3 ms·
I think the concern is not that the word _is_ racist in origin, but that people whose lives have been irrevocably altered by racism and slavery may _perceive_ t
by NateEag 4y ago
I think the concern is not that the word _is_ racist in origin, but that people whose lives have been irrevocably altered by racism and slavery may _perceive_ them as such.
An idea doesn't have to be true to cause someone suffering.
- mdp2021 4y agoWhile of course one will do every reasonable attempt not to offend another part gratuitously, and also noting that the problem of misperception should call for a correction in the perception itself (and more contextually, if "«alter[ation]»" has been caused there should be investments in treatments), if you allowed events to affect innocent structures you would arrive at absurdities such as "avoid that formerly common gesture because it is now the signature of controversial group G". Which would also be a form of foolish treason, empowering that contemptible part - they have now modified your culture - that should have instead been relegated in its narrow place.
- NateEag 4y agoI largely agree with you, and would refer those with the concern I described to an idea I met in Brené Brown's writing: "To make the world safe for feet, one might try to cover it entirely in leather, which is an insurmountable task. However, if you put the leather on your own feet..." My goal wasn't to argue the concern was objectively correct, just to point out that it was different from what was being critiqued.
- belval 4y agoA society cannot exist if any perceived slight and irrational thoughts are cause for change. Otherwise where is the line drawn? Do black coffee, black sabbath, yin and yang need to change as well? Maybe we can replace the word "black" with "dark", that way we truly have a departure from words that can be _perceived_ as offensive.