Hmmm....I think some things will be eliminated because they are offensive, and will never return or be social acceptable again. I also think that some of the things which seem acceptable today in SJW America will become unacceptable again, and will go away.
Yes, exactly...you know what I mean. common sense is dead and ppl are operating on either a 'dumbed down"version of existence so as not to offend anyone or are operating in a state of hyper vigilance and lacing their sentences with apologetic preambles before EVERYTHING THEY SAY!
"offensive" what a broad ranging definition used by our society of today!
one example-
for some, you can't even openly discuss the history--not the good or bad or any commentary, JUST the events-the facts- of the rise and fall of the NAZI party in Germany, in a classroom, without their being "offended"
i am guessing they want to refer to these individuals and the movement as the 'really scary bad ppl from germany' instead?
in this example, some day perhaps history and other events such as this WILL be once again able to be discussed in public/classroom AFTER the idiocy of the uber editing of the SJW crowd dies off
there are so so many other examples in all facets of life that have been "edited" out of our life for little reason except that it may "offend" some one. even a perceived possibility of offense even when no one in the supposedly offended audience even complains!
like how so many ppl,men and women, are "offended" when a man opens a door for a woman..or if anyone holds a door opened for a old person... OR heaven help you (oops just offended someone!) allow a older person to go in front of you in a line or in to a elevator,etc,etc
the use (or rather obliteration of the use) of certain words is another issue
like how SJW's of old and now refuse to let the word 'retard' exist. EVEN when used in other meanings. like "the sandbags retarded the advance of the flood waters"
i think many ppl are indeed smart enough (though some just barely) to know that if the above sentence were spoken then implication and context would clearly indicate that no developmentally challenged ppl are being discussed!
HOWEVER, the rabid SJW's would pounce on any one using this sentence when all they are doing IS talking about a flood and its prevention from being spread
or to use the word "prejudice" "prejudiced". they will only assign the meaning-the negative meanings, to this word. when in fact prejudice can simply mean a partiality to a certain thing
like, "i like meat of all kinds but i am prejudiced to the beef"
this school year, a new word cultures teacher for our son's 10th grade AP World Cultures class would not allow the use of the word "Jews" when speaking of the religious group. He wanted then to use the word "judaic peoples" instead!!
Ok--I wonder if he has a problem with the words "catholics" protestants" "muslims" "hindus" "animists", etc, etc? they are words used to describe the same thing; a certain group of religious ppl
I'd bet he would fail to see the connection
BTW -this was the same guy who told the principle that my son's wearing of a hindu/buddhist swastika was "offensive" to him. no, my son never took it off