Is this a book?
I agree, and that’s why we as a society have evolved some positive language changes. The question is how far it’s reasonable to push this in response to any possible misconception about the implications of a word, especially misconceptions among a small number of self-appointed reformers who are ignorant of a word’s etymology. There has been more than one instance of word usage or alleged cultural appropriation being deemed “offensive” by righteous language mavens or self-styled cultural luminaries when in fact the group supposedly being offended couldn’t care less.
As several have already said, all of us. And I would also add, at least in part, those who can make rational arguments about why artificially imposed changes are misguided and serve no purpose.
We are better off avoiding being so over the top in our quest for politically correct virtue signalling that it becomes a self-parody. When your quest to avoid being offensive becomes comical, it’s not very productive.
Mandated by whatever authority is either in reality or by self-appointment attempting to force changes to language; for example, in the case of “master bedroom”, the various local and national real estate associations; in the general case, the authors of the “Inclusive Language Guide” and all other self-appointed arbiters of politically correct language.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the natural evolution of language. It’s all about the kind of top-down control that is anathema to the way language actually works, and more like how it worked in Orwell’s 1984.
The language changes that became entrenched were mostly organically evolved through increasingly popular usage driven by the recognition that earlier terms were either inaccurate or demeaning. The two examples I cited were terms that were retired because they clearly expressed an “otherness” rather than a legitimate ethnic description, and AFAIK neither change was mandated by a self-styled authority.
I have read “I’m not your Sherpa”
Is this a book?
No, as a turn of phrase. Similar to I’m not your mother / I’m not going to hold your hand.
~Max
Weird, I’m middle aged and have gone my whole life without hearing that one.
Naw. Real estate professionals choosing to use language for real estate jargon that they think will maximize their profits is hardly orwellian.
There are a lot of potential home buyers who aren’t a married couple with kids. “Master bedroom” doesn’t speak to those other buyers. There are also Black home buyers who might not like the term even though it’s not historically derived from slavery.
The realtors are doing this because they think it will help them sell dwellings. That really IS how language organically evolves.
Me, too.
I mean it’s not something I come across often, but Sherpa is in my internal dictionary as synonym for guide, guru, life coach. (obviously the peoples somewhere around the Himalayan Mountains, too)
ETA: Internet tells me it is primarily used this way in the tech.
~Max
Then you must both have been deprived of seeing the Coen Brothers classic, Intolerable Cruelty! 
One of the hilarious exchanges involves a metaphorical allusion to Tenzing Norgay, the Sherpa who guided Edmund Hillary to the top of Mount Everest, the first known successful attempt to reach the summit. The concept of the Sherpa as a guide became somewhat of a popular allegory, hence the following exchange in the movie:
Wrigley : Who are you looking for?
Miles Massey : Tenzing Norgay.
Wrigley : Tenzing Norgay? That’s someone she slept with?
Miles Massey : I doubt it. Tenzing Norgay was the Sherpa that helped Edmund Hillary climb Mt. Everest.
Wrigley : And Marylin knows him?
Miles Massey : No, you idiot. Not the Tenzing Norgay. Her Tenzing Norgay.
Wrigley : I’m not sure that I actually follow that.
Miles Massey : Few great accomplishments are achieved single-handedly, Wrigley. Most have their Norgays. Marylin Rexroth is even now climbing her Everest. I wanna find her Norgay.
Yes, but we should discourage the previous usage when we find it.
I will admit that this particular list has some problems. It has incorporated a few questionable entries. However, I’d first like to address some ideas in this thread that I strongly believe have issues. I hope splitting them up will make it easier to digest, as these are thorny issues, and I can’t simplify them too much.
-
@thorny_locust asked us, Who decides what is offensive? Some of you answered “all of us.” At best, I’d say that answer is too vague to be useful. At worst, it means that the majority decides, which is very problematic, as the minority being targeted will inherently be a minority of the discourse, and thus their opinions will not carry as much weight. In the middle is the idea that each individual decides, but that can’t work, as we’re discussing communication, which must at least involve two individuals. There has to be some level of consensus.
