,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
This is a thorny issue that boils down to the nature of objectivity:
Does it mean choosing the strongest, accurate phrase accepted by expert authorities—here, historians—even if that means using extremely charged language that upsets and offends good-faith critics?
Does it mean choosing the strongest, accurate phrase accepted by expert authorities—here, historians—even if that means using extremely charged language that upsets and offends good-faith critics?
Conversely, can using language that artificially anesthesizes the shock of the object that it describes through euphemism be truly called objective?
Euphemism isn’t objectivity; objectively means finding the strongest, most accurate language or it means nothing.
