[Open Discussions] "Negro" and "Oriental" removed from (US) Federal Laws

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter, I'm going to have to bow out. I can't with you tonight. I don't feel as though you've heard a word I said much less that you care that I've lived through this stuff. You say you've had similar experiences, but your lack of a heart speaks to the contrary.

Lack of a heart? Jamie you do not know me to even come close to making such a claim. Simply because I do not allow people to turn me into a violent bigot when they stoop to petty insults does not mean I lack heart. It means I do not let others dictate my self worth or happiness. All I hear is your call to violence over mere words, and yes they are just words. I have experienced almost any kind of abuse you can care to mention and one thing I have learned is that you can let others dictate your happiness and be a victim all your life or you can take control and not let others determine your world view or actions. To let others do so means you are always REACTING and never acting on your own. It means you are a passenger in your own life story and its a sad and unhappy way to live.

Leah Starspectre wrote: Language evolves, and we need to evolve with it. Especially when it comes to terms that involve demeaning another group.

Exactly my point.
Language has evolved, and it has evolved in such a way that any discriminating term -- let's use "black" and "gay" as examples -- becomes an offensive term over time. If, right now, you were to refer to someone as "black", someone out there would get offended and say "ACTUALLY, the preferred term is Person Of Color! Calling someone black is racist!" Once upon a time, this was not the case. This really seems to be true when it comes to ANY term which makes any kind of discrimination between human beings. I have seen "straight", "cis", "white", and "male" all used as insults or considered to be offensive terms. This really is an idiotic linguistic trend that English speakers go through over and over again. "Negro" was not meant to demean anyone. But that's what it has become.
There is nothing inherently offensive about any word, when what is socially acceptable today is almost guaranteed to be considered racist, sexist, (x)phobic, etc. etc. in a short amount of time (I'm talking about 15-30 years, not centuries of linguistic development).
Which means that this change is literally pointless. Yes, the legislative language has evolved to fit in with what is currently socially acceptable. It just sets up a system where the language has to constantly be updated for no real reason other than the fact that certain terms go out of style more quickly than others. So ultimately what has been improved? It just creates a future problem identical to the one it was supposed to solve. When Dr. King used the term "negro", it was much in the same way people say "people of color" today. Yes, times change and language changes. But that doesn't mean that all of the changes in language are necessarily good, or that they necessarily make any rational sense. What is the purpose at all of creating new terms if they're just going to be in the same situation as the previous terms in a short amount of time? Why did someone suddenly decide that "negro" is demeaning or offensive? What makes you think the terms that you use even with the best intentions today won't be seen in exactly the same way within your lifetime? It seems trivial at best and absurd at worst.

MadHatter wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

Neither is using terms that are insulting to marginalized groups. So why not avoid the whole kerfuffle and simply respect people? Including names/terms that describe how they want to be collectively known.

And to both Jamie and MadHatter: This is NOT a "who's more tragic" contest. Although you may have had similar experiences, neither has walked in the other's possibly horrific shoes.

Why not let those experiences unite you in solidarity?

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

Neither is using terms that are insulting to marginalized groups. So why not avoid the whole kerfuffle and simply respect people? Including names/terms that describe how they want to be collectively known.

And to both Jamie and MadHatter: This is NOT a "who's more tragic" contest. Although you may have had similar experiences, neither has walked in the other's possibly horrific shoes.

Why not let those experiences unite you in solidarity?

Oh I agree to not using those terms. I just dont think violence is a proper response to them. As far as who is more tragic I just wanted to point out I have seen similar issues and have a different outlook. The reason being is often an argument that crops ups is if you had experienced it you would feel differently. Though that argument was never made, my statement was meant to preempt that. As far as uniting, I dont think so. Violence outside of protecting one self from physical harm is just a way to add to the misery that floats around. I cant agree to that. Which is what the whole debate is about. I respect Jamie as a person but do not respect the concept of violence over words. I have seen too often how bad that can get.

You're right, violence isn't an ideal solution, but as you said, tolerable in instances of physical harm.

Verbal attacks can lead to physical ones. And I would hope that your recognise the high risk for violent confrontation against marginalized groups - especially LGBT. It's it unreasonable then, to fault someone for having a fight or flight reaction to verbal attacks? Certainly it's not the best scenario, but pain and trauma often lead to poor choices.

So instead of condemning outright, you can recognize, understand, emphasize. Try to come to a point of commonality. Pardon the assumption, but it sounded to me like Jamie was speaking out of pain and frustration, a reaction to trauma. Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing?

Leah Starspectre wrote: You're right, violence isn't an ideal solution, but as you said, tolerable in instances of physical harm.

Verbal attacks can lead to physical ones. And I would hope that your recognise the high risk for violent confrontation against marginalized groups - especially LGBT. It's it unreasonable then, to fault someone for having a fight or flight reaction to verbal attacks? Certainly it's not the best scenario, but pain and trauma often lead to poor choices.

So instead of condemning outright, you can recognize, understand, emphasize. Try to come to a point of commonality. Pardon the assumption, but it sounded to me like Jamie was speaking out of pain and frustration, a reaction to trauma. Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing?

