ore_terra wrote:I'd understand it if they would any sort of connotations to the slave-master thing in audio, but are we not just using the very meaning of both words?

Yes. The meaning of which was originated in, and defined by, human slavery...

desmond wrote:

ore_terra wrote:I'd understand it if they would any sort of connotations to the slave-master thing in audio, but are we not just using the very meaning of both words?

Yes. The meaning of which was originated in, and defined by, human slavery...

ahm... so it's just about not using the "S" word, as if like that it would vanish from history. :roll:

a bit childish, IMO. even to speak against slavery you still need to name it.

doubt solved, though. :wave:

ore_terra wrote:ahm... so it's just about not using the "S" word, as if like that it would vanish from history. :roll:

No, it's about not vanishing, or sweeping under the rug, anything from history. We should learn from history, not forget it, but that doesn't mean we should continue shape our culture going forward based on a problematic past.

No one is saying changing our use of problematic terms out of context is about forgetting history.

ore_terra wrote:a bit childish, IMO. even to speak against slavery you still need to name it.

When people want to talk about slavery, that would be an appropriate, culturally relevant, historically significant use of that language.

Language evolves, there's plenty of language used in the past that we consider inappropriate now, and don't generally use. That's all this is - no one's trying to remove the words from the dictionary, we're just suggesting we use less racially loaded terms in a different context - which I wholeheartedly support.

I'm also totally fine with removing monuments to "great men" who built their wealth and influence on slavery too. Keep them in the history books, but putting up monuments to them and celebrating their achievements in public is problematic, for me.

It's probably fair to say this is not yet a conversation based on logical progression or linguistic congruity. There are all kinds of idiosyncratic and contradictory proposals as to "what this is all about" and it will remain so while it's mainly an expression of anger, pain or perceived injustice.

People seem to be held together by polarisation at the minute and I expect there will be as much arguing about what the goal is as there will be about how to achieve... whatever it turns out to be.

Some if it is blindingly obvious but in the weeds anything that looks like evidence of injustice will be highlighted and argued over. Much of it makes no sense.