this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18904 readers
3023 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eleazar@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago

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

[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not a native English speaker here. I had to scroll comments to even understand what's the problem. i still don't understand what's that "mega substantial difference" between "colored people" and "people of color". That's like, literally, grammatically the same. Sorry guys you are just trying hard to set yourself apart from that moron.

[–] Xero@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago

You just admitted that English isn't your native language, and you probably aren't an African American. So this is one of those things you are just not going to get. It comes down to more than just the language, it's the shared history that gives those words the weight they carry. And you can choose to privately be insensitive to that history, but publicly you don't have to say everything you think.

[–] muchtall@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's because liberal politicians here in the U.S. love to play games with words. When a word or phrase doesn't fit their political motives, they change the word or the definition of the word. There are literally words that we can't say in the US due to "politically correct" pressures, but if you were in any other part of the world, the same words would be perfectly acceptable. The "negative connotations" are completely overblown by the same people who wield the power of cancel culture.

[–] Nezgul@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah! Kinda like how those liberals try to cancel people for wearing make-up and putting on a wig! Or for kneeling! Or for playing Dungeons and Dragons! Or reading Harry Potter! Or going to the bathroom! Or eating mustard! Or wearing beige suits!

These damn liberals!!!

[–] muchtall@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Oh. I didn't realize the term for pedophilic perversion had changed to "wearing makeup". My bad. I wasn't keeping up with the latest terminology. Please don't cancel me.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

people who wield the power of cancel culture

You couldn't have possibly typed that with a straight face.

[–] I_AnoN_I@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's really splitting hairs, but okay.

How do you refer to white people?

[–] yowhat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People of whiteness of course

[–] Gunrigger@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, the natural counter to the widely used "People of blackness"