Loaded descriptions
Hi
I asked you about the expression “bloodsuckers” in the context of the Haredim (I assume you didn’t see it).
Since then, I’ve thought a bit about my question and it occurred to me that there is a fundamental philosophical issue here. To illustrate, I’ll return to that expression regarding the ultra-Orthodox, but the issue is broader.
When you write that the Haredim are “bloodsuckers,” you are not interested in merely describing them, that is, in making a factual claim. If you were content with making a factual claim, you would say that they are exploiters and perhaps even parasites (as I said, this is a fairly accurate description, but that is not what I am asking about).
What I think is happening with the phrase “bloodsuckers” is the attempt of the person using it to take a description and load it, in addition to the factual description, with ethical and emotional charges. You are essentially interested in denigrating those people or at least their behavior. But I think such denigration is not justified (although it may have some practical benefit – depending on who is speaking). I am not claiming that denigration is never justified, but only in this case.
What’s actually wrong with a colder criticism? Except that it’s less fun, of course…
Obviously, that’s the point. But the same thing would be said about an expression like parasites. These expressions describe bad behavior, which is why I wrote that the problem is not the expressions but the behavior. And even if bloodsuckers is more blatant, and even if it’s not appropriate to use it (in my opinion, there’s no problem with that), you still can’t expect anyone who uses it to apologize. And certainly not when the lawsuit comes from the bloodsuckers themselves. This is the height of cynicism: We’re allowed to suck blood, but you don’t stop us from sucking blood and don’t condemn us.
Whoever uses this phrase does want to condemn and humiliate them. Isn't that exactly what should be done to bloodsuckers?
I wrote what my problem is with the expression (and I admit that I asked myself if it wasn't self-righteousness on my part..). The expression dehumanizes humans. Humans are not really aphids or ticks (or vampires) and when someone compares them to these creatures, they are essentially marking them as having a permanent and built-in inferiority complex.
But I certainly admit that it is difficult to set firm boundaries on this matter and it depends a lot on the personality of the speaker and their style.
Here are some examples of loaded expressions directed at humans that you might also object to (even if you think they are correct):
“Smelly black”
“Dog”
“Jew”.
Apologies to sensitive readers…
The question is not whether it is offensive, but whether his actions justify the offense. In our case, the offense arises from the fact that the expression describes morally problematic conduct, but it really exists.
These statements, besides being ugly, put the affected public on the defensive and reduce the possibility of changing anything there. Even people who secretly know that something needs to change, and therefore would “go with it”, will now close ranks and treat every idea as “anti-Semitism”.
In short, lack of relevance on one side leads to lack of relevance on the other.
Let them defend themselves, there have been excuses for dragging their feet for decades, each time a different excuse. They are not trying to convince the supposedly offended public of anything, but rather to formulate a position on how to act against the constant vile behavior of the supposedly offended public.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
