4 ms·
>It is absurd. Again, how so? The two connotations are not mutually exclusive. If the goal is to avoid implying a hierarchy, why not change to a term that has
by bsanr2 5y ago
>It is absurd.
Again, how so? The two connotations are not mutually exclusive.
If the goal is to avoid implying a hierarchy, why not change to a term that has no connection to hierarchy?
- throwaway894345 5y agoBecause there's no indication that it causes confusion for anyone except, perhaps, you. There is a lot more ambiguity in English than this and we don't put aside all of our other problems to deal with this. Anyway, these kind of semantic debates are the most boring, dull, tedious things I can think of (see also the people who think we need to replace "latinos" with "latinxs") so I'm going to entertain myself with anything else besides this thread.
- bsanr2 5y agoI never held that it causes confusion. The duplicity of meaning is probably, in fact, a bonus for some. I don't like that duplicity. I would rather the terminology be unambiguous and direct, if it is possible (and, in this case, it is).