Maybe someone else can answer my question, then.
I think you are the one making an argument from authority, saying we should take the list seriously if it came from the university, but not from the students. Where do all these new terms come from anyway? For example, who came up with and who popularised ‘people of colour’? Who decided we should use person-first language?
I guess it’s still okay to call people trash. So much for caring about feelings, or for not stereotyping.
The list of terms comes directly from the PARC site. Whether The Examiner article called attention to it or not, the list still would exists and we could reasonably have a conversation about it, independent of the article and its slant. Although, the word “picnic” might still be on the PARC Offensive Language list. 
I also don’t think anyone here argued that Brandeis was codifying the PARC terminology for all students and staff. I think this remains a conversation about the fact that changes to common vernacular is changing BECAUSE of sources of activism like PARC, not whether an actual authority (office of language police?) exists. Example being the word “literal” did not come to mean both “literal” & “figurative” because of some language authority. It became so defined in the dictionary because of how commonly it was used incorrectly by the english speaking world. Webster and Oxford just finally gave up and added both meanings.
So while nobody is going to actually legislate “take a stab” out of the common english vernacular because some group decided it may be offensive, it may still happen because some section of the population will insist it be so and others will simply capitulate, again, see my examples of the use of “Oriental” and “African-American”.
That’s what some of us are talking about. I don’t know anymore what the rest of you are talking about.
Well not quite. The point is, it would be quite wrong to look at a bunch of suggestions from a student group and assume it represents the opinion of the majority of people, or the opinions of the majority of people on the left.
Now, if it was official guidance from a University, that does carry more weight, but that “Daily Mail” assumption that it represents “the left” would still be going too far, and no-one is saying that one University’s opinion should be gospel.
We could ask the same of all language. Ultimately, it’s just a matter of what goes “viral”. Though of course if some respected figure or organization gives an opinion and explanation of why X is offensive, that can increase the chances of that viewpoint gaining traction.
What we should do is make a list of the suggestions we feel are not currently the opinion of the majority, or at least the majority on left, and check back in a few years to see how many have caught on.
Looking at political correctness as a viral meme, it’s successful at spreading partly because it includes the assumption that anyone who disagrees is a bad person. And that is the same way all these changes are popularised, both reasonable and not.
If you like. Seems pretty pointless to me, but I won’t try to stop you.
Not an assumption. The point is, switching terms is not some big ordeal, and if a group says that they find a term offensive, then yeah, someone aware of that and using the old term regardless is showing at least a degree of being inconsiderate if not willfully hurtful.
Now of course, it’s true that some people may not even be aware of a term being offensive, and I do think in most cases most people get a pass for that, as I’ve explained upthread. But within reason. Someone calling someone “colored” in 2021 won’t get a pass; that’s been disfavored for decades.
Also, it’s interesting you’re invoking meme theory. I would maintain that the “Political correctness gone MAD” thing is a clearer example. Because 9 times out of 10, the memes are not based on any reality. They spread only because of their phenotype characteristics, whether they are true is incidental.
Why must we take seriously anyone who objects to some word or phrase, even when it isn’t directed at them, but ignore the discomfort of people struggling with constant, senseless (to them) changes to their language imposed on them from above? Why do we listen to one and not the other, why will we happily make any change for one, but do nothing for the other, not even sympathise with them?
Still, not everyone knows this, and more importantly may not know what term to use instead. Here you are judging them for not being as smart/knowledgeable/well educated as you, while simultaneously claiming it’s irrational for people to fear being judged.
Pretty much any idea can be an example. But many people dislike political correctness because of their own experiences; news stories pander to this because they know it is unpopular.
Moot point from you then. It was not me who did make that asinine point.
Just use whatever words you want to use. I’m sorry, but there is nothing anyone can do to insulate you from possible social consequences.
In fact, if all of you who claim that most people hate PC are right and it’s all hollow virtue signaling, then you should expect to be cheered for your bravery in calling things what they should really be called.
Because generally the former is much bigger than the latter.
This thread has (morphed into) an attempt to show the hurt of needing to learn new terms and it’s completely failed.
I didn’t say “smart” nor did I compare anyone to me. It’s simply society expecting individuals to be aware of things that have been true and well-known for decades.
If this seems unfair note that it’s the same with just about anything, from table manners to expectations for civility, to business conventions: yes, society judges harshly those who ignore changes that have been true for decades.
Having said all that, if I were speaking to an elderly person and they used “colored” in a context that didn’t appear to show any malice or racism, I’d probably ignore it.
You’re trying really hard to find a problem here.
No, it’s because it ticks various psychological buttons.
Often when you ask people about the main PC things that drive them mad, they will list off complete myths. And they can be genuinely upset. It’s difficult to tell them “Yeah, those are all bullshit”.
When I was working the polls last year, some right wing dude (working the polls for Madison Cawthorn) came up to me and started jeering at me about all the problems with schools. “What’s wrong with teaching kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance?” he demanded. “Why can’t we do that?”
I asked him if he’d be surprised to hear that I’d said the pledge with my students yesterday. “Well good for you,” he said, “but it shouldn’t just be something that individual teachers do.”
I explained that it had come on over our intercom. “Really? What school are you at? Why aren’t all schools doing that?”
I explained that it was a state law, at which point he clearly stopped believing me.
The propaganda is strong.
So this wonk (or likeminded group of wonks) invented a narrative that they claimed is wrong and offensive (to their candidate and those who are like minded) and formalized it into a talking point of a campaign platform. Everyone who was inclined to support this candidate and his platform would be unlikely to question this false assertion and spread the meme. Others who are potentially on the fence and poorly informed would likely accept it without challenge as well. Eventually, once the meme finds enough support and traction, it becomes a socially accepted ‘truth’ and political policy (one of many) on which the campaign is based.