"Milk is racist" Maybe it's monomania but I have a hard time seeing all these claims of offense as anything more than screaming for attention, just like the "trans" stuff and, even more, the "nonbinary" stuff. We've seen those published lists of anathematized words. We're not supposed to use "field" as in "field of study," presumably bec…
Maybe it's monomania but I have a hard time seeing all these claims of offense as anything more than screaming for attention, just like the "trans" stuff and, even more, the "nonbinary" stuff.
We've seen those published lists of anathematized words. We're not supposed to use "field" as in "field of study," presumably because it might sound like "cotton field." We can't refer to someone in a wheelchair as "disabled" despite the factual accuracy but "differently abled" implies that being unable to walk is equivalent to being able to, which is absurd. I remember in Spain in the 60s there was no stigma or insult in referring to someone as a "cripple."
I certainly don't want to be impolite, insensitive, rude, or cruel, but, I mean, really. We all have problems; I'm diabetic, I have a vestigial stutter, I'm below average height, so what. People can refer to any of these without ruining my day.
But someone who constantly calls out these infra-significant designations is likely just trying to soun special. One of those in vogue right now is this gender-neutrality thing, which I see no justification for at all. People are male and female. Neither is a disability or weakness. But obligingly using "he/she" or—choke—"they" is supposed to sound sensitive or "woke" or whatever, adding nothing to comprehension but putting on a show of sensitivity. Gender neutrality makes for awkward language and does nothing to address what matters, for example fairness in salary.
Racism is prevalent enough in reality without needing to contrive it out of nothing. Fascism has a definition (and, yes, Trump meets certain significant parts of it), so does communism, but both are thrown around willy-nilly as euphemisms for mere dislike.
Ultimately these restrictions do nothing to right injustices but serve to deprive language of texture. If not meaning.
"Milk is racist"
Maybe it's monomania but I have a hard time seeing all these claims of offense as anything more than screaming for attention, just like the "trans" stuff and, even more, the "nonbinary" stuff.
We've seen those published lists of anathematized words. We're not supposed to use "field" as in "field of study," presumably because it might sound like "cotton field." We can't refer to someone in a wheelchair as "disabled" despite the factual accuracy but "differently abled" implies that being unable to walk is equivalent to being able to, which is absurd. I remember in Spain in the 60s there was no stigma or insult in referring to someone as a "cripple."
I certainly don't want to be impolite, insensitive, rude, or cruel, but, I mean, really. We all have problems; I'm diabetic, I have a vestigial stutter, I'm below average height, so what. People can refer to any of these without ruining my day.
But someone who constantly calls out these infra-significant designations is likely just trying to soun special. One of those in vogue right now is this gender-neutrality thing, which I see no justification for at all. People are male and female. Neither is a disability or weakness. But obligingly using "he/she" or—choke—"they" is supposed to sound sensitive or "woke" or whatever, adding nothing to comprehension but putting on a show of sensitivity. Gender neutrality makes for awkward language and does nothing to address what matters, for example fairness in salary.
Racism is prevalent enough in reality without needing to contrive it out of nothing. Fascism has a definition (and, yes, Trump meets certain significant parts of it), so does communism, but both are thrown around willy-nilly as euphemisms for mere dislike.
Ultimately these restrictions do nothing to right injustices but serve to deprive language of texture. If not meaning.