This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
I think I'm getting the hang of it ...
But you know why it is really a bad thing? The actual loss of this weird focus on controlling language?
It is us. I am about to start a volunteer position with mentoring kids from underprivileged backgrounds and after the interview with the organization, I am genuinely considering dropping despite very clear positive impact this would have on the kids ( which is why I am preparing for it to begin with ). Thing will be virtual ( and recorded ), I was given a speech about white supremacy ( and asked how I feel about it ) and now I am worried that any bad word may result in career sanctions ( in other words, it is a net negative for me ).
This is just one example. It is suddenly possible that I can't pass on any real knowledge for fear of fucking myself and my family over.
<< This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Those outlets certainly amplify it, but are you saying there is no objective reason for it happening ( for example, "being against fascism" often is being accompanied by 'punch a nazi' -- is that ok )? It is a real question and I am curious about your answer.
The only thing this list does is give credence to Tucker Carlson and co's complaints about performative wokeism.
~ Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Their primary purpose is for deciding if you want to view material in the first place.
Example from university: One of my media classes was going to show a clip of “Passion of the Christ”. We got a handout explaining the content of the movie and purpose of showing it and were told to opt out if we weren’t conformable. It all handled perfectly reasonably.
This list is not a reasonable way to handle this. It lacks nuance.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.
>You don't call retarded people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they're acting retarded.
It was used as a slur, the way any term can be used as a slur: by saying it to insult someone. The intend made it a slur, not the term.
In fact, in the case of insulting, it was primarily used against people who don't have that condition (mind developmental problems). "See what you've done? Are you a r...?", etc. For the people actually having such condition, it was just the medical term the literature, and their own doctors used to describe their condition.
Replacing the term doesn't change the mindset. Any new term adopted can equally be used with malice, it's just a BS arms race, focusing on words, when it should have focused on the bullying and attitude. But that would actually make sense - and have an actual effect, so why not take the easier path?