Sounds like you're describing the word "Negro" as a [scapegoat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat): it was cast as a symbol of evil so that it could be canceled as such.
I guess that's a way to see the basic tension there: some folks might argue that using scapegoats can help society move on, while others might object on the basis that the goat wasn't actually evil.
Alternatively, we can see switching away from the word "Negro" as a rebranding effort, to retire prior literature and reduce historical associations.
Either way.. I guess that what can seem weird about such social-engineering maneuvers is that they don't make any sense if we assume that people are ideal logical-thinkers; mechanically, they're more like side-channel attacks or emotional manipulation. And.. I guess folks might vary in how agreeable they might find well-intentioned emotional-manipulation.
> some folks might argue that using scapegoats can help society move on, while others might object [...]
Right, but in this particular instance what actually happened is that we just moved on by building consensus around a new paradigm. No one uses the word anymore, and nothing awful happened.
Therefore I argue that similar hand wringing about gender pronouns is going to turn out equally bland. It's fine. Just relax. Society isn't falling apart, you're just being socially awkward. And in fifty years everyone will think the antiwoke conservatives were just being ridiculous.
Eh.. do you have your astrological-signs on your profiles? If not, why not add them in solidarity with those who are deeply emotionally invested in seeing the world through that lens? Not only would it help them feel validated, knowing your astrological-sign would help them better understand you and know how to interact with you.
At the same time.. not everyone wants to have to play along. A lot of new identity-trends emerge (and reemerge over time and in different places), giving adherents ways to self-conceptualize who they are as well as rules for how to interact with others. Some trends get really popular and can get a lot of true-believers, while others don't really get into them.
Can you understand how both sides feel? This is, can you understand both what it'd feel like to be someone deeply invested in the latest trend in spirituality, and can you likewise understand what it'd feel like to want to give the latest trend in spirituality a pass?
If this is the first trend you've seen, then it may seem like this big, huge thing that everyone should adopt. But you ask about 50-years from now? ..that's a long time for a trend to remain relevant, even if you're currently in a sub-culture that's super into it.
Fredrick Douglass appears to have liked the term "Negro" [1]:
> The form of the negro —[I use the term
negro, precisely in the sense that you use the term Anglo Saxon; and I believe, too, that the former
will one day be as illustrious as the latter] [...]
Would you happen to recall where you may've seen Douglass complaining about it?
I think it might have been that one of the great thinkers of nineteenth century abolitionism weighed in on exactly this subject and had something relevant to say? I mean... it's not like he was quoting someone on reddit here.
