5 ms·

> It takes at least a generation of time for a word to evolve to that level of offense. Not true, maybe you are biased towards English words. Take Spanish or P

> It takes at least a generation of time for a word to evolve to that level of offense. Not true, maybe you are biased towards English words. Take Spanish or Portuguese, where the word “negro” (not to confuse w/ any English slur) really means “the color black” (etymologycally) and is thereby synonymous to black. It has always been used to show respect, in a less biased sense towards black people, because it really doesn’t carry any ideology in its semantics. But now, its use and meaning are changing towards similar slur words avoided in the US. It didn’t take a generation in such countries to change its meaning (politically), it is happening now, even though the word itself is the same, means the same, and had no problem at all a couple of years ago.

eganist 6y ago
> Not true, maybe you are biased towards English words. We're also discussing a chiefly American phenomenon, and while I recognize that English isn't the only language spoken in the United States, English is the primary language of business in the United States, and boycotts/terminations are squarely in the realm of business. So, not biased; appropriately scoped.
- zekrioca 6y ago
  It is mostly a global phenomenon, and the argument remains.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > It is mostly a global phenomenon, and the argument remains. The article is clearly scoped to US issues. Language dynamics change when you move to other locales with other biases and prejudices. The article is even focused on US laws specifically. Please read the article before you engage with others so that everyone's on the same page. I've disengaged from this conversation, sorry.
    - zekrioca 6y ago
      What a great assumption: one goes outside the scope of the article, therefore the same hasn't read the article, and then other perspectives cannot be brought in. It is only naïve to think this discussion isn't scoped in a broader perspective since the very phenomena is happening elsewhere as well, and the obvious impacts linguistics have in it.

eganist 6y ago

> Not true, maybe you are biased towards English words. We're also discussing a chiefly American phenomenon, and while I recognize that English isn't the only language spoken in the United States, English is the primary language of business in the United States, and boycotts/terminations are squarely in the realm of business. So, not biased; appropriately scoped.

zekrioca 6y ago
It is mostly a global phenomenon, and the argument remains.
- eganist 6y ago
  > It is mostly a global phenomenon, and the argument remains. The article is clearly scoped to US issues. Language dynamics change when you move to other locales with other biases and prejudices. The article is even focused on US laws specifically. Please read the article before you engage with others so that everyone's on the same page. I've disengaged from this conversation, sorry.
  - zekrioca 6y ago
    What a great assumption: one goes outside the scope of the article, therefore the same hasn't read the article, and then other perspectives cannot be brought in. It is only naïve to think this discussion isn't scoped in a broader perspective since the very phenomena is happening elsewhere as well, and the obvious impacts linguistics have in it.