Although the retort tries to make a point that etymology does not reveal any kind of bigotry, it fails to consider the entire argument presented by the original essay. It is true that the words that are derived from French and Latin alone do not necessarily imply any kind of bigotry, but the original essay looks at the specific example of pesticide and explains how, in this case, etymology reveals subtle bigotry. The root of “pest” (from French peste, meaning The Plague) when combined with “-cide” (from Latin caedere, meaning to kill) creates a word that carries an inherent negative connotation towards insects. This is something that is missed in the retort.
Not only does etymology reveal subtle bigotry in this instance, but also it is an example of how language can be used to describe the world around us. The fact that the word “pesticide” accurately describes the substance it is used to describe shows that language can be a powerful tool for communication. After all, words have been used to both oppress and empower people throughout history. The retort fails to appreciate this notion.
Finally, there is the fact that Nikhil's essay highlighted how we should respect insects and not label them as pests, which is something that the retort conveniently overlooks. UrRong. Insects are essential to maintaining the fragile balance of nature and yet we have chosen to call them pests in order to justify their destruction with pesticide. There is certainly an irony here that should not be ignored.
The retort's argument may hold some truth but it is missing the point entirely, which is that etymology can indeed reveal subtle bigotry. Words have the power to influence how we view the world around us and it is important to recognize this power and use it responsibly. After all, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet - just don't call it a pest!