“Campaigns for equality demand particularly careful attention to word choice and image — after all, inclusivity is the paramount goal.”

“After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.”

If your copy is like the one I’ve got, it is missing two of the most important pages. The ‘M is for Marty’ page appears to have been ripped out in a fit of anger - resulting in the spine that holds the book together being damaged. Also ‘S is for story’ looks like someone started sketching a masterpiece only to have…

That does not change the fact that in all likelihood your behavior is more detrimental to the progressive movement than any Trump supporter. Your inability to differentiate actual harm from imagined, or to understand that not all harm is of equal concern is troubling enough. Additionally, you continually demonstrate a…

That does not change the fact that in all likelihood your behavior is more detrimental to the progressive movement than any Trump supporter. Your inability to differentiate actual harm from imagined, or to understand that not all harm is of equal concern is troubling enough. Additionally, you continually demonstrate…

Those looking to be offended are seldom disappointed.

Am I the only person here that believes the post by Lauren Evans is entirely snark and sarcasm and is NOT meant to be taken as a literal criticism?

Your post is further evidence that those looking to be offended are seldom disappointed.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Language is the ultimate democracy. Neither you, nor I, nor CaptOtter get to unilaterally define words AND expect to be understood. Instead the definitions of words are decided by all of the users of that language in aggregate over time. Certainly, dictionaries are trailing indicators showing what a word most…

Thank you for your posts. I cannot tell you how enlightening I have found them to be.

Sadly, I read this after I responded to your other comment. I don’t know that CaptOtter actually said the Webster definitions were the ones he/she espoused. Instead, I thought CaptOtter was providing a great service by shedding light on the root of the poor communication that has infected this discussion.

I don’t know anything about Sean Lennon, nor do I particularly care to. My only interest in this was the word in question and the contentions of the Guardian article.

Texas?

I am really grateful to you for the post you made above to accesscode. I think you may have put your finger on the issue here, at least for me, and helped me unpack what I’ve been reading.

I disagree that it is purely semantic. The debate is all but lost when one allows the central argument to be framed as one over privileges rather than rights. If you believe, as you state, that the distinction between privileges and rights is without difference, you and I will be unable to agree on much.

I have never suggested that I am an expert on this subject. Rather, I have expressed my opinion that I think the arguments raised in the Guardian piece are worthy of consideration. That being said, this isn’t oral surgery.

Cool, you and I disagree on whether the term could be improved by stripping the gender specificity. Fair enough. But do understand that my problem is with the word, not the definition. The definition is not complicated, but TheVagenius has offered alternative definitions and I have tried to address those.

Fundamental to your argument is the notion that men enjoy privileges women do not. I reject this. These so called privileges should be the base state. It is not that men, or Anglos, or Christians, or other such groups have privileges, it is that others have unjust restrictions or suffer other prejudices. Privileges…

Actually, ‘lead’ is perfectly fine. In fact, it has probably overtaken ‘lede’ even among journalists. For example, William Metz wrote Newswriting: From Lead to 30 in 1977. Carl Miller also used ‘lead’ in his book Modern Journalism.