I added the "sic" and reinforced my criticism by quoting one of the comments at WaPo:
... backlash from staff and the community over his recent transphobic jokes.
You've just accepted the criticism of Chappelle at face value, I see. Personally, if I'd been editing this, I would have changed it to "jokes perceived by some as transphobic." Or maybe even "jokes involving transsexuals."
By stating it as you have, you've sided with his critics in, not an opinion column, but what is ostensibly an objective news story. Nice job, WAPO.
I wrote, "Do I need a '[sic]' after 'transsexual'?" because I think "transgender" is the preferred term, but other than that, I think that comment said it well.
WaPo has now changed "recent transphobic jokes" to "recent jokes about transgender people."
I've added an update to my original post, and I'll repeat my criticism that this was an important, substantive change correcting a shameful journalistic mistake. It should be acknowledged forthrightly, with assurance that the paper will pay attention and make an effort to avoid repeating this mistake.
I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!
You can shit in one hand and put your wants in the other.
The WAPO is not a newspaper.
It is a pile of words for stupid gullible people to confirm their biases.
"Trashy."
You won't. They even got to keep their Pulitzers for their lies about the Fake Russian Collusion. You think they would apologize about THAT....but they won't.
Cherokee Pioneer.
Jumbo Shrimp.
Alone Together.
Deafening Silence.
Virtual Reality.
Journalistic Integrity.
Being in the media means never having to admit your were wrong. Haven’t we discussed this before.
I don't see the issue. phobic is a suffix that means "something i am opposed to"; So it's use here is Exactly correct.
It's Important to realize, WORDS HAVE MEANINGS; and those meanings are as this philosopher says..
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
This is an older question, but one I haven't seen answered. What does transphobic (or islamophobic) mean? From the word construction, it would be someone who has an irrational fear of trans or islamics... but that's never how it is used. It seems to be a generic slur about anyone the speaker doesn't like, like fascist.
I'm sure there are a few actual journalists still haunting the newsroom, but Achilles is right--the Washington Post (and, while we're on the subject, the New York Times) is not a newspaper. It's a power-structure protection racket masquerading as a newspaper, feeding off the decaying carcass of a reputation earned decades ago-before much of its current staff was even born.
I want a Winnebago.
That's easy Leo. The phobic monikers mean just that. Fear of the other. Often the fear for many is one of becoming the other, eg homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia: fear embarrassment, cloaking of your own position on the gay spectrum, trans spectrum, religious nutter spectrum, etc. Other sources of fear are just basic insecurities inadequacies etc. of a cowardly personality.
Leo said...This is an older question, but one I haven't seen answered. What does transphobic (or islamophobic) mean?
Homophobic came first and grew out of the idea that many anti-gay people were secretly gay and motivated by discomfort with their own urges--they hated gay people because they were afraid they were gay. As with every trendy or useful term, the meaning was watered down over time as people looked for opportunities to use it until the term became empty nonsense (something similar happened with "Karen"--another useful term that was ruined by mission creep).
So now "-phobic"--whether homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, or any other--just means "critical of [something I have no problem with]."
Leo:
“Fascist” had that meaning when Orwell wrote “Politics and the English Language”. It has been joined by “racism”, “white supremacy”, “harm”, “violence”, “safe”, “misogynistic”, and the various “phobias”.
We got them to change the original version.
’It seems to be a generic slur about anyone the speaker doesn't like…’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
I love it when comments gel.
You'll see the correction notice when Pigs Fly. This is the Washington Post you're talking about, after all.
Althouse stamps her foot.
It might work!
‘Recent jokes about transgender people” makes one thing clear - the offended people are humorphobic.
The concern you express for a correction of one word, or one edit change, is the epitome of penny wise, pound foolish.
The main thrust of the Washington Post is political propaganda with no regard for its accuracy, like something out of the Soviet Union. That is the shameful journalism. You show no concern for that practice, but use their work almost daily as though it is a respectable source.
"It should be acknowledged forthrightly, with assurance that the paper will pay attention and make an effort to avoid repeating this mistake."
Forget it, Ann. It's the Washington Post.
We are being lectured about the meaning of words by someone who confuses its and it's.