No, I’d say “who decides” is primarily the specific minority that the term is claimed to be against. And, in this case, I mean minority in the sense of social justice: race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. You know, groups of people who have historically been discriminated against for immutable traits. -
“Political correctness” and “virtue signaling” are inappropriate terms in this situation. These terms contain the insinuation of insincerity. That’s why they are extremely popular amongst those who push back against nearly all attempts to be less bigoted in speech and action. They are not appropriate here as this guide seems to be a genuine attempt to deal with real issues. We all admit that some of these terms are bad. Just because it may contain some errors doesn’t make it disingenuous.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that the idea that political correctness is this huge problem we need to be wary of is not only incorrect but harmful. It implies that we’re all actually bigots but avoiding saying it out loud to be PC. Similarly “Virtue signaling,” while something that does occur, isn’t really that useful a term. It’s really just a way to imply hypocrisy without having to show it. Without hypocrisy, there is no reason to assume the person in question is insincere. Thus calling something “virtue signaling” or “politically correct” is just not a valid criticism. They’re more like thought terminating cliches that shut down the conversation. And I believe that is the intent of those who popularized them.
I thus think it best to avoid these terms, for those of us who want actual discussion and want to avoid bigotry. Not only because of the above, but also just the huge amount of baggage these terms carry with them.
“Clannish” offensive to Highland Scots?
As for the list itself? Yeah, I have problems with some of it. It’s not horrible, and seems well intentioned, but I think it got things wrong. Based on my own personal observations of which of these terms are considered acceptable, I’d say the following are not great.
- Indian: this is too simple. There are actually some Natives who prefer the term “Indian.” You’ll also notice that there’s a word I used that this list didn’t consider–just plain Native. This is actually the term I’ve landed on. It removed the issues that I’ve seen with “Native Americans” and “American Indians,” while avoiding using “Indian” which some do not like.
- Eskimo: Yes, that term is bad, but “indigenous person” is not really a good substitute. The most common catch-all replacement is “Inuit,” though you can also choose to be more specific, as only some we used to call “Eskimos” are of the Inuit tribe.
- brown bag: I know the history here, but I’m not aware of using the term to describe the actual object being considered racist.
- ninja: As far as I know, Japanese people have no problem with the western cultural assimilation of the term. There are ways to make it clear that you are actually referring to shinobi or earlier mercenary traditions in Japan.
Now, it’s possible I’m wrong about any of these. In particular, I’m least sure about the “brown bag” one. I know the legend about the “brown bag test,” but I’m unsure if black people have actually started asking people not to use the term “brown bag” for the actual bag. The only reference I can find is some recommendation from 2013 which didn’t go over well, suggesting it was someone being overzealous. That said, as someone who has said “paper bag” all his life, I also don’t see a huge reason for the term. The vast majority of the time, notable aspect is that it’s made of paper, not that it’s brown. And, when you do need to specify color, you can use “brown paper bag.”
I think that, if people want to make these claims, they should do a better job of backing them up, proving their point on anything remotely controversial. Show that people actually find these terms offensive, and echo the reasons they actually give. It’s not that hard to check Google these days to see which are actually controversial. All I did was type <word> offensive into Google to check.
Otherwise, a few mistakes or controversial examples can result in people just rejecting the entire list, and that’s not good.
The actual question was “Who decides what is stupid?”. There’s probably value in “all of us” for those purposes as there will always be those scattered few who claim that some minor thing, like eating elote, is racist and appropriation and at some point you have to say “Nah” because they – even if individually sincerely offended by it – just don’t represent anyone aside from themselves.
As with all matters of personal opinion, I’LL BE THE JUDGE OF THAT! 
~Max
edited to quote BigT.
edited again to add emphasis in quotes.
Sure, but I’d say going from “no one individual decides” to “all of us decide” is too far a jump.
