Oh, and Tim, what was your point in talking about racial slurs against Italians?

I don't see how my stance on language reflecting change in society has anything to do with what you said, could you explain?

Wow.

I initially said is that the decrease in the use of the n-word shows a change in attitude.

Language (the use of the n-word) reflects societal change (attitudes toward that kind of word use/discrimination).

That's what I've been saying.

Also, as I've said, the sign is not my concern. I only entered this debate when people started making blanket comments about other issues.

Tim.

I'm Sicilian.

Once again, I don't care about the sign- that was left up to people in Atlanta, and they made their decision. I'm not talking about it.

I wasn't talking about the sign, and I only brought it up because Evilbeagle went off with "tell it to African Americans..."

Yes, the context of the word has changed.

Yes, it is still used in a different way.

Yes, your points are valid.

But still, it was almost exclusively used to refer to slaves in the 1800's as an identifier of "Black person" by almost everyone so, go do some reading. Now, the language itself (which includes meaning and significance of words) has changed. People no longer use it as an insult, or they don't use it at all. It reflects societal change.

Xeal, maybe you should actually read what people are saying before saying they're trolls.

Someone said that language doesn't affect societal change. Outside of the sign issue, language has completely done so, and has been remodeled as a result of change itself. So, I used the n-word as that example. As it's been fazed out of use, it reflects changing ideas about a certain group of people. Those perceptions go from "inhuman field hand" to the modern "they're a person with feelings and a different skin tone". In this case, language is sign of change. People use the derogatory term today, sure, but not nearly as much, out of respect for basic human rights.

Really, with the sign issue, I say it should be left to the people that actually live there, and they've already decided. When the arguments started getting larger in scope, talking about majority rule and language's role in society, I (and I'm assuming others) decided to jump in.

I gotta say, Iggy:

I don't think anyone could have put it better.

Your saying that the majority should rule everything is idiotic. That's the point you're missing. And it's not just a bunch of radicals, it's a number of hard working women who would like to be recognized at their place of work using gender neutral signs. It's not as if they want them all to say "watch for men/women", they just would prefer to not be called "men". I'm sure they get enough of that already. I know how it felt in ROTC.

I'm sure they're this concerned over 1/50th of a penny. Toodles.

Kudos, Iggy.

It's a shame I have to go to work now. This was getting interesting.

Whatever, I've given up on that point.

I'm not comparing the two events, that would be completely stupid. I'm saying what you said, your exact words, actually, apply to much more than the sign argument.

"And it comes down to the majority. The majority never even noticed, cared, or cares now about that sign."

The majority fails to notice or care about many things. That doesn't mean they should be ignored.

Speaking of the majority, the majority of people in the US don't speak Spanish, they speak English, so you're "Negro" point is moot. I don't care what your ethnicity is or how Black people in your family are, my point still stands. The fact that its use has faded is evidence of a different way of looking at people with different skin colors. I never said it was used nicely, I said it promoted and was a sign of changing attitudes.

So by your reasoning, as long as the majority doesn't care, social injustice is just fine. Brings to mind the majority's attitude during the Holocaust, Jim Crow laws, and women's suffrage.

Oh well, as long as the majority's cool with it...

@ ted

Great for you, you were treated unfairly. What she said was true, regardless of what gender you are, and if you feel that way you should take action.

Evil, you have stopped making any sense at all.

"If the women on the road crews want it so badly, they can pay for the signs."

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. If you had a job (not that being a housewife isn't a job, it is, I just mean a job back in the corporate world), and your office decides to upgrade computers, how bout they make you pay for it? Or, here's an idea, if the city decides that you need to use extra special envelopes, how about- instead of your company- YOU pay for it? Your comment was completely idiotic.

Women want to be recognized for doing their job, and ask for 1/50th of a cent of the people in the area, and they should just shut up and get over themselves? I think not.

@ Evilbeagle

Fantastic, we agree on the use of the term African American. You used it, so I used it. Get over it.

If you don't think the n-word was acceptable at one time, you really need to research. Not only was it used throughout America until the 1800's, but it continues to be used in many areas today.

As I stated, the language is a sign that change is happening first. The fact that people switched to the term "Negro", and then to "Black" was just evidence that attitudes were changing. However, when people used those terms, their children learned that the old terms were offensive. I, as a child, was told never to use the words N***** or Negro to describe a person, I was told to use Black or African American. I was told why. I'm not going to say that my parents telling me not to call Black people an abominable name caused me to be more accepting of people of a different race, but it definitely had an impact on me (and generations of children with parents like mine).

That whole third paragraph is you. Fantastic. Glad you feel that way. Not everyone does. I don't care that all the literature about my place of work refers to the tutors as "he" and uses male pronouns, but if another girl did I wouldn't call her a whiner or feminazi for it. The fact is, if we change language, people don't associate those jobs with a specific sex. It's psychological, and it happens.

I don't care one way or the other, but saying "This woman is crazy" or the equivalent is just as useless as changing the signs. If you're going to continue complaining about those who whine, you're not getting out and doing something productive. Why don't you?

@Evilbeagle
Actually, I think all of your examples are proof of language affecting reality. Think of the prevalent use of the n-word, and then other terms used against African Americans. As their place in society has become more secure and their opportunities to succeed have increased, the usage of these words has been condemned. That's language reflecting a change in culture and helping to facilitate it.

Look at the condemnation of the term "retard" and it's counterpart, Mentally Challenged, today. I mean, the fact that these PC terms have even become the norm show that language reflects societal change on a fundamental level, and helps to facilitate that change in the real, everyday world.

I think that it's not so much for the passers-by that are women, it's the workers that matter. And, if you read the article, you'll notice that 50% of the crews that actually work on the roads are women. I think that's an important 50% to be acknowledged, don't you?

"Forget the whole “people starving” thing, let’s focus on proper PC verbiage."

Yes, I'm sure they were planning on using the $1000 from the Atlanta Public Works budget to solve world hunger.

All the signs here just say "Construction ahead" or "SLOW Construction Zone". But yeah, if HALF the people working there are women (like it says in the article), they should probably go gender neutral.