"Phobic" is used to declare someone a kafir, an unbeliever, an infidel and it is a call for that person to be treated accordingly by the faithful.
I don't view either as unacceptable, in fact I encourage it. Review of what makes a joke. You need at least two of the following, but preferably more (for a more than ho-hum joke)
Clever: "You recognize clever when you see it. It's just combining things that people didn't think you were going to combine, but yet you somehow made it work."
Naughty: "Naughty is usually just sex or bathroom jokes."
Bizarre: "Bizarre just means two things out of place."
Cruel: "Cruelty is a staple in humor. Cruel just means something bad happened to somebody or you said something unkind to somebody. You know cruel when you see it."
Cute: "Cute is usually just kids and animals."
Recognizable: "Humor usually requires that you recognize something about the subject of the joke being like your experience or like yourself. It's either like somebody you know, like you, but has to be familiar. Something you recognize."
"It should be acknowledged forthrightly, with assurance that the paper will pay attention and make an effort to avoid repeating this mistake."
With this kind of material you could be a stand up comic yourself.
The "-phobia" ending isn't restricted to fear. It includes aversion.
I checked the OED. For "-phobic": Forming adjectives with the sense ‘that has a fear of’, ‘that has an aversion to’, ‘that has no affinity for ——."
For "-phobia": "Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’."
So it's a canard to go on about how you're not afraid of whatever, but just disgusted or horrified or deeply disapproving. I've heard it SOOOO many times. It's not clever, and even if it once were clever, it's now trite. Move on, please.
There is no such thing as transsexual or transgender or transphobic.
These terms are all absurd lies on their face. Transphobic = sane.
This part of the prof’s game is the spoiled brat rich kid twisting your arm behind your back. Ignore the reams of text and the erudite arguments. She’s testing you to see what you’ll put up with. Spoiled brat rich kids do that. For fun.
She’s too old to spank. But, you don’t have to be drawn into pervert hell to amuse her.
Every word of the prof’s “every disgusting kink is a great civil rights issue” is a flat out lie. Don’t play. She’s flat out lying. For amusement. To see if you’ll take the bait.
"This is an older question, but one I haven't seen answered. What does transphobic (or islamophobic) mean?"
According to all the best thinking, they mean whatever you choose them to mean, neither more nor less. This is set forth in the musings of the 19th Century thinker, H. Dumpty, who noted that it was a question of which is to be master, thereby implicating a devotion to chattel slavery in his discourse.
“So it's a canard to go on about how you're not afraid of whatever, but just disgusted or horrified or deeply disapproving.”
How about “don’t give a shit”? Why does my lack of affinity have to be more than “no thanks, I’ll talk to someone else and pay you no mind”. That doesn’t make me phobic or bad in any way. You do you. And fuck off while you do you.
"this was an important, substantive change correcting a shameful journalistic mistake"
It's shameful! They should be ashamed! It's terrible! They need to be better!
"It should be acknowledged forthrightly, with assurance that the paper will pay attention and make an effort to avoid repeating this mistake."
It should be acknowledged! They should give assurance! They need to make an effort! They must avoid repeating the mistake! They need to be better! Much better! Why aren't they better?
"I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!"
I want to see a CORRECTION! It's the WAPO! It'a major newspaper! They should try to be better! I want it so much I add a !
So it's a canard to go on about how you're not afraid of whatever, but just disgusted or horrified or deeply disapproving. I've heard it SOOOO many times. It's not clever, and even if it once were clever, it's now trite. Move on, please.
"Roast upon a red-hot shovel, with a little brown sugar, the duck of doubt" - Lautreamont
Using the '-phobic' ending is more language manipulation from the Left, to make revulsion at homosexual sexual activity and concern over religious fanaticism that begets violence sound like mental illnesses.
Prof:
Do you believe that if the WAPO published the correction you requested, this mea culpa would evidence its recognition of an institutional bias that too often creeps into its news reporting?
Ann Althouse said...So it's a canard to go on about how you're not afraid of whatever, but just disgusted or horrified or deeply disapproving or not fully enthusiastically unquestioningly on board with.
