@jmw150 Let me know what you think if you don't mind. This really rubbed me the wrong way. I think the guidelines are just more extreme, etymologically ignorant propaganda by the far left wing tankies at google.
They claim that the term "blacklist", which literally originated in the 1600s to refer to individuals who were troublesome to hire (typically due to union involvement), is now "socially charged". How?! Is it because the word has the term "black" in it, which means it's clearly referring to black people? Can we just change the colors to red/green lists? Is that offensive to colorblind people like me now? Or do we just remove the word black entirely from the lexicon as a whole, lest we risk offending someone? If so, there goes the following words and more: blacksmithing, blackmailing, blacktop, blackjack, etc. It's asinine.
They also advocate for the removal of the "master/slave" naming structure. I absolutely hate slavery; however, I don't think that they understand that there is still literal slavery going on in the world, and protecting the delicate sensibilities of programmers who have to read their documentation will do nothing to solve those problems or create a more inclusive environment for ethnic minorities in the slightest. It just seems like slactivism, where they want to "do something", but not so much that they actually accomplish anything other than signalling to others how "moral" they are.
Do I think offensive language can be a barrier to entry for certain groups, especially if it's *intentional*? Absolutely, but the offense taken by a listener to the unintentional expressions of a speaker are more of a problem with the listener. In other words, intent clearly matters during communication, and clarification should be sought when necessary.
To end, here's a short paragraph using a bunch of their banned words, without any offensive intent. Can you spot the "issues" without reading their guidelines?
"To cripple the expressiveness of our language by blacklisting certain words is insanity; it is necessary to fight back against this thought-policing nonsense to protect the intellectual freedom of mankind."
@jmw150 (I really enjoyed the video thanks for sharing! 😁 and yeah, if those scholars kept getting offended, they wouldn't get too far before throwing out the texts lmao)
I think the evolution of language is natural, but when it's driven by an ideology which is self-contradictory and actively harmful to people who adopt it is when I take issue.
I have many friends and family members who are minorities in some way or another, yet they really hate being treated as anything other than just another person. I've been a minority in a few cases, and all I ever wanted was equal treatment, which I recognized when I got and greatly appreciated.
I don't think pandering to people who have a facet of their identity which would place them in a minority group, particularly by changing completely innocent and unintentional language, is doing anything other than further isolating and "othering" them. I really want unity over division, and I don't think controlling speech gets us there.
So let language change naturally; sure, and let people choose how they want to speak. Don't try to police ideas/words you don't like with the idea that you're helping people. You might just be making it worse, and making people feel like they'll never belong. I.e. by sacrificing everything in the name of inclucivity, you may end up being exclusive instead.
@johnabs But also imagine if literary scholars were highly offended by reading middle English. lol
@johnabs Yeah. I find it primitive.
But I also think this is natural long term. The language will just evolve to free up space. It will force English to mutate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knv1OSMW2rU