zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
> Imagine having to explain to a well-meaning visitor from another planet why using the phrase "people of color" is considered particularly enlightened, but saying "colored people" gets you fired. [...] There are no underlying principles.

To understand much of our language, Gnorts would have to already be aware that our words and symbols gain meaning from how they're used, and you couldn't, for instance, determine that a swastika is offensive (in the west) by its shape alone.

In this case, the term "colored people" gained racist connotations from its history of being used for discrimination and segregation - and avoiding it for that reason is the primary principle at play. There's also the secondary/less universal principle of preferring "person-first language".

>>Ukv+rD
He's a smart enough person that even asking that question makes me think the whole piece is written in bad faith. Yes, language evolves and has specific context and nuance.

>>blactu+Uq1
Indeed all I can think of now is Stewart Lee's bit about "political correctness gone mad"

(some strong language and racist words used so maybe not safe for work or around kids)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_JCBmY9NGM

>>jahnu+sX1
I was thinking about Stewart Lee as I attempted to read the article. It resonated especially strongly as I got to the part about how this awful "political correctness" is the reason that women are now able to report sexual harassment on campus. I wasn't able to make it much further. Hats off to those brave adventurers who made it through the whole thing.