The dominant population said exactly the same things. However now we’re all more professional and work is much less toxic, not just for women, minorities, people with different preferences, but also less toxic for us white male heteros as well. We all won that one

yeah that's certainly an option, but defining a toxic personality or a toxic personality trait in it of itself is a really hard and difficult process, and doing that externally is arguably worse. As it's rife for gaslighting and abuse, but that's a different story.

As for crude jokes, if you mean like, sexual harassment i think that's different. I think crude language in general is perfectly reasonable, though the trick is obviously being able to read the room. There's a fine line between hanging with the friends, and then being a fucking asshole.