10

Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Eleazar@sh.itjust.works 38 points 2 years ago

Referring to all non-white people as a single entity is bigotry in of itself.

[-] fidelacchius@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

The politically correct word changes every decade. "Black people" used to be more offensive than "colored people"

[-] PolarBone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I wasn't sure about a young guys name out here and asked someone "do you know the young black man who's new in the neighborhood? I wanted to thank him for helping someone I know the other day." After I helped host an event.

holy shit this person got mad at me. Said I needed to call them african canadian or colored. I get so confused by terms these days. Same with indigenous and native. I live in an area with many, and know some, and different ones prefer different words. I call one of them one term, and other that same one, they might get offended. I try to be as respectful as I can, gets hard.

Example, my therapist goes by indigenous, but her wife goes by native. So I thanked her wife one day for helping me at a indigenous event I was at, and she said "we call it a native event".

I'm having such a hard time the past 2 years in particular, and trying really hard with all of these changes in terms, pronouns and every time I think I understand it, apparently I don't. I have one trans friend who I see occasionally and thankfully they agree with me and makes me feel a bit less nutty.

My girlfriend is considering changing her orientation to some new wording I've literally never heard of all of a sudden now too. I just found a tonne of new things, like grey sexual, demisexual, etc. People I've been in employment/training programs with have changed their name and gender 2-3 times in the past year, and each time I see them I get confused with what to say or call them. It is oddly overwhelming.

sorry this turned into a slight vent

[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] FiFoFree@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

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. The goal is to address the meaning, but it feels like so much energy is being spent on addressing the words themselves that the meaning never gets dealt with...

...which I guess is understandable for those who have given up hope of the meaning being addressed, but then why spend the effort on the word?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheRealGChu@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Word choices aside, the more telling quote is this, "You can keep playing around these games with diversity, equity and inclusion. But there are some real threats out there. And if we keep messing around and we keep lowering our standards..."

For those that can't read between the lines, POCs, LGBTQIA+, women, and anyone else that's not a white male, are "lowering...standards".

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

Keep the words in the record. Posterity should know.

[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

“My amendment has nothing to do with whether or not colored people or Black people or anybody can serve,” said Crane, who is in his first term. “It has nothing to do with any of that stuff.”

I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just a normal idiot racist who has a hard time thinking on the spot and got mixed up between "black people," "people of color," and trying really hard not to say the n-word as he would in his usual crowds.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

Are we really going to act like "people of color" and "colored people" are wildly different terms that could never be confused? He listed "black people" separately so I'd have to guess he meant to say people of color and mixed up the terms

Not saying he's not racist for other reasons, but this is gotcha journalism

[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Linguistically, very little difference. Contextually, when we bring in history? Huge difference.

[-] I_AnoN_I@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I don't get how people of colour is any better lmao

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The logic behind this change is that it puts the PERSON first. You're first and foremost a person, and then after that you're using a descriptor. Usually this terminology is used to be collective of anyone not white, because it's used in context of the unique experiences that anyone not white has to navigate all their life, at least in US. Examples such as people of color are more likely to be pulled over by police, people of color have a harder time finding makeup that suits their skin tone, etc.

If you're just talking about an individual or a group without that context it's much more common to hear them just referred to as black, or whatever ethnicity they are, if its even relevant.

I know it can all feel arbitrary when words are suddenly not okay anymore, but I think it is because these acceptable terms for marginalized people eventually get used so often in a hateful context, they may try to adopt a new term. I mean many women now cringe hard and go on alert for red flags whenever they see women referred to as female, maybe can't even stand it anymore despite the context, because it has been so consistently used by a very specific type of person.

[-] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I appreciate and agree with all you've said here, just one small thing- "female" is fine when used as an adjective, I don't think anyone is bothered by that. "The female staff member," "the author is female" etc. is not problematic. It's when it is used as a noun that flags are raised- "That female over there," "the author is a female." Then it sounds like you're talking about some other kind of creature, not a human woman.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Laticauda@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Because it has a different connotation. It's generally used by a different demographic, often to refer to themselves, and doesn't have the unfortunate history that "coloured people" has. Just because they're similar that doesn't make them the same. Most people I've seen using the term "coloured people" aren't exactly known for being not-racist. Most people I've seen using "people of colour" are, well, people of colour. We sometimes need a shorthand for people who aren't white but may or may not be black, and personally I tend to go with whatever the people being referred to generally prefer.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

The good news is that you don't need to understand. You just need to accept that this is the case because the people it hurts say so.

You can also go learn about the history and understand if you want, but I'm also all for being lazy and just trusting the people who are impacted.

[-] SlowNoPoPo@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

this logic is so flawed honestly

people can choose to "be hurt" by literally any word and it's entirely subjective and ephemeral because what upsets them today may not tomorrow and what is ok changes just as easily

word policing is just a losing battle no matter how you try and justify it and the massive sensitivity towards words just makes people look ridiculous

[-] MrPewp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That would only be true if we gave every single hurt feeling equal weight, but PoC in America have a long history of pretty blatant discrimination, specifically using the term "colored people", so I don't see much wrong with not using the phrase because they've asked you not to. It's not like we're entertaining every person that wants to be referred to as a "Hylian Deku scrub" or something.

[-] _cerpin_taxt_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I had several coworkers at Best Buy that called black people colored. I got into so many arguments. Like dude, that's racist as fuck. The sad thing is most folks at that store didn't see the problem with it.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

"Colored people bad"

"People of color good"

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] kemal007@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Yet another complete piece of shit I don’t like this regression to outspoken racism being okay.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Would it have been okay if he reversed it and said People of Color?

[-] ilovetacos@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Yes, that is an accepted phrase today.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago
[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

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

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

It's a question. Nothing more than that.

[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25060 readers
967 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS