This isn't about inanimate objects. It is very specifically referring to person's as disabled, and MLBs "disabled list" is among the only uses of the term applied to person that means merely not playing due to temporarily injured rather than a person with a more permanent disability who may or may not be playing. Anyone hearing the term "disabled list" who did not have specific knowledge of how the MLB uses the term would have a notion in their head that is not what MLB is intended. Thus, MLB is merely correcting their use of language to be more in tune to common usage. Take 100 people who know very little about the MLB and ask them what "disabled list" means and what "injured list" means. 100% of them will give answers to "injured list" that is much closer to what the MLB is trying to convey. Thus, "injured list" is an objectively better term for their list.
The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.
The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.
The 1st Amendment has zero relevance, b/c the government is in no way involved. And people choosing to revise their language to be more accurate is not authoritarian, it rational. And people's choosing to revise their language b/c it creates an unintended harmful association for some people (in this case, the association that a person with a disability cannot play a sport) is not authoritarian, it is called being ethical.
There are instances of irrational PC word control, but this is not an example. An probable example would be the switch from handicapped to disabled. Handicapped seems like the less insulting term, b/c it merely implies the person is at a disadvantage for some things but could still overcome that disadvantage unlike "disability" which implies the person is inherently not able to perform the task so why bother trying. Handicapped was already a term employed by sociologists and social workers empathetic to the people to whom it referred, replacing terms like crippled and imbecile which had acquired centuries of use as insults and derogation.
But during the 1990s, activists made the poor choice to try demand a change in language to symbolize the more meaningful change in rights and accommodations they were seeking. They were not the one's who made "handicapped" the standard term, so they wanted to force a change to a term they had chosen and they somehow chose disabled. IOW, there was no sound basis to claim that disabled was the more ethically or factually correct term, thus this was an example of being merely "politically correct" but not any real kind of correct sensible people should care about.
In contrast, now that "disabled" has come to be the prevailing term for this group of people and are who is being referred to 99.99% of the time when a person is referred to as disabled, it is objectively misleading to refer to a group of people who are being kept from playing a sport due to a temporary injury as being disabled. .
The problem with conservative snowflakes is that they go into a tizzy every time language (which is inherently and always under change) is revised, and want to lump every instance into the basket of unreasonable PC.
Notice that neither you nor anyone complaining about this change has bothered to address the obvious fact that "injured" is a more specific and accurate term to refer to who and why the person is on this MLB list. You just want to rant and rave about language changing b/c it fits your narrative.
It is supremely relevant. In a pluralistic society such as ours we al can not walk on egg shells worrying about how every word may be seen,
If you are worrying about "every word" or even more than a handful, then you likely have some psychological disorder involving irrational paranoia, because all the words deemed offensive by any significant number of people amount to about 0.0001% of all words.
and we all are required to tolerate some level of discomfort from others.
Correct, and we are all required to tolerate other people free rights to express their discomfort over things they don't like, including aspects of language. Language is inherently socially negotiated. You free to express your disagreement and free to ignore other people's discomfort, and they are free to react however that want to your dismissal, so long as they commit no crimes in doing so. And none of these actions involve the government, so the 1st amendment does not come into play.
The alternative is social engineering language with the indent o creating a womb like Disney cartoon reality where no one ever feels pain.
All language is socially engineered. And your claim that either we either always disregard the discomfort (and in some cases tangible harm) that our choice of words can cause or live in a painless world where every word is suspect is an absurd false dichotomy.
They are, and I am 'disabled'.
Your understanding of history or of my last post is quite poor. "Disabled" is actually a "PC" word that activists demanded should replace handicapped in 1980's and 1990's. It only became the standard term b/c of "social engineering", and yet you are arguing for it, thus exposing the hypocrisy and lack of reason in your knee jerk reactions to language evolution.
Is there actualy a sizeable num,ber of handicapped people actually angered about MLB?
Probably not, which contradicts your claim that the MLB is merely cowing to moral outrage. They are just rationally changing a term to make it objectively more precise, and in line with how the terms are used more generally outside of baseball.
How about hnadicappers in horde racing? They dtyermine how much extra weight has to carry in a race.
"Handicapped" actually orignates from horse racing, then was applied around 1900 to people dealing with some sort of disadvantage. Also, your snowflake triggered rage is making you incapable of processing language.
I actually said that handicapped seemed like a better term with less negative implications, and that the movement to replace it with "disabled" was a misguided act of PC overreach, in contrast to the current MLB change which is just an objectively rational correction to improve the communication of the intended concepts.
Do you thin disabled people are so god damn weak and emotionally vulnerable that they need you to worry about the use of disabled by MLB? Or does it just make you feel good to moralize.
It does make me feel good to have morals, b/c I am not a sociopath. But I did not moralize about the MLB change and don't personally care. It is simply that, unlike yourself, I don't get triggered, outraged and "sick" when the people like the MLB decide to change a term when they realize it conveys meaning that they didn't intend and that meaning is objectively better conveyed by an alternate term. You are the one who getting all emotional and angry over this and seeking to use your outrage to control the MLB's language choices (which includes their choice to change a term).
What we are seeing is the rise of a thought police. Unelected groups using social media to intimidate groups like MLB to conform to a verbal morality.
Which includes people telling the MLB that they are not allowed to change their mind and how they speak.
Where is the outcry and anger towards the explicit and degrading misogyny that has crept into music? We will never see that because people think vile language in music is art.
We see it all the time. We've see mostly conservatives engaging in actual 1st Amendment violations by censoring music, bleeping out naughty words, nudity, and until recently banning any sign of homosexual affection. We continue to see way more pressure than was put on the MLB put upon musicians for their language. Sometimes the objections are warranted (such as homophobic and pro-rape language) and sometimes it is not (such as objections to naughty words and consensual sexuality that mostly comes from conservatives). Just b/c the musicians ignore it, doesn't mean there isn't pressure. It means they don't care about the pressure, either b/c they don't care enough about any economic harm or b/c they think the net economic effect of that language benefits them. No one even heard about this MLB thing untill the MLB had already made the change, because contrary to your narrative, social media had little to do with it. A few people made the MLB aware of it over the years, and they decided it made sense to change it, they announced their decision and conservative snowflakes like you took to social media to vent their outrage about it.
As with most claims by conservatives these days over "PC" culture, you are projecting onto others your own efforts to use triggered outrage on social media to control people.
