It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's no…
It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's not clear that there _are_ any "actual meanings in the first place". Language is inescapably social – there are no meanings independent of particular people in particular contexts.
I would not have predicted that anyone is upset by "That's so lame.". I understand the logic now that you've pointed it out, but I just don't think it's of any utility to follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion. I'm not sure even 'bad' would survive!
I don't think what I wrote has anything to do with "pomo", but I can understand why you or others might think that. I think "pomo" is making a much stronger claim, e.g. that _reality_ is itself social; not just language.
But you're, sadly, probably right about the futility of encouraging people to jump off the euphemism treadmill!
I think it might still be possible to 'jump off' the euphemism treadmill even while accepting that language changes. It sure seems like the euphemism treadmill is the consequence of deliberate 'prescriptivist' changes; not 'organic' change like slang.
I also think there's a kind of 'art' in, e.g. 'tracking prototypes', that prevents "the relational nature and inherent uncertainty of language" from _perfectly_ unmooring one from _any_ connection to an underlying reality. In practice, even 'pomo fanatics' are probably almost entirely 'practical' and unremarkable when using language outside of academic or 'intellectual' circles.
But disability _is_ bad!
It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's not clear that there _are_ any "actual meanings in the first place". Language is inescapably social – there are no meanings independent of particular people in particular contexts.
I would not have predicted that anyone is upset by "That's so lame.". I understand the logic now that you've pointed it out, but I just don't think it's of any utility to follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion. I'm not sure even 'bad' would survive!
I don't think what I wrote has anything to do with "pomo", but I can understand why you or others might think that. I think "pomo" is making a much stronger claim, e.g. that _reality_ is itself social; not just language.
But you're, sadly, probably right about the futility of encouraging people to jump off the euphemism treadmill!
Those are good points!
I think it might still be possible to 'jump off' the euphemism treadmill even while accepting that language changes. It sure seems like the euphemism treadmill is the consequence of deliberate 'prescriptivist' changes; not 'organic' change like slang.
I also think there's a kind of 'art' in, e.g. 'tracking prototypes', that prevents "the relational nature and inherent uncertainty of language" from _perfectly_ unmooring one from _any_ connection to an underlying reality. In practice, even 'pomo fanatics' are probably almost entirely 'practical' and unremarkable when using language outside of academic or 'intellectual' circles.