I don't take anyone seriously who casually calls something like Bodega an "offensive idea", as if this is the most natural thing to do. A name choice ca be bad without the whole idea "being offensive". Lazy labels are bad for discourse.
replies(1):
Therefore expanding the scope of "offensiveness" more and more is, in my eyes, a problematic trend.
This is similar to what Nassim Taleb described in his essay "The Dictatorship of the small Minority". Essentially, the most easily offended person will win, as everyone is expected to adhere to his/her requirements (as most people would, despite disagreeing with the claim, still feel morally forced to oblige, as they don't like to hurt someone else's feelings - so all power is concentrated on the person with the offended "feelings" - the more sensible he/she is, the more everyone else needs to comply. If this person cannot handle any kind of different point of viewpoint or idea, everyone else would have to avoid expressing viewpoints and ideas. This is the extreme scenario of course, but what's stopping us to end up there?) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...