←back to thread

631 points xbryanx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.416s | source
Show context
XCabbage[dead post] ◴[] No.44531344[source]
[flagged]
throw_m239339 ◴[] No.44531407[source]
It's the euphemism treadmill in action. It's like how "undocumented residents", which replaced "illegal aliens" in the media, now has a negative connotation anyway, so mainstream media are now trying to find a new word that doesn't sound "offensive"... but the very concept is loaded by definition, so no amount of euphemism is going to change that.
replies(1): >>44531626 #
1. anonymars ◴[] No.44531626[source]
My take: as long as the thing being described connotes some lower status, change the term all you want and it will still be "uncomfortable"

Negro, black, African American, person of color... it's not the term, it's the implication. Solve the fact that the treatment is that of second-class citizens and there won't be a need to create new terms.

("But that's hard and as an individual I feel powerless so instead I will use a different term I guess." Probably the same phenomenon causing people to direct energy against vaccines more than pollutants and chemicals)

"Disabled", "handicapped", "differently-abled" -- we've never needed to rename "tall", have we?