• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Racism & Other Prejudices

I really do not see any difference between people of color and colored people. But this is a petty squabble. What is everyone's answer?
 
I'd just like to apologise for some of the things I said, recognise privilege etc.

On the other hand, I still find the concept of 'banning' words to be hilarious.

Also, I can see how 'coloured people' can be considered offensive, but 'people of colour' would be equally offensive, so that really doesn't make sense.
 
Saith said:
Also, I can see how 'coloured people' can be considered offensive, but 'people of colour' would be equally offensive, so that really doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Colored implies something happened to make them that way, while people of color simply states they are.

Sorry for my previous post.
 
Saith said:
I figured that the point of contention is that 'colour' implies that white is the default.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the lovely process of Othering. More examples below:

Man
Human
Woman
Trans man
Trans woman

American*
African-American
Asian-American
Hispanic-American

(* Substitute with any Western country for the same result. Also, its interesting to note how White/Coloured schema has less othering than 'African/Asian/Hispanic' prefix because it a)doesn't assume nationality b)doesn't establish an invisible default.)

And so on and so forth. Though people of colour identifying as people of colour is less othering in of itself, more of an acknowledgement of othering and unification in the experience of bring othered for not being White.
 
I don't think White people should be described as "Americans" considering they didn't really originate from America, but from the Europe area. I'd rather use Caucasian.
 
How about we just don't distinguish between the colors of our skin? That seems to make everything so much easier. Skin color does not change who anyone is at all.

I know this is the underlying theme of this whole thread, but I feel like some of you think I'm racist while I'm strongly against it.
 
Firelord Alex said:
I don't think White people should be described as "Americans" considering they didn't really originate from America, but from the Europe area. I'd rather use Caucasian.
Click to expand...

If that was a response to me, I already pointed that out.

How about we just don't distinguish between the colors of our skin? That seems to make everything so much easier. Skin color does not change who anyone is at all.
Click to expand...

It does not change a person's instinctual value as a person in ethics, but it is a property of appearance that has language behind it, and is thus existent as a concept of description. Hence, skin color still needs language to describe it as it is a property of appearance, but one that merely describes the skin color, and does not make any assertions of a hierarchy of instinctual value. However, the level of abstraction cannot reach levels where it is merely ancestral/ethnic divisions, as then it would be a description of family origins with implied description of skin color, which is not only indirect and not concise, it implies a nationality-based social hierarchy, and thus asserts more than a description of skin color. Thus maybe we can use this kind of language:

*Racial Type I-II (Light skinned Europeans and East Asian people); Defined by often/usual sunburning and occasional tanning. Common term: White; Controversial/contested distinctive terms from initial: Yellow; Terms implying origin: Caucasian, Asian
*Racial Type III-IV (Darker skinned Europeans and Semitic people); Defined by rare sunburning and usual/often tanning. Common term: Olive; Controversial/contested distinctive terms from initial: Bronze; Terms implying origin: Mediterranean
*Racial Type V-VI (Darker skinned Americans, Oceanic, and African people); Defined by no sunburning and sometimes/naturally tanned skin. Common term: Brown Controversial/contested distinctive terms from initial: Red, Black; Terms implying origin: African(-), Native American, Aboriginal

I prefer the common terms over the other ones, personally.
 
Last edited:
@pathos-- Going back to your argument on n-word rights for a minute here...

Your argument appears to be "that because the word is used to oppress a minority, only members of the minority are allowed to use the word".

The word faggot is used to oppress homosexuals (and quiltbags in general).

If we put these two points together, doesn't this mean that it is okay for quiltbags to call people faggots?
 
Cirrus said:
If you're going to keep on ignoring the sociological definition of racism this debate really can't continue, did you not pay attention to Butterfree's post at all?
Click to expand...

Butterfree said:
When Cirrus said white people "cannot experience racism", she was obviously talking about her definition of racism, the sociological one, which is prejudice + power. Saying "Well, they can experience my definition of racism!" is not a meaningful argument against that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but racism to me always has meant racial discrimination. I always considered sociological/institutional racism as something totally separate, and only considered when talking about governments and such.

I guess we can stop our little debate. My apologies.
 
Karkat Vantas said:
@pathos-- Going back to your argument on n-word rights for a minute here...

Your argument appears to be "that because the word is used to oppress a minority, only members of the minority are allowed to use the word".

The word faggot is used to oppress homosexuals (and quiltbags in general).

If we put these two points together, doesn't this mean that it is okay for quiltbags to call people faggots?
Click to expand...

Unless they are self-hating, then yes, because a LGBTQUIA person using such a word towards another presumably LGBTQUIA person would not have any value as an insult due to applying to both, and thus would only have value as a reclaimed word to lessen its power when used as an insult.
 
Karkat Vantas said:
@pathos-- Going back to your argument on n-word rights for a minute here...

Your argument appears to be "that because the word is used to oppress a minority, only members of the minority are allowed to use the word".

The word faggot is used to oppress homosexuals (and quiltbags in general).

If we put these two points together, doesn't this mean that it is okay for quiltbags to call people faggots?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that word is only used against gay men. So only gay men should be able to use it.

Note that I do not mean to start an 'oppression olympics'; if you have had the word slung at you, you probably have the right to use/reclaim it. But I don't think the word is used against lesbians, for example.
 
I'd be offended if another gay man used the word faggot. It just makes it seem like all of our progress for equal rights doesn't matter anymore. As if it were useless.
 
Firelord Alex said:
I'd be offended if another gay man used the word faggot. It just makes it seem like all of our progress for equal rights doesn't matter anymore. As if it were useless.
Click to expand...

The word sort of triggers me, but I understand the reasoning behind reclaiming it.

Also appending my previous statement to add that bi guys can obviously reclaim the word as well.
 
Aobaru said:
I'm sorry, but racism to me always has meant racial discrimination. I always considered sociological/institutional racism as something totally separate, and only considered when talking about governments and such.

I guess we can stop our little debate. My apologies.
Click to expand...

I'm still a little fuzzy as to why institutionalized racism came up when we were talking about matters that occur, you know, outside of the institution. I mean, no one's suggesting that governments start using words like 'faggot' or 'nigger', but then again, I wouldn't want them using words like 'fuck' or 'shit' either.
 
Phantom said:
What are peoples opinions when it comes to using these words when it comes to free speech?
Click to expand...

The whole point of free speech is so you can voice your opinions without the fear of being censored. That said, if you feel that you must be able to use racial and other slurs to get your point across, you should reconsider as to why you are an ignorant jerk.
 
Phantom said:
What are peoples opinions when it comes to using these words when it comes to free speech?
Click to expand...

Unless you live in a country where freedom of speech is repressed, the only consequence of using racist or other discriminatory language should be the label of "jerk" that the people you know give you. Government should not get involved in speech policing.

Remember that free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates speech we hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom