There are too many suggested replacements that I find are overly prescriptive, contextually blind, and needlessly aggrandizing.
Some, I admit, have merit. (Senile, grey-beard etc.) To me they are common sense. Perhaps, the rest of the terms were common sense to the authors.
Several suggestions about cultural appropriation are hypocritical. People of all cultures say the Lord's name in vain all the time. But saying guru or totem pole or spirit animal is an infringement. Why?
There are many turns of phrase where the offensive implication is not even implicit. "Bury the hatchet", "take a shot", "rule of thumb". Does anyone have to do mental labor to separate the violence in the words from their meaning?
Some replacements are suggested to prevent a word from singularly describing a person, because people have multiple characteristics. Yet the verbosity makes the attempt more conspicuous. "Immigrant -> person who immigrated". Why?
Some, I admit, have merit. (Senile, grey-beard etc.) To me they are common sense. Perhaps, the rest of the terms were common sense to the authors.
Several suggestions about cultural appropriation are hypocritical. People of all cultures say the Lord's name in vain all the time. But saying guru or totem pole or spirit animal is an infringement. Why?
There are many turns of phrase where the offensive implication is not even implicit. "Bury the hatchet", "take a shot", "rule of thumb". Does anyone have to do mental labor to separate the violence in the words from their meaning?
Some replacements are suggested to prevent a word from singularly describing a person, because people have multiple characteristics. Yet the verbosity makes the attempt more conspicuous. "Immigrant -> person who immigrated". Why?