It seems to be the dynamic between two entirely different sets of people, with diametrically opposed aims.
One group wishes to spread awareness of afflicted people, in the belief they can improve the empathy shown to such people by society, even though it's at odds with human fear of disease and disfigurement. It's one thing to be crippled, it's another to crippled and society finds you repulsive and treats you like shit.
This group reckon that the afflicted need a good marketing campaign. This is why they're coming up with media strategies, slogans, and of course euphemisms. Why it's National Unfortunate Bugger Day today! Let's take a look at the plight of these poor bastards and be quietly relieved we don't have their problems.
The other group is the rest of humanity, and when they feel the need to insult their peers, they reach for the strongest words they can muster. As you say, it's inevitable. In the words of Professor F. J. Lewis: See that <horrible thing>? That's you, that is. That's you trying your best.
The UK's Blue Peter and the National Spastics Society found this out the hard way when in 1981 they broadcast a story on Joey Deacon, a man with cerebral palsy. Blue Peter wanted children to learn about how Joey was intelligent, but his condition made it very hard to communicate that. What actually happened after the broadcast is that "joey" and "spastic" became the hot new playground insults, along with impersonating Joey's speech mannerisms. It was so bad that the National Spastics Society renamed itself to "Scope" to avoid the negative connotations the word had picked up. Of course, UK children then adopted "scoper" as an insult too.
This didn't reach the USA at all, which is why "spaz" is a mild insult in US English, while in the UK it's a grave insult.
I think the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault. I want you to be in the wrong. I don't want to admit that I'm responsible for my reactions even when you are doing something wrong. It's much harder work to master myself than to complain that you haven't mastered yours.
I know someone who has resorted to, "This displeases me," as his condemnation of choice to combat this tendency, to keep right in front of himself the reality of the situation, that he doesn't like something, but his displeasure is his responsibility.
I think that recognition has to happen to make space for a response to the situation, rather than a reaction to it. Does my displeasure motivate me to take action? If so, what kind? Are other people pleased by the situation? Can I see it their way? Is their response measured, or reactionary?
It buys time, and inserting a beat between the event and the response makes all the difference.
It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.
> can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting
Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.
Even then, it's possible to talk about the person not possessing the necessary skill set, instead of resorting to an insult. It's not about euphemism - an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem.
Note, I'm not saying you should never insult - it's a tool that's sometimes useful - but you should carefully choose if you want to use that tool. And it's definitely a different tool than "calmly and legitimately pointing out". You cannot, in this case, have your cake and eat it too.
> an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem
If you're insulting to feel good, that's on you. But if you're insulting to be sure your point came across clearly, that has utility.
I'm simply challenging the claim that the "desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions." It can also be from a desire to avoid miscommunication. Strong language is strong because it demands strong interpretation. If what you need is a strong interpretation, strong language is legitimate.
> an insult definitely feels better in the moment, but it does nothing to actually identify the problem
Most of the time, the process is fucked. But sometimes, a person is unqualified. Or a liar. In those cases, the person is the problem. The fact that it displeases someone is secondary, and honestly, totally irrelevant. Trying to re-frame that in a form that pretends the person isn't the problem is the point of euphemism. It's more polite to say "ABC is having difficulty with their workload" than "ABC is a moron; these are not difficult asks."
You can also say, "ABC is terrible at this." That's not an insult. It's an observation. "ABC is a moron" is an insult.
The insult defines the person by a failure, instead of limiting the criticism to the relevant task.
If you're stooping to defining a person by their inability to do some specific thing, I still hold that you need to take responsibility for your own reaction.
> You can also say, "ABC is terrible at this." That's not an insult. It's an observation. "ABC is a moron" is an insult
The first is debatable. The second implies you don’t want to debate this. There is succinctness lost when one forbids the second.
> stooping to defining a person by their inability to do some specific thing
Yes, within a utilitarian context, a person is defined by their ability to do a thing. In the short run, there is a trade-off between empathy and efficiency. You try to avoid those situations. But not every environment permits you to.
If the case is time sensitive, I’d much rather my surgeon or commander be extremely direct when someone is screwing up than explain that they’re bad at everything they’re supposed to be doing. Being able to make this call is, in my opinion, a gating component of serious leadership
I think a lot of the world's leaders would agree with you, and the overwhelming majority of the human population who think one of the main problems facing humanity is how the world leaders are leading it would disagree.
Overlooking a person's humanity for the sake of efficiency is at the root of the problem, and an attitude that supports it as at the root of insult culture.
Sure, but you don't do that by slinging an insult. You (as you said) calmly and legitimately point it out.
Just saying, for common example, "That was blazingly stupid," isn't calmly and legitimately pointing it out. Calmly and legitimately pointing it out would be to connect the cause with the effect and highlight that the person didn't want the effect, like, "That's what happens when you touch a hot stove." The obviousness of the connection causes the person to see their own error rather sharply.
One group wishes to spread awareness of afflicted people, in the belief they can improve the empathy shown to such people by society, even though it's at odds with human fear of disease and disfigurement. It's one thing to be crippled, it's another to crippled and society finds you repulsive and treats you like shit.
This group reckon that the afflicted need a good marketing campaign. This is why they're coming up with media strategies, slogans, and of course euphemisms. Why it's National Unfortunate Bugger Day today! Let's take a look at the plight of these poor bastards and be quietly relieved we don't have their problems.
The other group is the rest of humanity, and when they feel the need to insult their peers, they reach for the strongest words they can muster. As you say, it's inevitable. In the words of Professor F. J. Lewis: See that <horrible thing>? That's you, that is. That's you trying your best.
The UK's Blue Peter and the National Spastics Society found this out the hard way when in 1981 they broadcast a story on Joey Deacon, a man with cerebral palsy. Blue Peter wanted children to learn about how Joey was intelligent, but his condition made it very hard to communicate that. What actually happened after the broadcast is that "joey" and "spastic" became the hot new playground insults, along with impersonating Joey's speech mannerisms. It was so bad that the National Spastics Society renamed itself to "Scope" to avoid the negative connotations the word had picked up. Of course, UK children then adopted "scoper" as an insult too.
This didn't reach the USA at all, which is why "spaz" is a mild insult in US English, while in the UK it's a grave insult.