it kind of reminds me of 'mudblood' from harry potter a bit, also from pop fiction -- and similarly considered harmless.

yeah it's not directly harmful -- wizards aren't real -- but it also serves as an (often first) introduction to children of the concepts of familial/genetic superiority, eugenics, and ethnic/genetic cleansing.

I can't really think of any cases where setting an example of calling something a nasty name is that great a trait to espouse, to children or adults.

▲

hiccuphippo 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Wasn't muggle also a derogatory name? Some characters were wary of using mudblood but no one had issues with muggle.

	▲	rcxdude 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It was more or less treated as the least-pejorative way of saying 'non-magic-aware' (in a similar-ish sense to 'Gentile'), but it seems like there's no way to have at least a little bit of negative implication given what it's denoting, and there's absolutely a sense that most wizards and witches consider themselves superior to the muggles. Whereas 'mudblood' was specifically a slur against those of mixed heritage.

▲

mrguyorama 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>'mudblood' from harry potter a bit, also from pop fiction -- and similarly considered harmless

Considered harmless? The entire point of the "mudblood" slur is so JK can clearly signal who agrees with the literal Wizard Nazis! Anyone and everyone says "muggle", but calling someone a mudblood in the harry potter universe was how literal children reading knew you were the bad guy!

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]