2 ms·

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm reluctant to get into a debate with you on this. Simply put, I already know we aren't going to change anyone's mind on t

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm reluctant to get into a debate with you on this. Simply put, I already know we aren't going to change anyone's mind on this subject. I will say this, it is perfectly fine to worry about hierarchical structures and the impacts they have on people. But the mere existence or implication of hierarchy is not a problem in-and-of itself. Especially in this context, where I am certain the impact of North being considered 'up' and South being considered 'down' has not materially harmed anyone living down under. I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. Only speculation that it could be, in an indirect way, and for reasons I don't find compelling. I'm also concerned that we're going to slip into one of the least productive kinds of argument, trying to define, redefine, and shift the meaning of words. So I'd like to avoid all of this and let bygones be bygones.

bsanr2 5y ago
>I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. And that's fine. But you're putting a lot of energy into trying to convince me of that. Do you see the contradiction? You claim that the nomenclature isn't a big deal, but then you go on to defend it - and even in this defense, you make an effort to wash your hands of the entire matter as quickly as possible. It's a weird appeal to the status quo, which I don't understand. Either the terminology matters to you or it doesn't. Does it? Do you prefer to refer to a "Sub-Saharan Africa"? If you do, why? And if not, why can't we just call it something else? I am really curious. I think this sort of discourse is perfectly reasonable because it unpacks the meanings behind our initial reactions.