I second Orin’s suggestion that it’s price studying The Etiquette of Equality, by Ben Eidelson. I noticed the paper offered at a workshop final 12 months and have considered it usually since then. A few extra ideas:
The truth that there may be an etiquette norm (or contested etiquette norm) towards utilizing explicit phrases or making explicit analogies is for me not the top of the inquiry. Typically there are etiquette norms that we might be justified in violating—certainly, we would even assume it necessary to violate and attempt to undermine them if they’re too nefarious. Possibly we refuse to bow to a overseas prince, or refuse to obey gendered clothes norms.
Or perhaps we insist on exercising our proper to free speech, even in instances the place it’s offensive, exactly due to the significance of that proper to free speech. Or perhaps not. The etiquette evaluation helps us see why exercising that proper is dear, and helps us course of a adverse response, nevertheless it would not inform us which etiquette norms we should always have or after we are morally justified in violating them.
The evaluation additionally jogs my memory of a associated evaluation from Scott Alexander, Give Up Seventy Percent Of The Way Through The Hyperstitious Slur Cascade (which, to be clear, I do not perceive Eidelson, Orin, and even me to endorse). Alexander notes that norms {that a} explicit phrase is a slur, or different such norms towards utilizing explicit phrases and phrases, have a “hyperstitious” construction:
A hyperstition is a perception which turns into true if individuals imagine it is true. For instance, “Dogecoin is a superb short-term funding and you might want to purchase it proper now!” is true if everybody believes it’s true; a lot of individuals will purchase Dogecoin and it’ll go manner up. “The financial institution is collapsing and you might want to get your cash out instantly” is likewise true; if everybody believes it, there will likely be a run on the financial institution. . . .
[various examples ensue]
As Alexander argues, after a sure level, most individuals will comply social norms to not use explicit phrases and phrases and symbols until they’re unusually insensitive to these norms, after which after a sure additional level, will comply until they’re actively hostile to these norms. At that time the norm is strongly self-reinforcing. However on the best way there, there might be a number of battle and confusion.
Alexander concludes:
So one factor I take into consideration quite a bit is: when do I be a part of the cascade?
I am unable to by no means be a part of the cascade. I am not going to seek advice from the Japanese as “Japs” out of some form of never-joining-hyperstitious-slur-cascade precept. This may be the dumbest potential hill to die on. I might lose all my social credibility and perhaps even truly sadden one or two actual Japanese individuals.
And if I am the final individual to affix a hyperstitious slur cascade, then I will most likely do fairly badly. I do not assume we have reached 100% fixation on nobody-uses-Accomplice-flags-innocently. A relative of mine who lives within the South and has no identified political beliefs nonetheless has a Accomplice flag sticker in his room. However I would not wish to emulate him, even when I had some good motive to love Southernness.
However, the individuals who wish to be the primary individual in a brand new cascade, like USC’s social work division, are contemptible. And the individuals who be a part of when it is solely reached 1% or 5%, out of enthusiastic conformity or pre-emptive concern, are pathetic.
(none of this is applicable to issues being completed for good causes—banning truly dangerous issues—I am simply skeptical that this course of will get used for that fairly often)
I believe I normally be a part of about 70% of the best way by. Realistically, success is already overdetermined by 50%—however I wish to make them work for it and make it as annoying for them as potential. This can be a compromise between precept and self-preservation, however I do not know a greater option to do it. I’ll battle tougher when it is one thing helpful and necessary as a substitute of just a few phrases, and there may be some issues—like the instance of being overtly homosexual, used above—the place it is price by no means giving in to stress to taboo one thing, and making an attempt to protect your proper to maintain doing it till you can begin a virtuous respectability cascade cycle.
I am scripting this publish in order that the subsequent time somebody feedback with “do you know that time period you used, which was the usual till six months in the past and which no person was ever offended by till then, is now thought of offensive, why do not you employ time period XYZ as a substitute?”, I may give my trustworthy reply: “As a result of it is lower than 70% of the best way by the hyperstitious slur cascade, and that is the boundary that I’ve set for myself.”
Once more, I’m not significantly dedicated to a 70% or every other threshold, however I like to recommend studying each Eidelson, and Alexander, for these serious about these points.