FIFY
(BTW, you know as well as the rest of us that nobody uses phobia to mean "has an aversion to." It means an irrational fear--the "irrational" part is not superfluous. If the OED left it off, then the OED is wrong.)
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate and it was changed only after it was challenged. Plus the later change will never catch up with the original. From the WaPo’s perspective mission accomplished.
I've added an update to my original post, and I'll repeat my criticism that this was an important, substantive change correcting a shameful journalistic mistake. It should be acknowledged forthrightly, with assurance that the paper will pay attention and make an effort to avoid repeating this mistake.
I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!
I want a pony and $10 million
And I'm more likely to get those, than you are to get an honest, or even just ethical, Washington Post
Althouse wrote: "So it's a canard to go on about how you're not afraid of whatever, but just disgusted or horrified or deeply disapproving. I've heard it SOOOO many times. It's not clever, and even if it once were clever, it's now trite. Move on, please."
I looked up "phobic" and "phobia" using google. Both definitions, which google says comes from the "Oxford Dictionaries," characterize the aversion or the fear as "irrational" or "extreme." This is the heart of the definition, I think, and that why people object to being called "transphobic." They feel that their fear or aversion to men masquerading as women is neither irrational nor extreme.
"We got them to change the original version."
What an incredible victory for the human race. Instead talking about transphobic jokes, we got Wapo to talk about transgender people who are jokes.
Good work, Althouse. I noticed, and include myself, few commenters caught on to your correction in its proper context in the last post. I did see the Netflix special from Dave Chapelle, and his comments are indeed not transphobic, both in the proper sense of being afraid of transexual nor the improper conventional use as being against transexuals (and is it transsexual or transexual, because spell correct suggests both are correct?).
If journalist were honest about Dave Chapelle, they'd have to admit the joke is an accurate depiction of their reporting. For those who don't know the joke, Chapelle was being pointed that you can commit murder and the media will still make you famous, but you can't criticize a transexual without facing condemnation for violence. Indeed, Chapelle just making this point via a joke has him labeled as transphobic or anti-transexual, because he weighs murder as worse than critical comments.
"this was an important, substantive change correcting a shameful journalistic mistake."
What makes you believe this was a mistake, as opposed to a premeditated act of propaganda? Sure, an actual "journalistic" organization would see it as a significant error, but given that this is the WaPo we're talking about I'd give serious odds that the reporters and editors involved are of the opinion that their only mistake was being so obvious that a correction was called for.
"I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!"
This is the hill you've decided to fling yourself down wailing and pounding your little hands and feet on?
One version expresses an opinion, the other is an accurate description omitting the opinion.
What was it Joe Friday used to say, to shorten his interactions with witnesses to crimes so the shoe could end on time? "Just the facts, ma'am." I think I prefer just the facts, too.
So... we don't acknowledge the "irrational" part of "phobia" now?
Got it.
Hooked on phobics.
AFAIC, people can call themselves anything they want, believe anything they want, mutilate, abort, sterilize, and suicide themselves and others of their tribes, and I can get on with my important work.
If you gain self-esteem by thinking of me as an Islamophobe, go right ahead. I've educated myself on Islam and known some Muslims and am not afraid (see what I did there?) of the label.
One reason they didn't note the correction is because they're afraid of the transphilic mob, some of whom are their own employees. IOW, they have transphilaphobia, just like most people in public life.
"that has no affinity for ——."
The canard is that -phobic means anything that the OED says it means. "-phobic" solely means "that with which I disagree but can't make a rational argument about, so therefore I will slander the person with whom I disagree."
I do notice that the whole entry for -phobic was not included, just the things that allow our liberal hostess to shore up her preferences and condescendingly order us to "move on".
"Move on" indeed.
Reading the WaPoo is like laying down with dogs. When you get up you have fleas, or worse.
"I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!"
Get used to disappointment.
The language is the weapon, Althouse. You want a correction when the intent was to deceive.
Every "phobia" I've ever heard of (other than hydrophobia) describes an irrational response. If you believe that reaction to (say) transgender people is irrational, you should be prepared to defend that position on the merits, not just by name-calling.
"I want to see a "CORRECTION" notice on this article!"
Late to the party.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा