Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds today »

I'm probably to the left of many people, but I do think this is a bit of a ridiculous over-correction


[quote]An office within the University of Southern California's School of Social Work says it is removing the term "field" from its curriculum because it may have racist connotations related to slavery.

The newly renamed Office of Practicum Education, formerly known as the Office of Field Education, within the university's Suzanne-Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, is making the change in order to be more inclusive, according to a memo sent out to faculty and students this week and obtained by NPR.

"This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language," the memo reads. "Language can be powerful, and phrases such as 'going into the field' or 'field work' may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign ...."[/quote]

So if a Black entrepreneur chooses to commercially grow acres and acres of tulips (even employing many others in this endeavor), what should they call that big open spot of land where those tulips grow?

Some words were initially created as pejorative terms. Field was not. Field is just minding is own business. Sometimes a word really is just a word.

And that only speaks to that one definition of the word, as English is a ghastly mutt where many words have multiple, often unrelated, non-slang definitions.

While it did not bother me when a company like GitHub changed the name of the default branch of a code repository from "master" to "main" (main is after all a shorter word), it really did not change the world at all and did feel a bit like armchair virtue signalling, warm fuzzy feelings without the substance of more useful action.

Are we really becoming this fragile? If the right wing does try to launch another civil war, or a foreign superpower did invade, will we just yield to them on day one because we're so weak and overly sensitive?

I do think this kind of over-correction does in fact give the right wing actual ammunition to sway swing voters to the right in elections that matter. When will we wise up and stop focusing on trivialities and handing elections to the right wing? You can't do more substantive actions if you constantly lose elections over merely symbolic trivialities that really should not move anyone over the age of, say, seven.

Sure, the impetus behind the policy at USC is a good one, but it's really a useless measure that doesn't change anything. It's not even low-hanging fruit, it is fruit that has dropped to the ground weeks ago and is already rotting. It feels like a bright shiny new toaster distracting us from things that have actual consequences (and allowing who knows to take advantage of our distraction).
Yeah, that’s a reach. It trivializes actual racism that’s still alive and well. What’s next, will they censor the song "Chain of Fools" by the late Aretha Franklin because slaves were held in chains ?

Because they think someone might be offended ? That kind of silly bs undermines any attempts to seriously address past wrongs.

And you’re right, it’s absolutely a distraction—something cosmetic at best—while totally ignoring real, continuing problems.
[quote]That kind of silly bs undermines any attempts to seriously address past wrongs.[/quote]

That's what makes it so problematic ... and it's ponderous, because much of the time the people doing it aren't actually dumb, so I don't understand why they do not immediately see it for the counterproductive distraction that it is

Agreed. But this is the kind of sinle person issue that right wingers love to pick up on like it's literally out to kill them. When in fact it's just one or a handful of people that think this is an issue on the left. But it makes great right winger bait even though it's weird it is still pretty harmless. The right on the other hand literally want to put people to death for abortion or drugs.
@canusernamebemyusername I agree, it is a harmless thing except that it is indeed fodder for right wingers, and we won't stop hearing about it for weeks, while more important things get ignored. Moreover, it's hidden harm grows when a year later during an election cycle it just gets rolled into the larger right wing narrative, without context or accuracy, and less discerning voters don't dig further into each misrepresented [i]ingredient[/i] in the right wing fear narrative blender, and fall for the scare tactics, handing the election to the right wing. It's not completely harmless.

We keep shooting ourselves in the foot with dumb little symbolism like this, the warm fuzzy feeling of which evaporates in a millisecond.

And we on the left know this, so we should stop tripping all over ourselves to constantly feed the right wing trolls with every latest iteration of pointlessness right wing bait like this. Things like universal healthcare and a Green New Deal will also be right wing bait, but those things actually benefit people. Only things of that substantive nature should be our focus.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, MVIP
Jesus tap dancing Christ on a cracker. The word [i]field[/i] is racist? Literally just fuck that.
@LordShadowfire it's beyond absurd, there truly are bigger fish to fry

Post Comment
100,000+ people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Forums Topic Members