A restaurant in Stillwater, OK

[GwynnInTheHall]

That is what I am talking about. At what point does a term become offensive enough to make a big deal about? You keep talking in generalities, but if you dig deep enough many many mnay m,nay terms can be considered offensive to someone? Again, where is the line drawn?

I just used .01% as a point that if only a very, very, very small percentage of the offended group cares, then why is change necessary?

I don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?

[Sour Masher]

I chose this thread because as I was skimming it I got the thought of; When is a term is considered offensive enough that it is never used again without being a jerk. I just happened to be i this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, got it. I think the conflation of the general question and this specific case is what confused me. Separating the question from this case, I understand your point. Yeah, this stuff is a moving target, and it is confusing sometimes when something is socially acceptable one day and is not the next. I finally get that. When I was young, I did not get that, and older people who still used terms I knew were offensive confused and annoyed me.

So, the question you are bringing up is, where is the tipping point for when we as a society should agree to abide by changing our language? We agree it comes from the community of people being labeled, but how many in that community have to be offended? I don't have an answer. I would say if it is only 1 in a thousand, that is not enough. A significant number? How many would depend to me on how informed people are on the history of a term. Many might not be offended, because they don't yet know that history, but would be offended if they did.

[Sour Masher]

I don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?

I disagree. If it was literally one person in a group, I'd just refrain from calling that one person whatever offended that one person. I wouldn't change the whole cultural lexicon over one person. I think it is just polite to respect what someone wants to be called, so I call someone whatever they prefer. But that doesn't mean you call everyone else in that group something different, if everyone else in the group does not want you to do that.

[TranaGreg]

I chose this thread because as I was skimming it I got the thought of; When is a term is considered offensive enough that it is never used again without being a jerk. I just happened to be i this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

but it isn't as subjective as this - virtually all offensive terms I'm aware of have decades/centuries of history behind them, involving colonialism, subjugation, slavery, etc.
generally - almost exclusively - it's related to righting past wrongs; these aren't random words.

[Ken]

I don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?

This is a very utopian viewpoint without room for reality. What if 99 people perform a religious ritual for hundreds of years and then there is 1 individual in that community that expresses that the ritual offends them? Who is right?

It's never black and white.

While I agree with your premise and the ideas behind it, it's not reality in some cases.

[Sour Masher]

but it isn't as subjective as this - virtually all offensive terms I'm aware of have decades/centuries of history behind them, involving colonialism, subjugation, slavery, etc.
generally - almost exclusively - it's related to righting past wrongs; these aren't random words.

All good points, but some of it does change with time as well, and I think that is what leads to the push back. If someone grew up using a term that a people preferred and that term changes, that can lead to slowness being aware of that change and embracing it. In the AA community, you see that, with younger folks embracing new terms and labeling old terms offensive when older folks don't see it that way at all. Here is an article related to that: https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/livin...ers/index.html

The article talks about the generational divide on the term Negro recently, and colored before that.

And I see it in my own house. My wife is Jamaican and does not prefer the term AA to describe her, because she does not see herself as AA. She doesn't think it fair for her to even claim herself as part of that more oppressed heritage. It leaves me always struggling with the best term to use when I don't know someone's heritage. AA, I have been taught by my wife, is not the all-inclusive term for someone that looks like her.

Using her as an example again, she has no problem with the term mixed race to describe our own children. In fact, she prefers it to biracial. Others are offended by that term and prefer biracial. I am left wondering what it appropriate to call my own kids. So, sometimes this stuff is a moving target, is my point.

[DMT]

All good points, but some of it does change with time as well, and I think that is what leads to the push back. If someone grew up using a term that a people preferred and that term changes, that can lead to slowness being aware of that change and embracing it. In the AA community, you see that, with younger folks embracing new terms and labeling old terms offensive when older folks don't see it that way at all. Here is an article related to that: https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/livin...ers/index.html

The article talks about the generational divide on the term Negro recently, and colored before that.

