tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146977866151281085.post5178745976362506271..comments2023-10-31T04:58:18.315-07:00Comments on Rush Limbaugh Report: What is inclusive language?Barbara Petersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02345946032911474219noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146977866151281085.post-37783199992902427702012-12-05T13:29:57.971-07:002012-12-05T13:29:57.971-07:00Some of that list makes sense. For example, it jus...Some of that list makes sense. For example, it just seems awkward to me to say "workmen" rather than "workers." Some of it I can get on board with, like "ancestors" for "forefathers" and even "people" for "mankind." Heck, I can even go along with finding a better term than "third world" which just sound derogatory without context.<br /><br />Then there is the nonsense. The definition of "foreigner" is someone "from another country." I'm not aware of any derogatory connotation for that word. And what's wrong with "stand as able"? Wasn't it verbose enough for the list-maker? B/c the offered alternative says the same thing but wastes more words. <br /><br />Finally, there's the stuff that just plain rewrites scripture. I'm pretty sure God knew that he had created people of various colors when he used metaphors of light and dark, black and white. (If you believe the Bible was written by God.) He probably even anticipated people getting really touchy about stupid stuff like that. Anyone who is put off by the use of metaphor isn't really reading the words to begin with. tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com