3 ms·
That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that
by softwarebeware 5y ago
That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage.
White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
- trackflak 5y agoIt's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it. And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word". Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?