Post a response:
|
I didn't say inclusive language, I said woke language. A community is a village or a town, not just a group of people sharing some characteristic or viewpoint. If you look at any older writings, you don't see this terminology being used, it's only in woke activist places. What that does is establishes MAP activism as just another branch of woke activism. And let's be clear, woke activism has achieved absolutely no successes other than optics, and even then, I would argue that it's been failures. Gay marriage, anti-gay discrimination, racial activism, etc have all had their successes before all of this woke language politics became en vogue. Meanwhile if you look at when they started talking about "the black community", they emphasized "abolish the police" and "reparations", where do you hear that now? Trans activists are advocating for taxpayer-funded transition surgery and hormones for children, none of which is considered acceptable (rightfully) by most people. So what exactly is the point of language politics? You talk about optics, but why don't you care about reality? Do you think the government and NGOs are going to support pedophiles because of good optics? Do you think that using the same language politics that Western governments use to justify invasions and sanctions is going to lead somewhere decent? What's important is independence of thought and using the language politics of someone else shows no independence of thought. It means someone else is setting the narrative and you're along for the ride. |