It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
that’s also true. But seeing as this is a discussion primarily about removing terms from common parlance, i think it’s reasonable to focus on solely that aspect.
Ultimately, i’m just not really convinced that doing this is going to be ultimately productive at the end of the day. I might be wrong i suppose. But i think i’d need to see some supporting data first.