And I see it in my own house. My wife is Jamaican and does not prefer the term AA to describe her, because she does not see herself as AA. She doesn't think it fair for her to even claim herself as part of that more oppressed heritage. It leaves me always struggling with the best term to use when I don't know someone's heritage. AA, I have been taught by my wife, is not the all-inclusive term for someone that looks like her.

Using her as an example again, she has no problem with the term mixed race to describe our own children. In fact, she prefers it to biracial. Others are offended by that term and prefer biracial. I am left wondering what it appropriate to call my own kids. So, sometimes this stuff is a moving target, is my point.

I've never heard of anyone taking offense to "mixed race". Biracial doesn't encompass children who are from more than two races.

[DMT]

This is a very utopian viewpoint without room for reality. What if 99 people perform a religious ritual for hundreds of years and then there is 1 individual in that community that expresses that the ritual offends them? Who is right?

It's never black and white.

While I agree with your premise and the ideas behind it, it's not reality in some cases.

Of course it's not, but in GITH's world, it is.

[Sour Masher]

I've never heard of anyone taking offense to "mixed race". Biracial doesn't encompass children who are from more than two races.

Offense might be a strong word, but some prefer multi-racial for more than two races over mixed race, and I have heard from some students who prefer biracial if they are of just two races. There are several acceptable terms to most people, I think, with small numbers of folks who give reasons for why one is better than another. And some terms used to be unacceptable that some people are trying to bring back, like Mulatto (yep, some mixed race younger folks are cool with this term...there is even a rapper with the name), which offends many others in the same group.

[DMT]

Right, I think there's a big difference between preferential versus offensive language.

[DMT]

What drives me crazy is how many organizations still produce forms that allow respondents to select only one race. I always check both and write in all-caps CHANGE YOUR FORM.

[Mithrandir]

I don't understand WHY there has to be a quantifiable related to this--You either care about what someone thinks or you do not. If ONE Inuit, isn't that all that matters? I have learned that my position of Privledge does not allow me the ability to relate to or fully understand the power of an offensive moniker. So if I am to truly be an advocate for the oppressed, I must defer to THIER sense of what is or is not offensive and again--if we're to say One life lost is too many, shouldn't we also adhere to One life diminished is too many as well?

Absolutely not. if you allow one person to dictate what we can and can't do, when does it end?

I understand our WHITE PRIVILEGE, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to everyone who cries "Offended".

[Mithrandir]

Right, I think there's a big difference between preferential versus offensive language.

Agree.

[Mithrandir]

Ah, got it. I think the conflation of the general question and this specific case is what confused me. Separating the question from this case, I understand your point. Yeah, this stuff is a moving target, and it is confusing sometimes when something is socially acceptable one day and is not the next. I finally get that. When I was young, I did not get that, and older people who still used terms I knew were offensive confused and annoyed me.

So, the question you are bringing up is, where is the tipping point for when we as a society should agree to abide by changing our language? We agree it comes from the community of people being labeled, but how many in that community have to be offended? I don't have an answer. I would say if it is only 1 in a thousand, that is not enough. A significant number? How many would depend to me on how informed people are on the history of a term. Many might not be offended, because they don't yet know that history, but would be offended if they did.

Thanks you explaining what I blathered about better than I did. It can be tough to try to type what I actually mean when I'm busy at work!

Darn work!

[GwynnInTheHall]

This is a very utopian viewpoint without room for reality. What if 99 people perform a religious ritual for hundreds of years and then there is 1 individual in that community that expresses that the ritual offends them? Who is right?

It's never black and white.

While I agree with your premise and the ideas behind it, it's not reality in some cases.

I agree, I am not arguing what is reality and what is not, but rather, as Cervantes said--What life Should Be.

BTW, I dislike religion, so I'd say--well if you all can't agree lets just get rid of it all together.