Who is forcing it?
I still think the issue is primarily that “master” as a meaning of “primary” or “main” is falling out of favor. In many such contexts, there is a corresponding “slave” for the secondary item, which is why the change started. I can see how that would change the connotation of “master” to people, making it feel uncomfortable even without the use of “slave” or similar.
I’m not a fan of people declaring that something is just manufactured outrage, as most of the time the only evidence of such is that the person doesn’t personally find it important, and knows others who agree with that it isn’t important.
Sure, sometimes there really is manufactured outrage, attempting to get people mad about something to distract them from the real issue. And there are people who then buy into that manufactured outrage.
But that doesn’t fit someone who just finds the term “master bedroom” uncomfortable, let alone those who know others find it uncomfortable and thus recommend not using it when selling homes.
Natural language evolution often includes a point where people start recommending you use one term instead of another.
The stated reason the OP’s company says to use “main bedroom” is that some people already don’t like “master bedroom,” finding it “racist.” It makes sense that there’s no reason to alienate said people. It’s not that they’re mandating a change in the language—just acknowledging one.
As others have already noted, the natural evolution of language involves many different types of influence on language, including in many cases deliberate social pressure.
Just want to say - excellent cite. Well done. An example to follow.
You can use whatever words you want.
However, if you are informed that someone else regards certain words as objectionable, whether you agree with them or not, you then have a choice to continue to speak as you always have or modify your words so as not to cause offense.
Which you do is up to you. Both have consequences. But now you can proceed with some foreknowledge of consequences. What you can not do is insist that someone else adopt your world view.
Of course it can be overdone. But one of the beauties of language is that words have subtly different connotations, and can flow together to sound pleasing. To my ear, “niggling” is a beautiful and fun word for a specific usage, conveying something slightly different than “trifling” or other possibilities. I used to like the sound of “niggard” - just something about the double-g and ending with the rd. Similar to laggard. But I’ve trained myself to use “miser” instead.
Also, at times, one particular word may be the one that immediately comes to mind for exactly what I wish to say. I may not stop - however briefly - to search for a sufficient synonym, in the case my listener may be offended or may have a small vocabulary.
In your example, “contralateral” has one more syllable than “opposite side.” A problem niggard does not share. I am not talking about using ten-dollar words unnecessarily - something I dislike about Cormac McCarthy’s writing. Also, I would imagine the meaning of contralateral would be pretty obvious from context.
Hmm. Those words are not that rare, since we all know what they mean, but not that common. “Niggling” is about as common as “dweeb”, “junctures”, “mustachioed”, and “reformulation”; “sniggering” and “laggard” somewhat more common; “niggard” is far, far less common, perhaps enough to be a legitimately unusual word in American English. “Nigga” [sic] is super common by comparison to all of the above: roughly like “bedtime” and “clone”.
Why would you care? I mean, I don’t want to offend anyone, but I’m also not going to either tiptoe around the language hoping I don’t run afoul of ignorant/stupid people, or go around using the words deliberately just for the sake of being a pedant and pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with them.
I mean, who cares if ignorant people are offended? It’s their problem, not yours. People seem too easily offended and like they’re walking around with chips on their shoulders about stuff like this.
Which is why we should rise and protest the new laws that will make use of the phrase “master bedroom” a crime punishable by life without parole. Not the case? Just public flogging? No? A hefty fine at least? Not that either? Huh. Oh, the disapproval of others (whose opinions you apparently disdain) of a similar nature to seeing someone wearing sandals and shorts with black dress socks? The horrors.
In this case what has happened is that certain segments of certain industries are making marketing decisions based what they think has the best chance to maximize their profit margins. Given that the primary use of the phrase “master bedroom” is in the context of that industry (I doubt you regularly ask a spouse of child to bring the laundry basket to the master bedroom) it is driving usage change outside the industry some as well. Change is heterogeneous, lumpy … in some regions and demographics it is changing quickly and in some not at all. Stay tuned for what happens over the next ten years, as language use selects for the form that seems most fit.
