4 ms·
Leanr a bit of logic. This is nowhere near a proof that a use of a certain language is a direct or indirect cause of a genocide and not just a symptom, and that
by sklogic 11y ago
Leanr a bit of logic. This is nowhere near a proof that a use of a certain language is a direct or indirect cause of a genocide and not just a symptom, and that censoring this language would have stopped the genocide.
Not to mention that now it seems to be a priviledge of the self-righteous SJWs to proclaim which words should be counted as offensive this week. It never comes from the minorities in question.
- DanBC 11y ago> Not to mention that now it seems to be a priviledge of the self-righteous SJWs to proclaim which words should be counted as offensive this week. It never comes from the minorities in question. You're wrong. Use of the word retard has been strongly rejected by people with a learning disability in the UK. The word disability has also been rejected, which is why I use LD for learning difficulties, or I use specific diagnoses for granularity. They have rejected these terms for many years. The change in language is something they have been driving.
- marrs 11y agoAny thoughts on what you'll replace "learning difficulties" with when it too gets rejected?