a reply to: Krakatoa
There are few people who are as absolutely opposed to supremacist attitudes, the existence of those who advocate for them, the very concept, as I am.
As you can probably imagine, there are not many things that I would not do, to reduce the number of supremacists in the world, not all of them
entirely peaceable either.
However, the idea that ones use of grammar might create or promote supremacist attitudes, either in the self, or in others, is frankly absurd.
Grammar itself cannot do this. Intent is what drives supremacist ideology. I appreciate anachronistic writing styles, the works of Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle for example being amongst my very favourites. There is something about the almost poetic nature of the written word as it was in his day, which
appeals to me greatly. When I compose a piece of writing, this enjoyment of the parlance of yesteryear usually shows through fairly strongly as a
However, because I am not a supremacist myself, my use grammar does not illicit from me, nor alter the meaning of my words to imply or advocate for
ANY manner of supremacist thinking.
The article, to which you have linked in your OP, does not even try to explain precisely HOW the academic involved, came to their conclusions, or
give any specific examples of how they would change the way the language is delivered, in order to reduce the spread of supremacist ideology, and I
believe that there is a very good reason for this. Its bloody nonsense.
In reality, there ARE methods by which one might reduce the number of supremacists in a given area, and the techniques which allow that to occur are
well documented, but ALL of them revolve around the concept of burning their empires to the ground around their ears, before teabagging the burning
remains of their emblems, flags and monuments, while forcing the worst of them to watch you do it.