As I occasionally point out, as somebody employed at the quintessential "academic hothouse", the number of times I heard those terms on campus was close to zero.
As I occasionally point out, as somebody employed at the quintessential "academic hothouse", the number of times I heard those terms on campus was close to zero.
Wait you’ve never heard patriarchy? Or critical theory? These are crucial terms in the humanities (something I wouldn’t want to change!).
It is not that I never hear them, but only when I wander into a humanities seminar. In my corner of the social sciences, they are pretty much absent.
Fair enough—I did conflate "close to zero" with never.
Is this a problem that can be fixed with a thesaurus or are we being asked to avoid entire concepts? If it's the later, I'm going to have to disagree.
But also, if people want to use them, I could care less. Language changes. It rarely has the consequential effects on electoral politics that some imagine.
Words change, but the words highlighted here will be read by so many ordinary people as saying to ordinary people "you and your lot are bad people". They may not vote Republican (or Reform) but they may just not vote at all. So the Republicans and Reform will win elections.
I genuinely don’t understand why words like “unhoused” bother people. It’s an apt description!
Or food security… that’s a pretty standard issue of concern in clinical medicine and public health.
Deep down, Nichols blames the Democrats for Trump.