politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yet another complete piece of shit I don’t like this regression to outspoken racism being okay.
Would it have been okay if he reversed it and said People of Color?
Yes, that is an accepted phrase today.
That's what I thought.
What's the point you're trying to make?
It's a question. Nothing more than that.
So if you already thought that the accepted phrase today was "People of Color," then what was the purpose of asking that question?
Progressives change the name of the cohort every few years, I was just checking.
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?
Not at all. It was just a question.
Then what makes you believe that it's "progressives" that are responsible for changing the "name of the cohort every few years?"
It's been one of the traits of the movement since the 1970s.
What if progressives are just more accepting of the notion that groups of people should be able to decide what they like to be called?
That isn't the point, it is about smugness. They want to feel superior to others by changing the cohort name and shaming those who don't follow their changes. It's been studied if you would like to look more into it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749204
Alright.
I've gone to the trouble to download that article. Just for reference, here's the abstract:
and I see nothing in the article itself that would say otherwise.
In other words: this is talking about the Black community deciding for itself what they wish to use as preferred terminology to refer to themselves.
There's nothing in there about "progressives." There's nothing in there about progressives "feeling superior to others." There's nothing in there about progressives "shaming those who don't follow their changes."
That article is from 1992 and shows the history of the progression of the cohort names. I invite you to go down that rabbit hole, it is very interesting. Good Luck!
Yes, it is, and it describes how the Black community has moved through various iterations of preferred terminology.
What it doesn't support is the claims you've made: that these terms were invented by "progressives" (rather than by the community itself), that "progressives" came up with those new terms in order to feel superior, that "progressives" came up with those new terms in order to shame those who don’t follow their changes.
You've also implied that you don't have a problem referring to a community using the terminology they themselves decide to use in order to refer to themselves.
So on the one hand it would appear that you perceive changing etymology as an attack by progressive on you, on the other hand you claim you're okay with a community deciding for itself what terminology to use (and presumably also to change that terminology).
Those two things seem contradictory.