Kleinbonum @ Kleinbonum @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

101

Joined

2 yr. ago

Does that mean you're opposed to calling people how they state they prefer to be called because you perceive it as a progressive ploy and you don't like progressives?

Well, it implies "whiteness" as the norm - i.e. that it's not even necessary to mention that somebody is "white" (as in "a man was seen at the station") because the default assumption is that a certain ethnicity that a society was built for is the "norm," and it's only worth mentioning race as a qualifier (as in "a colored man was seen at the station") when referring to a member of the outside group.

However, I'd still argue that this, too, is a sociological rather than a linguistical concept.

So if you already thought that the accepted phrase today was "People of Color," then what was the purpose of asking that question?

I’ve only ever seen non-Native Americans say such things.

Interesting.

Indian is an excepted term and is included in the name of most organizations Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, Indian Health Services, National Indian Gaming Commission, Indian Claims Commission, National Museum of the American Indian, and the official national title for the various tribes is called the American Indian Nations.

Who came up with the names of all of these entities?

Linguistically? Sure.

Historically? Well, "colored people" is the term used in Apartheid South Africa and in Jim Crow America by racists and white supremacists and people longing for the slavery era in order to refer to people that were regarded and treated as inferior, while "People of Color" is the term that a large majority seems to prefer as the term to refer to themselves.

As we’ve seen over the past decade (well, past few decades, tbh), changing the word only moves the objectionable meaning onto the new word.

It's been going on for much longer. Just look up all the clinical terms that came into use in the Victorian era. There's been an ongoing effort to come up with better terminology. Words came into existence in an effort to have neutral terminology to refer to certain symptoms or conditions or to categorize people or chronic illnesses or ethnicities etc.

It's just that we no longer use terms like "moron" or "lunatic" or "retard" or "fool" or "insane" or "Mongol" as neutral, objective, clinical terminology.

I think many people get used (and attached) to the terminology that they learned when growing up, unaware that this terminology has been changing at a rapid pace for centuries now, and then get all bent out of shape when they're being told that the words they were taught as kids are no longer the preferred way of referring to certain conditions/ethnicities/demographic groups etc.

And of course, then there are people who use those expressions with the full intention to insult and malign, only to feign ignorance when called out: "But that's the word people have always been using! Why are you getting so upset?"

Why are we no longer referring to people as "idiots" and "retards" and "cripples?"

Is that also just a distraction so that people can feel like they're doing something? Are you, personally, just sticking with the old terminology?

What's the point you're trying to make?

Are we really going to act like "people of color" and "colored people" are wildly different terms that could never be confused?

In a vacuum, those are similar terms.

In the real world, one is a term used in Apartheid South Africa and in Jim Crow America that has huge racist and white supremacists connotations, while the other one is the preferred term used by the community to refer to themselves.

Euphemism treadmill.

In any sensitive, socially fraught context, terminology will just change faster than in other areas of life.

That's why we no longer use terms like idiot, retard, cripple, imbecile, etc. as neutral, objective terminology. Instead, terms that where initially used as objective, clinical terminology are now exclusively used as slurs and insults.

It's just that when it comes to race, some people (and it's often people not affected by it) have a hard time accepting that concept.

In the year before Roe fell, roughly 1,230 people told the National Domestic Violence Hotline that they had endured some kind of what anti-domestic abuse activists call “reproductive coercion,” including being denied an abortion or being forced into one. In the year since it was overturned, 2,442 people said the same. That’s a 99-percent increase.

Let's not pretend that banning abortion just didn't make any kind of difference.

There's also such a thing as systemic racism that is very easy to ignore of you're not affected.

There have to be millions of restaurants, cafes and other places that already have unisex bathrooms, and apparently that's never been a problem. Weird, huh?

it still feels weird when he walks into the bathroom with me

Are they? What if someone still feels weird when a Black person walks into the bathroom with them? Should we take that person's feeling into account and simply give Black people their own space where they can be comfortable and let everyone else be comfortable too?

If no: why not?

For the exact same reason, I've only been using Pixel devices for years now. Before that, Nexus devices.

Every now and then, I get interested in what Samsung has to offer, and their top end devices are without a don't often among the very best out there.

But it's shit like pre-installed apps, Samsung's tooth-and-nail fight against unlocking the bootloader, bloatware that re-enables or installs itself with system updates, and generally Samsung's attempts to pull users into it's ecosystem and sell them more Samsung stuff that makes me keep it at arms length.

Pocket Casts is available as Android and Windows app; Apple Podcasts isn't.

Pocket Casts syncs between MacOS, iOS, Android, Windows and Abby device that asked you to open the wenn player; Apple Podcasts doesn't.

It's not garbage per se, it just doesn't fit the same use case.

The problem with fighting lies and falsehoods is the "don't think of a pink elephant problem": If you're repeating the false statement - even just to rebut it - the only thing a number of people will remember is the false information.

College Republicans United are inviting a Nazi to speak?

Next thing you know they'll get upset over getting called "Nazis" just for inviting Nazis to speak at their events...

Democrats won the White House and the Senate and retained control of the House.

Quit your gaslighting.

The mods never had leverage

Of course the mods had leverage: they could have just walked away.

The reality is that there's no difference between mods and users: everyone is just too addicted to their routines and habits and mindless opening of Reddit and doomscrolling that the vast, vast, vast majority of people just wanted to go back to how things were.