Perhaps though there is discussion worth exploring here - “natural language evolution” … as opposed to I guess a prescriptivist model, usually applied as condescension upon those who do things like write “should of”?
In that context … what are your thoughts on the historic changes from “colored” to “Negro” to “Black”, but not widely to “African-American”?
In each case they were driven, successfully in the first two instances, and less successfully in the last, by a thought leader making a declaration, proscribing if you will, and individuals gradually or less gradually following, until a critical mass of usage hit and it flipped more widely (or not).
Do you believe that was not “natural evolution” but perhaps “artificial selection” or otherwise “forcing” change? When “Black” was competing for usage there were perfectly good reasons to argue that “Negro” was not at all a racist word: it had been DuBois’ choice after all!
What counts as “unnatural”?
I get that. If the sole intent of your gum flapping or key slapping to to please your own ear that makes perfect sense. Again mileage may vary, but I more commonly view communication as a constant series of collaborations and have more interest in choosing based not only my own ear’s pleasure but on how the mind on the other side interprets my meaning, preferably with accuracy.
A quibble here that I’ve tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out before: it is not necessarily “a small vocabulary”, it may just be a different one. That could be on the basis of our being specialized in different fields and experiencing certain words, phrases, and acronyms as that which everyone knows - or regional, or age, or other demographic dialect differences. Others constantly adjust their speech for me (and for you), so automatically that it happens without even conscious thought. Maybe I know more words, maybe not, but at least is important is how what we know overlaps, and how much what we each say mean close enough to the same to both of us.
Which is the same situation that the person taking the offence finds themselves in.
If you take offence at a word, then have it explained to you that the context and usage is clearly not intended for any offensive purpose then you have the option of continuing to take offence or not. Your choice.
Yes. But damn that having to stop the process of conversation to have the aside about the miscommunication, and clearing it up … I’d rather avoid it and focus on efficient and effective communication that gets intended meaning across without having to stop for that needless confusion. I’m lazy that way.
Uh, no, that is powersplaining. That’s saying “I’m in charge and I get to dictate how you feel about this.”
You may not agree with why a person takes offense to something, but you can not tell them to not be offended any more than you can order someone to be happy.
You can control how you react to something, not how someone else reacts to it.
If you insist on using a problematic word, then have it explained to you how its contribution to broader issues is independent of its original context and usage, you have the option of continuing to use it or not. Your choice.
Language changes. People who insist that it doesn’t tend to be people who spend their whole lives carefully explaining these things to ever-dwindling audiences of people on the verge of saying things like, “oh my, is that John? Do pardon me, and thank you for the company. Hello, John! Pretend that you know me and I’ll buy you a drink. Haha, yes! Good to see you too!”
Because sometimes, ignorant people have something that I want. For example, if I’m trying to sell a house, what’s more important? Standing on the principle that there’s nothing wrong with the phrase “master bedroom,” or selling the house?
Also, I’ve got a pretty diverse friend group. Some of my friends are offended by stuff that I don’t think should be offensive. I have one friend who corrects me if I describe something as “lame.” So, I don’t use that word around her (which, as a native born Californian, is fuckin’ hard) because I enjoy her company more than I enjoy being self-righteous about vocabulary.
I don’t use the word because I’ve just never called it that. It was always the “main bedroom” or “the big bedroom” or “mom and dad’s bedroom” to me. We still don’t call it that. The term just sounds so quaint to me. “En suite” is another one of those terms that sound silly to me. “Connected bathroom.”
This here is the perfect example of how woke capitalism spreads. It’s fascinating really.
The problem is just how Pavlovian the response to “I’m offended” has become.
no it isn’t. You are free to continue taking as much offence as you like, but it is your choice to do so.
I’m not telling them not to be offended. where did I do that?
So, exactly what I said then? You can control whether you are offended by something or not.
both the alleged offender and offendee have the option of choosing how they react to the situation.