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.

  • @asteriskeverything
    link
    381 year ago

    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.

    • @I_Fart_Glitter
      link
      251 year ago

      I appreciate and agree with all you’ve said here, just one small thing- “female” is fine when used as an adjective, I don’t think anyone is bothered by that. “The female staff member,” “the author is female” etc. is not problematic. It’s when it is used as a noun that flags are raised- “That female over there,” “the author is a female.” Then it sounds like you’re talking about some other kind of creature, not a human woman.

      • @asteriskeverything
        link
        71 year ago

        Sure and that’s a really great response! It’s also kind of adapting the same point I was trying to make. Obviously something as complex as race relations in America is going to not have such clear boundaries with what is acceptable language and why, but saying colored people makes it a description of the noun. People of color is taking that noun and putting it first.

      • sharpiemarker
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

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

    • @snailtrail
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      Language changes over time. Sometimes it’s a slow gradual adoption of new terms, sometimes it’s a cool new slang, and sometimes it’s word policing. I understand that, historically, a certain type of person would use the word “females” instead of “women”, but I can see a shift happening where there number of people using the word “female” is on the increase. Let’s say you’re having a conversation and specifically want to refer to female people - you can’t actually use the word women, which used to imply “female” but now includes males who transition. So depending on context, and what you need to communicate, the word female can be absolutely critical, whereas the word woman may not suffice.

    • @dudebro
      link
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s really splitting hairs, but okay.

      How do you refer to white people?

      • @yowhat
        link
        131 year ago

        People of whiteness of course

        • DrSleepless
          link
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People of whiteness are people of rightness my uncle used to say

        • @Gunrigger
          link
          11 year ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      In that case, I expect to be referred to as a “person of whiteness” as I was unaware that I was being insulted all this time when called a “white person” since “person” isn’t the first word.

      I wasn’t mad about it when I didn’t know people meant to dehumanize me by saying those words in that order rather than the reversed order, but now that you have informed me, I am.

      Same with “male,” the term is “man,” “male” is dehumanizing as well since we use it to describe animals that produce sperm. In fact, sperm is dehumanizing because animals have it too, so I expect human sperm to be renamed so that it doesn’t share any commonality with nature that could suggest I’m also part of nature. Also, some people I don’t like have called me “male,” so I don’t like it. While I’m at it some of those people have called me a sarcastic asshole, and so instead I’d like to be called a sardonic sphincter since it has alliteration and nobody I don’t like has called me that yet.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Yes, and if I could convince enough people that my ridiculous shit above was a good idea, it would become one. It would still however be just as ridiculous.

          What’s more, at one time not too long ago homophobia and racism were social norms, so maybe clinging to that notion that “societal norms” are somehow an arbiter of goodness isn’t always necessarily true. Just because enough people say something, that doesn’t mean they’re right, and just because the minority or even only one person is saying something that doesn’t mean they’re wrong, either. One has to evaluate an argument (or whatever) by the argument itself, not by how many followers its speaker has nor by what one’s friends think of the speaker or his words.