You’re erring on the side of caution, and I get the impulse. But there’s a fine line between giving voice to the unheard and drowning out the current conversation by crusading on their behalf without actually checking whether they wanted a champion in the first place.
Language isn’t static, and if people who would’ve been the target of a slur no longer feel targeted by a modern, benign use of the word, maybe it’s worth listening to them instead of getting stuck in etymological guilt.
This is essentially justification for tone policing, language gate keeping, or inventing offenses that marginalized groups themselves aren’t actually calling out.
Campaigning on their behalf looks less like allyship and more like self-importance wrapped in a savior complex.
You’re erring on the side of caution, and I get the impulse. But there’s a fine line between giving voice to the unheard and drowning out the current conversation by crusading on their behalf without actually checking whether they wanted a champion in the first place.
Language isn’t static, and if people who would’ve been the target of a slur no longer feel targeted by a modern, benign use of the word, maybe it’s worth listening to them instead of getting stuck in etymological guilt.
This is essentially justification for tone policing, language gate keeping, or inventing offenses that marginalized groups themselves aren’t actually calling out.
Campaigning on their behalf looks less like allyship and more like self-importance wrapped in a savior complex.
Yeah, I think we’re just talking from both sides of the grey area. But you’re right, it’s simply someplace in the middle.