(11-03-2016 12:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

Did those examples really undermine the argument?

The situation is:
Complainer: "The word 'abcdef', like most words, has various meanings. In context A, it is an innocuous, respected and time-honored term. But in a different context, it is associated with historical evil X. Therefore, I demand that you stop using the word in context A."
Defender: "By that logic, it seems we should also stop using it in contexts B, C, D and E."

Potential responses by the Complainer include:
1. "I see what you mean, and on further reflection, I realize that my demand was misplaced. Context A (like context B, C, D and E) has little relation to evil X. So even though we agree that X is evil, I can see there is no need to abolish the word in context A."
2. "I think I have a point, but you also have a point; let's discuss this further and maybe we can both learn something."
3. "Well, here are specific reasons why the term should be abolished in context A but remains appropriate in contexts B, C, D or E."
4. "You should realize that if you do not agree with me, you will lose social/professional standing."
5. "Stop 'splaining to me."
6. "You have no right to disagree with me; you must accept what I say because I am saying it."
7. "You're an Xist."

Too many leftists act as though the list begins at #4.

I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable. It wasn't the word "master" itself. It was the use and context of it, that a student who was black, had to call a person, who was more often than not at Rice, their Master when describing them. And so historically, the context of calling someone their Master to African Americans would overwhelmingly be related to slavery. There's a reason there is no protest or movement to change the term Master of Science for a degree, because there isn't really a grounded rationale for contextualizing the word master to the ownership/lordship over a person.

If you read the rationale behind why the Masters voted overwhelmingly for change, it was because that title does not accurately reflect their roles, and felt that it should change.

But regardless, I do agree that too many on the left immediately jump to some of the conclusions/responses you outlined. Far too many on the right do something similar, as well, just through their own lens.

I'm not going to argue your point, but I never referred to Dr. Martin or Dr. Clark as Master while at Sid. The term, in actual use, is almost exclusively limited to 3rd party usage when describing / identifying the position (i.e., Dr. Martin is the Master of Sid Rich). It is never Master Martin or Dr. Martin is my Master, at least it wasn't in my day. So in that sense it is no different than a Master of Science.

I can accept the term makes some people uncomfortable because hearing it brings an unconnected association. That may be sufficient justification for a change to some. But I'd speculate that uncomfortable association isn't ubiquitous within any demographic, and that it isn't uniformly felt each and every time the word is heard.

We all have unconnected associations when we hear certain words. I do as well. Over time, those associations can diminish as the current usage becomes regular and supplants the old association, especially when the old usage is historic and not in current usage.

Note that I said 'can' diminish. Different people have different perceptions (and Myers-Briggs personality type indicators).

My family emigrated to the US in the 1800's. From what I've heard, my uncle would get in fights during the 1940's (as a teenager) when people would use the word 'kraut' or something similar in reference to him. This was during WWII. He dropped out of high school and enlisted in the US Navy, and IIRC, some of the fights occurred in that service.

The word kraut does not bother me, and yes I fully understand that the context between the terms kraut and master are vastly different. But I doubt that the word sauerkraut ever bothered my uncle either.

I'm just saying that it is possible to overcome the unconnected associations a person may have when they hear a word. I would expect that for some words it is virtually impossible to accomplish (frankly it's difficult to imagine an unconnected definition for words like kraut or the n-word). But when a word has very common, inocuous unconnected usage, and the old offensive usage is archaic (e.g. master), I'd think that over time it might happen more often that this discussion would concede.

Then of course, there's the question of whether it's fair to assume everyone will eventually, and then always, 'not make" the unconnected association when the current usage has become more ingrained.

Not arguing, just presenting some thoughts that don't get normally brought up in these discussions.

I pretty much agree with all of your post and your points you brought up. This issue isn't black and white, right or wrong, and is very nuanced as you mention. Words have power, but that power fluctuates not only from person to person, but over time as you mention.