3 ms·
In the context of the article and other footnotes, it seems like the implication is, “someone is always going to be offended therefore we can’t label some thing
by finaliteration 8y ago
In the context of the article and other footnotes, it seems like the implication is, “someone is always going to be offended therefore we can’t label some things legitimately offensive and others not”. It’s a form of linguistic nihilism that comes up a lot during discussions about how “PC” things have become.
The racism comment is an example and not necessarily directly targeted at the article, but more at what’s implied given the context (e.g. the comment about The NY Times article having the race changed from “white” to “black”).
- iamdave 8y agoIt’s a form of linguistic nihilism that comes up a lot during discussions about how “PC” things have become. And so your first response to engage this is to immediately play political-word-association and tie this service up with the worst elements of the "PC" divide, because of how some other groups, not even involved in the discussion right now, deploy bad-faith debate tactics? That doesn't seem at all any more helpful than whatever it is you're portending to have an issue with, at the core of a service like this.