As for the wording of the question: thorny_locust was referring to a previous post, and that post was referring to claims of offense being “stupid.” So I think my rewording (which did not include quotation marks for a reason) was a fair summary. I expect she’ll correct me if I am incorrect.
Neither, IMHO. While “stupid” has its legitimate uses, I don’t think it’s generally appropriate when discussing controversial terms and such. It just winds up labeling the side you disagree with as “stupid,” which can’t really help debate.
Agreed entirely. I’m not aware of any popular usage that uses “tribal” to imply inferiority.
I could maybe see such a thing being an issue in a history book setting. It would be weird to refer to one group as a tribe and another similar group as, say, a nation-state, unless the former group actually referred to themselves as a tribe.
In common parlance, however, I think it refers to tribalism and the excessive loyalty you describe. That’s actually a good term that I hadn’t considered, and will likely use more often.
That said, for the police concept, I’d say a possible replacement is “mob” or “mafia,” as the accusation is that they are not only overly loyal, but doing so to cover up criminal cops.
[quote=“Knowed_Out, post:1, topic:952074”]
Instead of: Pow wow
Try: Meeting or gathering
Why: Cultural appropriation
The world would be offended by me today! I held a scheduled pow wow to discuss a potential business audit. It was actually a short, in person, informal gathering instead of a meeting with actionable assignments.
Merriam-Webster cited the first known use of the term brown bagging was 1959. It meant to take a lunch in a brown bag. Recently someone told me it signified elitism. If you had money you use a pail or lunch box. If you’re poor then you use a brown bag. The Urban Dictionary (not a factual source) defines the term brown bag as putting cash in a bag, or a 40 oz drink in a bag.
[quote=“Knowed_Out, post:1, topic:952074”]
Instead of: Spirit animal or guide
Try: Patronus, kindred spirit, inspiration, icon, or doppelganger
Why: Cultural appropriation
Spiritual animal or guide - for Christians you have everything from the Holy Ghost to the serpent. But isn’t that an appropriation from Cave folks, or Egyptians, who believed everything had a spirit, like the Sun?
IMO the term cultural appropriation is overused, nay abused. One meaning of the word appropriation is to take or make use without authority or right. Who is the authority, who has the right to use the term? The majority of words in use today are variants of other languages. But we, collectively, have to be responsible and purposeful before we redefine a word or term because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or step on anyone’s toes. And we collectively need to understand what our intentions are when we apply terms such as cultural appropriation, rooted in racism, offensive.
Without further ado, I’m going to drink a 40 from a brown bag then go to sleep with my pack, literally, my 3 dogs and husband.
Except those people of Native/Indigenous descent in North America who do refer to themselves as “American Indian” by choice - but that comes under “ask them how they want to be referred to”. Never assume.
Also, under “Why” should also be “confusing”.
Except for those indigenous people who do refer to themselves as “Eskimo”. There are some groups who actually do prefer that name. Again, this also comes under “ask the person how they want to be referred to”. Don’t assume, ask.
Unless, of course, it is a meeting/gathering of Native Americans that is officially designated a Pow Wow. Then it is a proper term to use.
This I can get behind 100%
This can be confusing to anyone unfamilar with the brown paper bag test. Link provide to explain that to anyone unclear on why this is a problem.
Also, I’m told, a cultural inversion - from the originating culture the bottom of the totem pole was the place of strength and honor because it held up all the rest. But I’m not entirely sure I’m remembering that properly.
In hiking, “Sherpa” is often used as a synonym for porter. For example, if someone asked if a Sherpa service was available for a long distance trail, they’d be asking if there was a van that would carry baggage from one overnight spot to the next. It’s also used in a lot of product names for outdoor gear. I haven’t read of any objections from people of Sherpa ethnicity over the general use of the word. However, I’ve read in the past that some Sherpa porters have objected to non-Sherpa Nepalese porters being described as Sherpas.