krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > lunanightfern wrote:
> > > gleki wrote:
> > > > merrybot wrote:
> > > > > gleki wrote:
> > > > > > merrybot wrote:
> > > > > > > gleki wrote:
> > > > > > > > hzrn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I don't even know how this flew for 5 whole years. I
don't
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > have the power to delete words from this system, but if
> they
> > > do,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > asbolutely needed here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia contains an entry just as it has entries for
other
> > > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > concepts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > this is different though?? this is Racism. we Don't need
that
> > here
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can Wikipedia have racism and jbovlaste cannot?
> > > > > > Notice racism might be even in gismu (e.g. take cinki)
> > > > >
> > > > > wikipedia is <i>discussing</i> racism historically. this entry
is
> > > > <i>being
> > > > > racist</i>. (as for zo cinki: ..............)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > maybe you can create a new definition of the word but i can't see
> > > > immediately how it can be improved.
> > > >
> > > > Lojban was never neutral because world changes. E.g. no gismu for
> > Roman
> > > > Empire but a gismu for Soviet Union although both countries no
> longer
> > > > exist (this was different when Lojban was born).
> > > >
> > > > Same for fonxa, skami, kacma.
> > > >
> > > > Had Lojban been born in the beginning of the 20th century it would
> be
> > > > possible such obsolete words for human races would be present just
> > like
> > > we
> > > > have fonxa and kacma reminding us of past epochs.
> > > >
> > > > Wiktionary has such word just fine.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negroid#English
> > >
> > > English is a language with a very long history. Wiktionary indeed
has
> a
> > > page defining that word, but that is a word which already exists,
and
> > > therefore should have an already-existing definition listed.
> > Wiktionary,
> > > being part of the Wikimedia family of wikis, is not making anything
> new
> > > here.
> > >
> > > The page you linked writes “dated, offensive” for both the
adjectival
> > and
> > > nominal forms of that word, so, pray tell, is it truly necessary to
> > create
> > > such *new* for the *sole purpose* of demeaning towards black people?
> Do
> > > we really miss much if we *don’t* have racist words in our
dictionary?
> >
> > It's fine to add "offensive" to notes if this word. This word is down
> > voted anyway.
> >
> > How are you going to translate old books where this English word
exists?
> >
> > Next time someone will say we need to delete words for freedom in
Lojban
> > because it offends employers.
>
> Having concepts/words for race is necessary. That is why I introduced
(the
> apparently rather disliked) "maska". This word could be okay, but I
> would really like the English definition to be changed because it makes
me
> extremely uncomfortable. Also, I am not a Black person and thus am not
> qualified to really discuss whether the word form itself is acceptable;
> "maska" was my attempt at deriving a zevla (or, well, actually a gismu
in
> that case) internally but simultaneously removing some of the
etymological
> baggage while still being able to address race.

The same person also made remnrxaustralo and remnrmongolo