> How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years?
It's been interesting to watch The Guardian tie itself in knots over the acronym BAME (and later to some extent BIPOC), which was meant to be the new, inclusive, non-offensive to the minorities it sought to describe, term for non-white (particularly in the UK), which the newspaper was much in favour of but then seemed to decide was probably bad and might even be racist. And then keep using it all over the place.
In the mean time, outside of that particular bubble, I think most people either looked on with bemusement or had no idea of the existence of the term anyway.
What always made me giggle about BIPOC and it’s usage by the guardian is it made no sense. The white British are by definition indigenous to the island and more over everyone is indigenous to somewhere by the terms very definition.
It's been interesting to watch The Guardian tie itself in knots over the acronym BAME (and later to some extent BIPOC), which was meant to be the new, inclusive, non-offensive to the minorities it sought to describe, term for non-white (particularly in the UK), which the newspaper was much in favour of but then seemed to decide was probably bad and might even be racist. And then keep using it all over the place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/22/black-...
In the mean time, outside of that particular bubble, I think most people either looked on with bemusement or had no idea of the existence of the term anyway.