But poor judgement is not something to advocate. I can get the anger and hurt, been there done that, which is why I say that such responses come from lack of discipline over the self and lack of control of your emotions. I am bisexual myself and have experienced ill treatment even in the LGBT community because of it. So yea I get it. But just because I get it, does not mean I wont firmly stand and say its a terrible idea and a bad thing to advocate. I mean I get why my nephew throws a tantrum over not getting a toy but it doesnt mean I should let it continue. In that same line of thought I get why it could move someone to that level of anger but it doesnt change what a bad idea it is. It doesnt change that one should point out how risky, criminal, and lacking in control such behavior is. Which is my point. Where I grew up people have been shot and killed as an innocent bystander because two people got violent over insults. Its almost a yearly event. So I hope that put some perspective on why I say that violence over words is foolish. Because you never know to what level the other person is going to take it. Finally yes mean words can be the precursor to violence and yes I can get thinking an attack may be likely but that would be on a case by case basis and not something I can judge. I mean there is too much going on in such an interaction for me to judge that right away. But the way I was looking at it, is foolish school yard insults not aggressive posturing etc which can tip you to signs of attack.

Verbal attacks cannot lead to physical harm if you get out of the way

Or maybe I am wrong

But there is this:

"Listen Ender, commanders have just as much authority as you let them have. The more you obey them, the more power they have over you."

-Dink Meeker to Ender in Ender's Game

Now before the quote is misconstrued, let me shed some light on my thinking.

Commander can be replaced with "authority figure" but authority figure doesn't necessarily mean person with a title or a uniform. It means whoever you allow to have power over you. Once you strike a blow, you lose whatever advantage you might have had (as I believe has already been stated.)

And I have another quote

"But he is by no means of such importance that it should be in his power to give you any disturbance." -Epictetus

Here he are talking about a servant, but really it could be anyone. That is, no one is so damn important that it should be within their power to cause you a disturbance. The only way that it could be in their power is if you gave your power over to them

I want to say that Jamie PM"d me to applozie over the "cracker" insult and thank her for it. Its a big move for someone to apologzie to another that they have butted heads with. I took no insult from it and do not hold any malice or ill will towards Jamie despite our butting heads.

Further I wish to add that I think I know where I came off as knowing about others experiences. It was when I said: " I have learned is that you can let others dictate your happiness and be a victim all your life or you can take control and not let others determine your world view or actions. To let others do so means you are always REACTING and never acting on your own. It means you are a passenger in your own life story and its a sad and unhappy way to live."

That was not directed at anyone but explaining my OWN experience. I have lived that life. I have been defensive, angry, ready to fight at any petty insult because I was bullied for so long. And all it lead to was pain, sadness, and emptiness. It was warning against behavior that I in the past have exhibited and learned the lessons from. Its a crappy road to walk with nothing good on it. I dont want others to be as miserable as I was for so long. Because it took a long time to get better from it and a lot of that work was done here. Basically I am saying dont make my mistakes because the result SUCK.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

Neither is using terms that are insulting to marginalized groups. So why not avoid the whole kerfuffle and simply respect people? Including names/terms that describe how they want to be collectively known.

And to both Jamie and MadHatter: This is NOT a "who's more tragic" contest. Although you may have had similar experiences, neither has walked in the other's possibly horrific shoes.

Why not let those experiences unite you in solidarity?

what has been explained is that it is impossible to avoid the terms which people find offensive, because even neutral, unoffensive terms eventually offend someone

take intelligence for instance; there is a scale
there are people at the extremes of both ends
its not insulting to call someone brilliant, but think of any word that is used for those at the low end and that word is insulting

but such people exist, and it is sometimes useful to have words which distinguish them from others

"retarded" was not originally an insult
neither was "moron"
but they became insults because people used them as insults and because people felt insulted by them

the reason these words are insulting is because it stings to think that what the word describes is true of the self, and also because we sense that someone else uses the word with the intent to insult

i could call you a pretty butterfly and it can be insulting if i say it as an insult

-history of stigmatizing names for mental disabilities-
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/history-of-stigmatizing-names-for-intellectual-disabilities-continued/

Jamie Stick wrote: The truth is that words don't work.

They didn't work against the guy who slapped my ass.

They didn't work against the guy who yelled at me, "WHAT ARE YOU?" on the subway on my way home.

They didn't work against the guy who followed me yelling, "Are you some kind of faggot?" on my way to the grocery store.

They didn't work against the pair of guys who yelled at me on my way to pick up some cleaning supplies.

Words work with the willing, but with others it requires a more calculated response. Which are you?

right, i understand
words didnt work against the people who robbed me, or the ones who stomped me unconscious, or the ones who beat my ass on the back of the church bus on the way home from church lol, or the one who dropped a chunk of cinder-block on my little sisters head from a second story balcony, or the several different groups who surrounded me and attacked me with kicks and chase me home with thrown rocks

it never worked on the ones who stole my bikes or the ones who would bang on our doors late at night, or some of the other situations that were worse than these

i understand that words dont always work, and i support your choice to use whatever force is necessary when it is necessary

but we arent all your enemy, and we arent all out to hurt you
i hope you can come to see that

As far as removing the terms from Federal Laws...It's thoughtful. But, a better progression would be to combine all terms with "Human" or "Person".

