This is the crux of it. If something that takes nothing away from you makes things better for others why argue against it?
Here we have 50+ HN readers and hundreds of OC readers wasting part of their limited patience/passion/tolerance/love for the topic of racial unjustice because someone is using their etymological ignorance (and inability to use Wikipedia) to project their own bias into completely unrelated matters.
Do you believe that there is limited space on the internet? Or that in the absence of this discussion every person here would instead be doing something highly productive?
For example I know many people that would be offended by referred to has them or they instead of she/him.
There is no perfect solution there you will never offend anyone. Offense is taken not given.
In the words of Stephen Fry
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry
Remember, you can please everyone some of the time, Some people all of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time
Even more problematic is that the majority of the people who claim these terms are offensive use projection upon others to derive the offensive nature of said terms since they themselves are neither the descendants of slaves nor of former slave owners, nor are they truly offended by the supposedly positive connotation of the word 'white' in terms like 'whitelist'. In the last few years a cult has grown around the concept of 'white guilt' led by a priestly class of apostles like Robin DiAngelo (author of 'White Fragility', currently the #1 bestseller according to the New York Times). What the cult leaders don't seem to realise is that their narrative totally revolves around 'white' people who they put in the centre of their universe which' well-being depends on their actions and inactions. They are just as race-centred as white (or black) nationalists, they just approach the situation from a different position. They can both use Kipling's The White Man's Burden as a guide, they just view it as an indictment against 'the white man' instead of a proclamation of manifest destiny. They deny agency to 'non-white' people by claiming they can only truly reach their peak by grace of the 'white' people seceding from positions of power.
In short, these cultists are racists, their racism being that of low expectations. Martin Luther King had it right, when it comes to race relations the ideal society is a colour-blind society.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
Do you have a source for the "tiny fraction" claim? And do you have a similar number for how much of the population cares about etymology?
Also, most of my reply was a direct quote from Martin Luther King's famous speech. The rest of the reply is a statement of fact on the cultist nature of the concept of 'white guilt'. Please explain to me in what way this sounds like a white supremacist diatribe, as far as I understand white supremacists are not wont to cast aspersion on their 'white brethren'.
Stop throwing these labels around, they can not replace rational arguments and are just a form of academic laziness.
Also maybe consider that etymology is about not just the origin of words, it's also about their evolution over time as cultures evolve.
Not replying anymore, have a nice day!