Okay.
Here we go.
I am going to first agree with you that some in academia are so far removed from regular day-to-day life that suddenly restricting the use of a common, poly-definitional word is absurd.
Well that really depends upon why the change was made.
The change itself may be absurd, and I'd agree on that, someone however decided they had good reasons to change it.
Perhaps those are exactly the reasons given. Perhaps not.
That’s why we’re having this thread.
But is it absurd enough that we to draw such tight-lines and “slug-it-out-in-the-trenches”?
I'm not asking anyone here slug anything out nor am I trying to convince people of anything.
I simply saw a bunch of single takes repeating the same point and took a different angle.
No, of course not.
Besides, the hyper-racial-sensitively
Hyper racial sensitivity?
Is that how you'd describe academia?
in places of higher learning and social services, is what it looks like when someone is trying to correct an injustice, if one could see the injustice, one would see the need.
What injustice is being corrected?
is this an absurd change or is it a just change?
What are you claiming?
But some people cannot perceive injustice that doesn’t happen to themselves, personally.
I'm about 100% certain that isn't true. I didn't personally go through the Rwandan genocide but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing an injustice there.
What has happened to your mind that you would make the above statement?
And there’s nothing wrong with that point-of-view, but they don’t get to tell the rest of what is and isn’t “unjust”.
But they are....they are telling you what is and isn't unjust....and you agree. If I had to guess, I'd say the process involves pressure to conform to language standards, constantly redefining words so that you learn so you don't become perceived as immoral by the in-group, and finally, affirmation to ideological standards and norms....like a pledge of allegiance. You consider yourself an ally....don't you?
