Another racist Dem

Belz... said:
Seems like harmless words are more important than harmful policies these days, eh?
Click to expand...

Well obviously the status of ethnic minorities in the US has improved to such an extent that activists have literally nothing better to do with their time...
 
The idea that "Colored people" is racist but "People of color" isn't really doesn't make much sense.
 
A story on Fox News? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the emphasis on the story may have been shaded slightly by that company's political alignment (chaotic - evil I think fits).
 
JoeMorgue said:
The idea that "Colored people" is racist but "People of color" isn't really doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Yeah but that's because you're not looking at this issue from an outragist perspective.
Click to expand...

No, that's because you're ignoring the historical perspective. "Colored", meaning as everyone except a certain poster will agree, "colored people" was the sign of record on bathrooms, water fountains, swimming pools, back entrances to restaurants and hotels, "special seats" on the bus or streetcar, the nosebleed seats in movie houses, etc....

And Florida's still part of the old south in many ways, particularly the state and local politicians. Hearing "colored people" or "the coloreds" out of the mouth of a white politician in the south is still worrisome to many, myself included.
 
Belz... said:
No, that's not it, because "people of colour" isn't different from "coloured people". It's the exact same thing. Someone decided that one was ok and the other not, because reasons.
Click to expand...

While not speaking to the validity of this specific case, but connotations are a thing.

'Forgive me father, for I have sinned' means the same thing as 'Sorry daddy, I've been naughty' in literal terms, but they have vastly different contextual meanings.
 
I was expecting a whole lot more that that. The reason being, confronted with racist statements so brazen they would make David Duke blush, logger has denied the racism. The difference, of course, is those were instances of republicans saying racist things.
 
Belz... said:
No, that's not it, because "people of colour" isn't different from "coloured people". It's the exact same thing. Someone decided that one was ok and the other not, because reasons.
Click to expand...
There's an elaborate semantic rationalization, which I am actually not entirely against. Words acquire meaning through use. And phrases in English often carry a very different meaning than you'd get from considering the meanings of each word individually.
 
I always found the term 'coloured' failed deliver and I ended up disappointed, a bit like visiting the python house at the zoo.
 
Parsman said:
A story on Fox News? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the emphasis on the story may have been shaded slightly by that company's political alignment (chaotic - evil I think fits).
Click to expand...


Come on! You know that logger would never have posted that link unless he had first made absolutely sure that his headline was justified!
 
We're not limited to two extremes here people.

We can accept language has nuance and that even very specific phrasings can pick up connotations beyond literal definitions... and still expect it to make some sense.

And yeah when it is down to literal sentence structure, almost literally just a difference between an active and passive phrasing of the exact same two words... it does strike me as a little silly.

I won't use it because I understand and respect that it bothers people, but I can say I personally don't get it.
 
Belz... said:
No, that's not it, because "people of colour" isn't different from "coloured people". It's the exact same thing. Someone decided that one was ok and the other not, because reasons.
Click to expand...

I think Foolmewunz did manage to explain the nuance that differentiates two phrases which, to someone else, appear the same.
 
tyr_13 said:
While not speaking to the validity of this specific case, but connotations are a thing.

'Forgive me father, for I have sinned' means the same thing as 'Sorry daddy, I've been naughty' in literal terms, but they have vastly different contextual meanings.
Click to expand...

Sure. But in this case it's the exact same words. It's like if I call someone a son of a bitch, and they're offended, but if I say a bitch's son they're fine with it.
 
Just like 'black' is more or less acceptable, but a word based on the Latin translation that means exactly the same isn't.
And if you say that doesn't count because those words look less similar than 'colored' does to 'of color', I think you're deliberately ignoring context.

ETA: I personally don't see why it either should be a problem, or why a slight syntactic shift would remove the stigma. So I can sympathize with you there. And I agree that it's all a matter of feelings and opinions.
But for better or worse, feelings, opinions and conventions are very important for our use of language.
ETAalso: None of which has any bearing on whether or not the politician should have been made to resign for misspeaking, of course.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Sure. But in this case it's the exact same words. It's like if I call someone a son of a bitch, and they're offended, but if I say a bitch's son they're fine with it.
Click to expand...

