02-15-2018, 03:46 PM
(02-15-2018, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I understand that. However, the implications and inferences regarding word choice can change given the societal context the conversation is taking place in. As the article I linked to points out, it was considered a dry, neutral, academic term for decades. The current political environment has changed this, though, and being cognizant of that alteration can help us adjust our language to have more productive conversations on the topic. When words that have a political charge behind them, words that are used in propaganda, are inserted into conversations it often results in people more firmly entrenching themselves in their per-determined positions. It makes us less receptive to information, even if it is more logical or factual than what we come to the conversation with.
Isn’t it time we just stopped being “triggered” by everything that we don’t agree with? Back in the day when that happened we just dealt with it and moved on.... we didn’t run to an adult and cry like a baby over someone using a word.
Words only have the power we give them. If you think he chain migration monster lives under your bed then you will Be In Fear.
The link just states it’s an academic term used for years and recently got politicized because the trump administration used it? ...... so it’s a negative word because the trump administration used an academic word when describing their immigration plan? That makes zero sense.
Toughen up. (This is for the people scared of the phrase chain migration)
