A linguistic thing (Spartacus-esque)

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:39 PM - Edit history (2)

I have written a lot of posts about food stamps and unemployment insurance and the poor.

I always feel a little uncomfortable saying "they..." even though it is correct.

Just now I decided there is no compelling reason not to say "we."

I don't happen to be on food stamps but I am pretty poor. I am below average. And, more importantly, there is no reason for someone writing about food stamps to be presumptively not a recipient.

We all exist and plan and act in the context of the safety net, or lack there of. We are (almost) all potential recipients.

I use "we" to talk about military spending. "We spend XXX..." Even if I owed no federal tax last year I still am part of America. So why not "we" received XXX in medicare benefits last year. And "we" shouldn't have to face restriction X on program Y, even if the speaker is not on program Y.

I'm not on SS or Medicare but I hope to be, so why not discuss policy inclusively when doing so does not affect the meaning?

So for internet purposes (as opposed to more formal writing) I am going to try to remember to mix in some "we"s among the "they"s.

(In the same way I throw in the occasional "her" instead of "his" when gender is not essential to a description. "When a citizen finds that her car has been towed...&quot

[xchrom]

1. it's all about the 'we'. nt

[hedgehog]

2. I'm trying to remember a phrase used by advocates

for the disabled, temporarily enabled?, currently enabled?

How many here are more than three paychecks away from food stamps?

[Jim Lane]

15. I've heard "temporarily able-bodied" -- is that what you mean?

The point is that each of us is one careless driver away from being a paraplegic.

[hedgehog]

16. That's it! So most of us are temporarily not dependent

on food stamps. That explains the animus, the desperate attempts to paint recipients as the worst of the worst, because of course we are good people, so we'll never need food stamps!

[ProSense]

3. Frankly,

"I don't happen to be on food stamps but I am pretty poor. I am below average. And, more importantly, there is no reason for someone writing about food stamps to be presumptively not a recipient. "

...if you're not on food stamps, you shouldn't say "we." That's like Mitt saying "we," when referring to the unemployed.

Now, if you're talking about the working poor, "we" would be in order.

[oldhippie]

11. I'm with you. Why be purposely inaccurate?

If you are talking about any certain group, like food stamp recipients, that you are not a part of, and you use the term "we" you are being purposely dishonest, or at least misleading. I'm not sure how that adds to a cogent discussion. If you are close to being a member of said group, or may be someday a member, or sympathize with them, it only takes one more sentence to make it clear and accurate. I'm sure there is a way to make a point without mis-using the language.

[cthulu2016]

12. When discussing government it is not misusing the language

I am not in the military but I do think that "we" are supposed to be above pissing on corpses.

And if I say "we ought to be able to buy whatever cut of meat we chose with our foodstamps" that is not a factual claim to being a current S.N.A.P. recipient.

Everyone is in the class of "potential food stamp recipient" and SNAP policy matters, or should matter, to us all as a program that interacts with citizens.

And I am a citizen.

In a democracy, just because I am not a current enrollee doesn't make it someone else's problem.

And if I say that "I have a right to X" regarding a program I am not currently on it is democracy short-hand for "Everyone has a right to X" and also for "If I were in this program, which I may well be at some point, I would have a right to X."

[oldhippie]

13. I guess we will have to disagree .....

.... on the definition of the word "we."

[ProSense]

14. Difference

"I am not in the military but I do think that 'we' are supposed to be above pissing on corpses."

The "we" refers to us as a country, an ideal.

You don't say "we" when discussing the personal plight of a veteran.

It's disingenuous to say: Food-stamp recipients should do this or that. We are provided with support to live on, not to...

That implies that you are also a food-stamp recipient.

[limpyhobbler]

4. best idea you've had all day

just kidding.

That is the best idea I have heard all day. I hope this catches on.

In addition to the reasons you gave, using "we" invokes more of a sense of community or something. That the people receiving help are not some external other group, but are part of the same group with we.

I don't know what I mean. From now on I'll leave things with words up to other people.

[lunatica]

5. I always find it interesting when people choose to change their language habits

We've all been through the changes of ways each ethnic group and race has changed the language describing them as a group. It takes effort at first to remember to say those words.

I started consciously saying "we" recently when talking about the OWS. It feels good and makes it pertinent and personal in my life.

I also used to say "we" when referring to the Nation or to the US government, but I consciously chose at some point during the Bush Administration to distance myself psychologically from the US government and started referring to it as "them".

I guess sentences above show which direction I'm going in. Towards the "we" of the people and away from the "they" of the 1%.

[cthulu2016]

6. That's a great point

I have never participated in a formal OWS activity but it is not a lie for me to refer to OWS as "we" because I consider myself an ally and OWS itself would welcome that useage.

[TheMastersNemesis]

7. I Agree

Yes we are all in this together. It is legitimate to talk about programs whether you are on them or not. I worked in employment and other programs for 24 years. That included working in welfare programs.

It is important to know that everyone of these programs provided a very minimal existence and HAD accountability rules built in. We NEVER did just give the money away. There were eligibility requirements. Most people who apply never get a single penny. Only about 1/3 of unemployment applications ever end up with a payment.

The poverty guidelines themselves are actually well below subsistence. It is like you are swimming and are still 10 feet underwater. You are drowning but a bit more slowly.

So when someone tells you, particularly one of these bastard conservatives or Republicans that you are a leach. Tell them to go "f" themselves. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO. You lose if you let these assholes shame you.

I am on your side. Time to take the gloves off and attack all this "welfare for the rich". Start talking about you "economic bill of rights" like FDR did in 1944. Look it up on You tube FDR - Second Economic Bill Of Rights. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A DECENT JOB THAT ALLOWS YOU TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY. If capitalism cannot give you that then it must be DESTROYED and replaced with a fair economic system.

[elleng]

8. I agree, we are all in this together.

This 'we,' tho for most of my upper-middle class life, used food stamps when I served as a VISTA Volunteer Attorney in Colorado, and lived on VISTA's little stipend.

[downwardly_mobile]

9. "When a citizen finds that her car has been towed..." Well of course!

Women drivers.

[cthulu2016]

10. That joke raises a serious point

I use feminine pronouns to indicate general humanity only when it is not potentially "loaded." Consequently, I use it most for positive things.

I don't say things like, "The average person lies all the time and when she is caught in a lie she will..."

If I was being even-handed I would, but doing so would have an ugly or provocative tone in the context of how language is used by everybody else.

Since the feminine pronoun is less usual a reader is keyed to ask why, or expect some special import to the usage. But if everybody did it 50-50 at random then the sense of something pointed being said would fade.