There's this:

> The strong form of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis claims that people from different cultures think differently because of differences in their languages. ... Few sociolinguists would accept such a strong claim, but most accept the weaker claim of linguistic relativity, that language influences perceptions, thought, and, at least potentially, behavior.

And this:

> Linguistic relativity proposals are sometimes characterized as equivalent to linguistic determinism, that is the view that all thought is strictly determined by language. Such characterizations of the language–thought linkage bear little resemblance to the proposals of Sapir or Whorf, who spoke in more general terms about language influencing habitual patterns of thought, especially at the conceptual level. Indeed, no serious scholar working on the linguistic relativity problem as such has subscribed to a strict determinism.

My sense has long been that Sapir-Whorf is "debunked" in the popular consciousness but not among actual linguists, in part because of the confusion of linguistic determinism with linguistic relativity. Pop-sci sources characterize Sapir-Whorf as wholly deterministic, which it isn't and never was.

In the end, I'll trust my own gut on Sapir-Whorf over what the academy comes up with anyway, because there's a strong incentive to "disprove" it because it doesn't align with their current political values. My gut says that for linguistic relativity to not be true, language would have to be unique among all of our environmental stimulae in not influencing our thought patterns, and the odds of something so fundamental to our species being the lone exception are pretty darn slim.