As far as what's considered offensive...I don't want another race deciding what is or isn't offensive towards me. If you really care you would just ask how i would like to be adressed. I'm mindful of what "term" I call other races or ethnicities. And if someone says they find it offensive...then it's wise for me to respect that point of view. If I go against their wishes, knowing that they are offended...then I put myself in a position to be an agitator. And when you agitate someone, they react. They may react with words or violence. It's very immature to expect someone to not attack you when they let you know that you are causing agitation. Whether it's under the banner of free speech or creative license, you open yourself up for confrontation.

People are protected under the law for having the Freedom to say whatever they feel. People have the option (not protected under the law) to respond any way that they want. What you choose to say is at your own discretion.

for some reason i can't see this post on the thread. sorry for reposting it.
please delete this post. sorry.
Computer error.

Codama wrote: As far as removing the terms from Federal Laws...It's thoughtful. But, a better progression would be to combine all terms with "Human" or "Person".

As far as what's considered offensive...I don't want another race deciding what is or isn't offensive towards me. If you really care you would just ask how i would like to be adressed. I'm mindful of what "term" I call other races or ethnicities. And if someone says they find it offensive...then it's wise for me to respect that point of view. If I go against their wishes, knowing that they are offended...then I put myself in a position to be an agitator. And when you agitate someone, they react. They may react with words or violence. It's very immature to expect someone to not attack you when they let you know that you are causing agitation. Whether it's under the banner of free speech or creative license, you open yourself up for confrontation.

People are protected under the law for having the Freedom to say whatever they feel. People have the option (not protected under the law) to respond any way that they want. What you choose to say is at your own discretion.

Thank you , i thought i was the only one seeing it like this, dont treat people how you want to be treated , treat people how THEY want to be treaded , thank you for finding the words to express this

America is dividing between itself. Soon enough, you will be a burning mass of land where the blacks fight the whites and the asians fight the whites and the blacks will win. It's only a matter of time before the white race gets, unfortunately, what is gave. You get what you give. We whites have destroyed the lives of many races. Now, gradually, they will take their revenge.

What makes you think "the blacks" are out for "revenge" against "the whites"?

Why do you perceive "we whites" as any more culpable for the actions of our forebears than, say (and forgive Godwin's Law, but I feel it's absolutely relevant in this case), modern day Germans are for the actions of the Nazi party? Are young German Jews now actively persecuting young German non-Jews?

Why see everything in such racial language? We have black Jedi here, are they also out to "fight" with "we whites"?

Are we not all just people? Is it impossible that the systematic oppression of a race has taught many members of that race how awful that kind of approach to the world is?

Why are we ignoring the people of all races who say "let's stop fighting because of the colour of our skin, and move forward together"? After all... people who don't take such a racially-minded view of things are in no small part responsible for the first black president of the United States... they are a powerful force for change in the country you describe as descending into "a burning mass of land "...

Genuinely flummoxed by how ironically black and white that view is. Are you sure you're not contributing to the problem by being so ready to fan the flames of division?

Silas Mercury wrote: America is dividing between itself. Soon enough, you will be a burning mass of land where the blacks fight the whites and the asians fight the whites and the blacks will win. It's only a matter of time before the white race gets, unfortunately, what is gave. You get what you give. We whites have destroyed the lives of many races. Now, gradually, they will take their revenge.

I think it's silly to replace one racial label with a new racial label. I'm curious what Caucasian was replaced with? At any rate, if the laws are to affect everyone equally there is no real reason for any racial labels. As others have suggested, why not just people? Citizens? Etc.?

Silas Mercury, your posts get more and more entertaining. You must be just crippled with "white guilt".... The USA, a burning mass of land where the Asians and blacks exterminate the "white race". LOL The notion is absurd, but even IF it came down to that, you obviously haven't researched gun-owner or population demographics.

TZB, +1

Funnily enough I believe I made a youtube video about this when it happened during my brief stint making videos :dry:

Renny wrote: Funnily enough I believe I made a youtube video about this when it happened during my brief stint making videos :dry:

I dug it up.
I dunno if video attachments work or not granted
I was generally of the persuasion it wasn't a good idea.

This was a late response to one of Rosalyn's comments. I've been called all those same things. But..

I've never minded handicapped as much as I've detested the word cripple. One implies lacking or slow in an ability, the other seems to imply broken.

I've never minded handicapped as much as I've detested the word cripple. One implies lacking or slow in an ability, the other seems to imply broken.

Disabled means lacking ability, handicapped does not. Handicap has the most honourable origins I think. The only negative meaning it carries is the one given to it by people who perceive the handicapped as inferior. In its original application, a handicap is applied to a superior horse/player to level out the playing field.