> The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been widely debunked. It feels right, so it keeps getting spread around as a fact. You say this as if there were consensus aro

> The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been widely debunked. It feels right, so it keeps getting spread around as a fact. You say this as if there were consensus around that, but that's not true. The very strong, original formulation of Sapir-Whorf probably doesn't hold much water, but you'll still find enough linguists claiming that language influences thought nontrivially. But of course, you'll also find linguists arguing the opposite.