| They likely were, but with different connotations. They're now applied to much less dramatic circumstances. E.g. the dictionary definition of "safe" (because "unsafe" is basically "not safe") is: > protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed or lost I would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable way that someone giving a talk on castes would expose the listeners to danger, risk or harm other than perhaps feeling a bit uncomfortable. I don't think feeling a bit uncomfortable would qualify as a danger, risk or harm 40 years ago. Likewise, I don't think having a civil talk about discrimination is "hostile". It's uncomfortable, sure, but I don't think that rises to the level of unfriendliness or antagonism (unless they're publicly shaming individuals or something like that). I don't care for the term "woke newspeak" because it tends to invoke people who are mocking the underlying feelings. People are welcome to feel however they want, and I respect that. I do think it undermines their own goals however, because it reads as hyperbole to me, which leads to wondering if hyperbole is used so heavily in other statements they make. A "Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation, if you will. What I don't care for is diluting linguistic terms in an effort to create parallels with people in much worse situations. To me, calling this "unsafe" or "hostile" detracts from the experiences of people who are genuinely unsafe or experience hostility, e.g. domestic abuse victims, or victims of discrimination. |