The word "field" is a racial slur now.

[2PhiloVoid]

So I can test your assertion, whats an example of this forced change thats actually stuck?

I'm only speaking in reference to silly stuff, like the topic designated in the OP for this thread. And that's it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans, you know there's a huge difference between the natural evolution of language and the sudden, gratuitious, and forced change made by some political voices working in a Marxian/"1984-ish" style.

Do I? (Do you?)

Words replace other words all the time. Often as a matter of fashion. They acquire new usages. Old usages stop, &c, &c, &c.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Pet parent" instead of pet owner

Yep, obviously big brother. INGSOC strikes again. (Or is it what some people like use to describe their relationship with their furry companions.)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Reminds me of that time they wanted to ban the song white Christmas because it doesn't snow there, so they thought it was racial.

So it reminds me of an old song

 

[morningstar2651]

MSN

I'll bet not a single one of those complaining employees had ever worked in a field.

But I'll also bet 99% of all of us have an ancestor within the last 5 generations who did work in some kind of field.

When I was a teenager, I worked in someone else's field one day...kind of an experiment to see what "chopping cotton" was like. If I ever needed a reason to get a college degree, that one day chopping cotton provided all the reason I'd ever need. I did, however, do a lot of outdoor work for my grandfather on his property, so I was not a stranger to hard work under a hot sun.

I'm not embarrassed by the fact that my ancestors worked in fields, first those of slaveowners, then fields of their own. Certainly, the word "field" isn't going to "trigger" me.

This horse manure has long been absurd.

This is a result of making "black studies" a college major.

I don't see anything about it being a racial slur in the article. Are you sure you read the same article you linked to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do I? (Do you?)

Words replace other words all the time. Often as a matter of fashion. They acquire new usages. Old usages stop, &c, &c, &c.

Hans. We're talking in this thread about the use of the word "field." Look at the OP and then tell me that, assuming the story is true, this isn't odd.

 

[Ironhorse]

Laughable. Just a few fools wanting their voice heard. It will fizzle into nothing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans. We're talking in this thread about the use of the word "field." Look at the OP and then tell me that, assuming the story is true, this isn't odd.

The article is outrage farming, and you've been picked out there in the field. Congratulations!

It's a very specific usage in a certain certain context in a very small area of overall human activity.

In the mean time, I've redefined a lot of mathematical symbols, so here is an arithmetic puzzle for you to solve:

- & V R V
V & V R W
V & W R 3
W & W R H
3 & W R 2
W & H R X
X & V R S
H & H R O
3 & X R V-
2 & 2 R VV

 

[Pommer]

The article is outrage farming, and you've been picked out there in the field. Congratulations!

It's a very specific usage in a certain certain context in a very small area of overall human activity.

In the mean time, I've redefined a lot of mathematical symbols, so here is an arithmetic puzzle for you to solve:

- & V R V
V & V R W
V & W R 3
W & W R H
3 & W R 2
W & H R X
X & V R S
H & H R O
3 & X R V-
2 & 2 R VV

But why “Dorset”?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But why “Dorset”?

??

 

[Aldebaran]

When the usage (or abandonment of usage) becomes common, durable, and mostly not questioned. Like with the demise of "negro".

I dont know if theres better measure of oppression than people reporting feeling oppressed. Im reporting that I dont. Put that in the basket along with everyone elses testimony.

Govt official usage in docs is not oppression. Oppression is when govt forces your usage.

So? Is she entitled to immunity from criticism?..... while here we are putting other agencies of govt "under fire" for excising "field". None of the under fire stuff is oppression.

All this about big brother oppression seems a little hyperventilatory to me. That said, I think relegating "field" is double plus silly.

Government usage in docs is different than government incentivizing private companies and MSM to push the same terminology, often under threats of bans or firings if the people don't comply.

 

[durangodawood]

Government usage in docs is different than government incentivizing private companies and MSM to push the same terminology, often under threats of bans or firings if the people don't comply.

Yes, it is different. Example of this re media, please?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, it is different. Example of this re media, please?

Example of what exactly? MSM people using goofy words and phrases that some in the government use to please those who speak "woke"?

 

[durangodawood]

Example of what exactly? MSM people using goofy words and phrases that some in the government use to please those who speak "woke"?

Example of govt incentivizing media to conform to new word usages?

I want a specific example of a problematic action.

 

[Aldebaran]

Example of govt incentivizing media to conform to new word usages?

I want a specific example of a problematic action.

Define incentivizing, conform, new, and problematic.

 

[durangodawood]

Define incentivizing, conform, new, and problematic.

Just give me an example of what you had in mind in your post.

 

[Aldebaran]

Just give me an example of what you had in mind in your post.

I usually do that, only to discover afterwards that the person who wants specific examples isn't pleased with any examples I give because it didn't meet the unspoken definitions of the requester.

 

[RDKirk]

When the usage (or abandonment of usage) becomes common, durable, and mostly not questioned. Like with the demise of "negro".

Which people abandoned willingly, without any university telling students not to use it.

What annoys me, as a black person, is that government agencies--such as state universities and state governments--are deciding public dictates based on limited extreme information. This is an example like that of government agencies picking up "Latinx" despite the fact that Spanish language authorities and the vast majority of Spanish speakers have outright rejected it.

"“Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

I suspect that idea originates from a single university black studies professor. It makes the rest of us look unreasonable and unreasoning.

 

[durangodawood]

Which people abandoned willingly, without any university telling students not to use it.

What annoys me, as a black person, is that government agencies--such as state universities and state governments--are deciding public dictates based on limited extreme information. This is an example like that of government agencies picking up "Latinx" despite the fact that Spanish language authorities and the vast majority of Spanish speakers have outright rejected it.

"“Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

I suspect that idea originates from a single university black studies professor. It makes the rest of us look unreasonable and unreasoning.

Yes I can appreciate how this top (academy) down language engineering can be really annoying. To me its just silly, while to you there might be more at stake in this specific case.

The main thing Im pushing back on are the totally overblown wails of "tyranny" and "Big Brother". Its like these people havent even read 1984.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What annoys me, as a black person, is that government agencies--such as state universities and state governments--are deciding public dictates based on limited extreme information. This is an example like that of government agencies picking up "Latinx" despite the fact that Spanish language authorities and the vast majority of Spanish speakers have outright rejected it.

Latinx is a poor attempt to find a single, non-gendered word to use to describe a group as "Latino" is specifically gendered male in the language it originates from but not in English. (Many writers/speakers in English will use "Latina(a)" when speaking of specifically female persons. Mixed groups are the problem.) The term Hispanic does not have this problem, but Hispanic and Latino are not quite the same thing. An earlier attempt was "Latin@" where the "@" sign was supposed to be a o+a. Since English doesn't have gender endings for nouns, dropping it completely (Latin) though that term *was* used in the past and sounds some what "cringey" like it belongs in the era where "Negro" was the standard term.

"“Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

I was not able to open the "MSN" article in the OP, so I didn't realize this was the specific context. I will admit that I am somewhat sympathetic to the professor's point. When the subject of your study is people perhaps it is a time to find a better way to label that aspect of your work other than "field work". (For other areas like ecology, archeology, and geology where you are not studying living people, the term "field work" is probably fine, though if the social work academics find a good term it may be used in the future.)

I will note that as a non-Christian I am bothered when referred to as a "mission field" especially directly and individually. It is quite offensive. No one wants to be the target of unsolicited prostelisation.