For me it’s the plethora of gender identity classifications. I will, of course, silently and respectfully recognize and honor whatever gender identity any individual assumes, but that has nothing to do with what I think about it. LOL
The first reason given in the NPR article upthread was:
“First, there is a long history of referring to Blacks as monkeys. Therefore, ‘monkeypox’ is racist and stigmatizes Blacks.”
Which is still not a reason to change the name, at least when it was originally observed in actual monkeys. Especially if there’s no actual outcry or proof that the name actually stigmatizes anyone. It’s a solution in search of a problem, which is why I described it as lame virtue signaling upthread.
The geographic confusion reason is more reasonable- that’s a good reason to change the name. But that’s not the first reason listed in the article I referenced.
Exactly.
It’s VERY accurate. Which is why it’s such a useful term. I work for a large city, and “tribal knowledge” is often the order of the day around here, because often the ways people amass personal power is via information control, which means creating tribal knowledge, in the worst, most accurate sense of the term. In other words, if someone is the only person who knows how something actually works, they’re more important and have more ability to influence all sorts of things. Even in the IT department, where you’d think that stuff should be absolutely forbidden, it’s all too common. People refuse to publish guidelines, etc… because they rise in stature by controlling that information and using it to be gatekeepers.
It’s the exact opposite of having procedures and knowledge that’s public and published, which would be the ultimate goal.
But I think @Polerius’ example was another political correctness gone awry example, of someone deciding that “tribal” somehow denotes “primitive” or “substandard” or something else, and is pushing to change it for that reason, when the actual usage is not any of that.
Now I have this idea for an episode of South Park: by citing a number of obsolete references from the 18th and 19th centuries, someone tricks Cartman (never a hard thing to do) into thinking that “n*****” is a perfectly valid synonym for “black”. Hilarity (and hopefully a moral lesson) ensues.
Wow, i read that thread completely differently. My takeaway is that we have a lot of uses of “master” out there that descend from people wanting to think of themselves as masters over other people (even if the other people are just the kids, and maybe a maid) or metaphorically of a thing being a master over other things, in the manner of a human master, and that in most cases, there are better ways to express those relationships.
It’s also probably relevant that i have a number of friends who live with other adults, without a clear hierarchy among the adults, and who find it awkward that so many homes are built with one bedroom that’s so much nicer than the others. So even the concept of a single bedroom for the master of the house maybe isn’t always a great idea, even if it accurately describes the bulk of houses currently on the market
I’m sure that has something to do with it, just as I’m sure the fact that most houses and apartments I’ve seen don’t have “one bedroom that’s so much nicer than the others” , just one bedroom that’s a little bigger than the others or possibly one that’s located separately from the others * and few of the people I know live with other adults in separate bedrooms without a clear hierarchy - nearly all of them involve either a couple sharing a bedroom as the only adults or people living in houses or apartments owned or rented by their parent or their child (in which case there usually is a clear hierarchy) has a lot to do with me not thinking that “master bedroom” is an offensive usage or concept.
But even if there are better ways to express some relationships , it doesn’t necessarily follow that “master bedroom” is offensive - and if it is, I’m not sure how the words “primary” ( as that real estate board was planning to use instead) or “principal” or "main " are any better as I think “primary/main/principal” imply a hierarchy just as much as “master” does.
- The difference in the bedrooms in my house is that the upstairs hallway ends at the doorway of the “master/main/primary” bedroom and therefore that bedroom is a couple of feet wider than the other two. The other end of that hallway ends at the only full bathroom in the house. In other houses, I’ve seen the bedroom on the first floor called the “master bedroom” even though they are roughly the same size as the ones on the second floor.
One of the problems with tax rates above 50% was that you could create tax shelters that relied solely on donating money to your favorite charity.
Some would say that that encouraged charitable giving.
I would also point out that you still can create tax shelters that rely solely on donating money to your favorite charity.
It is a lot harder to turn a charitable deduction taxed into an actual tax shelter that yields more in tax benefits than you give up in value.
Aside from things like conservation easements, how can you donate money to your favorite charity and yield more in tax benefits than you give up in value?
I was too focused on the extremist part and missed that you were responding about the non-violent part 
.
Nope, I have nothing better. My only source is Chretien de Troyes.
“Banning” words though is somewhat misleading.
I haven’t heard of people being threatened with prison for using words, despite what jordan peterson claimed.
It’s more just pointing out that certain words are offensive, and that’s fine. It’s rather like saying “While you’re in my house, I’d prefer you not refer to women as bitches”.
There might be some gray area, for example where someone loses their job for using the word “colored” and it was an honest mistake – they were genuinely so out of touch they had no idea that the word was no longer an acceptable way to refer to people. I would sympathize in cases like that, but I can’t recall the last time I heard of one like that.