|
|
|
|
|
by automatoney
873 days ago
|
|
I'm personally increasingly less interested in language-focused critiques when it comes to systemic issues. The article makes interesting points, but I think the effort it's trying to make is kind of on a euphemism treadmill. The article even says it - the issue is not with the terminology itself, but with the valuation of certain skillsets over certain other ones under our current economic system. It's also a bit pedantic - in this context it doesn't really make sense to use the dictionary to cite the "hierarchy" of what a word means. The word is being used in a specific context, and so it makes more sense to talk about it there. I'd think I'd be more sympathetic if there were an alternative advocated for that wasn't just "don't refer to this concept". The concept itself isn't problematic - non "computery" people think about computers differently, and it is useful to discuss non-computer-expert users. Even just thinking about other terminology - we use BIPOC for "non-white" because umbrella terms are useful. It's not that we shouldn't have a term, it's that maybe there's a better one. |
|
Who is Black and not a Person of Color?
And what do these people have in common with Laplanders?