Not really

Person of Color vs. Colored Person

Perhaps it is verbal gymnastics to avoid the verboten word "Colored", but apparently it's verbal gymnastics that people find acceptable. :confused:
 
The Don said:
Not really

Person of Color vs. Colored Person

Perhaps it is verbal gymnastics to avoid the verboten word "Colored", but apparently it's verbal gymnastics that people find acceptable. :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I need a bit more context regarding the history of the individual before I start screaming for his scalp.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm sorry, I need a bit more context regarding the history of the individual before I start screaming for his scalp.
Click to expand...

True, I was just attempting to explain why someone may find the term "colored person" offensive but "person of color" not so.
 
Belz... said:
Sure. But in this case it's the exact same words. It's like if I call someone a son of a bitch, and they're offended, but if I say a bitch's son they're fine with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a good example of a phrase gaining meaning beyond the individual words.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Just like 'black' is more or less acceptable, but a word based on the Latin translation that means exactly the same isn't.
And if you say that doesn't count because those words look less similar than 'colored' does to 'of color', I think you're deliberately ignoring context.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's deliberate now? Gee, I either agree or I'm a meanie.
 
Belz... said:
Oh, it's deliberate now? Gee, I either agree or I'm a meanie.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about being mean?
And I was very specific in my conditions for calling it deliberate... Namely, only if you understand the difference between black and ******, but would claim that's different because the words look more different than of color and colored.

It's just my impression that you're ignoring the emotional baggage because you prefer to focus on the rational meaning of the words. If that impression was wrong, so be it.

But don't accuse me of trying some kind of emotional blackmail* on you.

* Or mail of color.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That's offensive to redskins aboriginals native americans first nations folk and I demand an apology!
Click to expand...

An excellent example of how the currently acceptable term for a group has changed over time (and of course more than one can be acceptable). :thumbsup:

See also girls' vs ladies' vs women's when referring to sport.
 
Belz... said:
Sure. But in this case it's the exact same words. It's like if I call someone a son of a bitch, and they're offended, but if I say a bitch's son they're fine with it.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. "bitch's son" isn't a phrase in English that has acquired a distinct meaning through use. You're prescribing semantic rules that don't actually apply, instead of describing how the language is actually used. To put it another way: "bitch's son" isn't actually analogous to "people of color".
 
theprestige said:
Not really, no. "bitch's son" isn't a phrase in English that has acquired a distinct meaning through use. You're prescribing semantic rules that don't actually apply, instead of describing how the language is actually used. To put it another way: "bitch's son" isn't actually analogous to "people of color".
Click to expand...

Are you saying that someone calling you a bitch's son wouldn't be insulting in the exact same way as the regular phrase?
 
Belz... said:
Why else would I deliberately ignore historical context in order to (according to some) use an offensive term (that I never used, by the way)?
.
Click to expand...

Because I took you as someone who prefers reason to emotion, and who might not see an emotionally motivated change as entirely valid, or who might wonder why such a slight change in wording would make any difference on the emotional level.
Again, I could very well be wrong, but I certainly wasn't trying to call you malicious.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Because I took you as someone who prefers reason to emotion
Click to expand...

Good call.

and who might not see an emotionally motivated change as entirely valid, or who might wonder why such a slight change in wording would make any difference on the emotional level.
Click to expand...

Or who might encourage others to act more rationally about words.

Again, I could very well be wrong, but I certainly wasn't trying to call you malicious.
Click to expand...

Good. Sorry for the snapping, but I've been on the receiving end of exactly that type of accusation before. It's the "deliberately" that did it.
 
Belz... said:
Are you saying that someone calling you a bitch's son wouldn't be insulting in the exact same way as the regular phrase?
Click to expand...

I would say not. SOB seems to be an insult directed straight at you, whereas "bitch's son" seems almost just as likely to be directed at your mother. I know there's no sense in this distinction, but that's the way it seems to me.
 
Belz... said:
In that case I'm just going to conclude that I have no idea how people interpret language and be on my merry way.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn't be a problem except if you don't "interpret" the language they way they do, you're a racist.
 
I find it telling that the Democrat call-out thread is about someone who is mildly racist, while the Republican call-out thread is about someone who is an avowed Nazi.
 
Belz... said:
In that case I'm just going to conclude that I have no idea how people interpret language and be on my merry way.
Click to expand...

It's through usage. The countless times you have been exposed to "son of a bitch" has built connections in your mind as to the various meanings, like as an insult or as an exclamation.

"Bitch's son" does not trigger those same connections. You're more likely to interpret it as an awkward attempt by a foreigner to be funny, for example, than to be offended or recognize it as an exclamation.

Insult: "You're a son of a bitch."
Exclamation: "Oh, son of a bitch!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom