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.

0 points

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

permalink
report
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Feeeeemaaaales

wrings hands Ferengily

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Rule of acquisition 31 states, “Never make fun of a Ferengi’s mother. Insult something he cares about instead.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Hey look, it’s someone who doesn’t have a horse in the race and who can’t recognize their privilege.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

“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.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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

permalink
report
reply
0 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yes, that is an accepted phrase today.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s what I thought.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

not a lot of difference between “colored people” and “people of color”

permalink
report
reply
0 points

That’s like saying there’s not a lot of difference between saying “me beat” or “beat me.”

Simple words aside, there’s a big difference in meaning between the two.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

That’s like saying there’s not a lot of difference between saying “me beat” or “beat me.”

no, that’s not the same thing. the difference between “colored people” and “people of color” is similar to the difference between “a red apple” and “an apple that is red”. In English, an adjective can be placed before a noun or after a noun, with the latter formatted with a preposition such as “of”.

Edit: not sure why i’m being downvoted here - do you all not speak English? If you give a comparison it should be apples to apples, not apples to pineapples.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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?”

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 187K

    Comments