652

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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 135 points 1 year ago

Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

Keep the words in the record. Posterity should know.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 128 points 1 year ago

“My amendment has nothing to do with whether or not colored people or Black people or anybody can serve,” said Crane, who is in his first term. “It has nothing to do with any of that stuff.”

I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just a normal idiot racist who has a hard time thinking on the spot and got mixed up between "black people," "people of color," and trying really hard not to say the n-word as he would in his usual crowds.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 year ago

Are we really going to act like "people of color" and "colored people" are wildly different terms that could never be confused? He listed "black people" separately so I'd have to guess he meant to say people of color and mixed up the terms

Not saying he's not racist for other reasons, but this is gotcha journalism

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Linguistically, very little difference. Contextually, when we bring in history? Huge difference.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] TheRealGChu@lemm.ee 127 points 1 year ago

Word choices aside, the more telling quote is this, "You can keep playing around these games with diversity, equity and inclusion. But there are some real threats out there. And if we keep messing around and we keep lowering our standards..."

For those that can't read between the lines, POCs, LGBTQIA+, women, and anyone else that's not a white male, are "lowering...standards".

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or you know, he's talking about actually lowering the standards which is the policy being discussed. Whether or not you think it's worth lowering admittance standards to allow more women, LGBT, POCs to join and improve diversity, at least be honest with what's being argued.

There's been ongoing debate on lowering standards, mostly for allowing more women into combat roles. While barring these groups entirely from certain roles is obviously wrong, changing and lowering requirements doesn't seem right either.

[-] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago

No one is lowering standards. Affirmative action means that when all other things are equal, prefer the candidate who is underrepresented in the field.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is not about affirmative action. There are efforts to lower standards, separate from affirmative action. Maybe not for LGBT or POC but women are held to different physical standards in the military.

Edit: For Ranger School, standards were lowered so women could graduate. For some positions who cares, but pushing people through positions they aren't capable for in the name of equality is dangerous both for them and their fellow soldiers

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DiachronicShear@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

If you find yourself agreeing with a bigot, maybe reexamine your rhetoric

[-] Dohnakun@lemmy.fmhy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

I am in favor of US reducing their military apparatus a few hundred billions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] I_AnoN_I@lemmy.world 78 points 1 year ago

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

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 40 points 1 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@lemmy.world 24 points 1 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

The good news is that you don't need to understand. You just need to accept that this is the case because the people it hurts say so.

You can also go learn about the history and understand if you want, but I'm also all for being lazy and just trusting the people who are impacted.

[-] SlowNoPoPo@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

this logic is so flawed honestly

people can choose to "be hurt" by literally any word and it's entirely subjective and ephemeral because what upsets them today may not tomorrow and what is ok changes just as easily

word policing is just a losing battle no matter how you try and justify it and the massive sensitivity towards words just makes people look ridiculous

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Laticauda@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Because it has a different connotation. It's generally used by a different demographic, often to refer to themselves, and doesn't have the unfortunate history that "coloured people" has. Just because they're similar that doesn't make them the same. Most people I've seen using the term "coloured people" aren't exactly known for being not-racist. Most people I've seen using "people of colour" are, well, people of colour. We sometimes need a shorthand for people who aren't white but may or may not be black, and personally I tend to go with whatever the people being referred to generally prefer.

[-] PapaTorque@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It puts the "people" part first. This can be seen as prioritizing them as being people first and their skin color second.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] Coach@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

Cue all the "First Amendment absolutists" who believe it's their right to call people whatever they want, as long as it's not the pronoun they prefer.

[-] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 year ago

It does not protect them from social consequence, just government reprisal.

[-] fidelacchius@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago

The politically correct word changes every decade. "Black people" used to be more offensive than "colored people"

[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Euphemism treadmill.

In any sensitive, socially fraught context, terminology will just change faster than in other areas of life.

That's why we no longer use terms like idiot, retard, cripple, imbecile, etc. as neutral, objective terminology. Instead, terms that where initially used as objective, clinical terminology are now exclusively used as slurs and insults.

It's just that when it comes to race, some people (and it's often people not affected by it) have a hard time accepting that concept.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Eleazar@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] ShunkW@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

It's because of historical context. When it was no longer ok to call black people the N word, they switched gears. In and of itself, the phrase isn't that bad, but you have to understand the context.

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It’s really about context and nuances.

“Colored people” is a specific term that was used during the time of racial segregation in America, so it carries a lot of negative connotations beyond its literal dictionary meaning. It’s now considered outdated as well, so it was a bit shocking for a politician, especially one who identifies as white and conservative, to utter it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

NAACP literally stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

There are actual real issues to get angry about. Pick your fights. This is literally another media concocted nothing-burger.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

The United Negro College Fund also still exists and I'm guessing you don't call people negroes.

[-] psysop@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Personally, I think the phrase 'colored people' sounds negative and offensive today. I have to assume this wasn't always the case since it makes up 40% of the NAACP's name.

Edited to add - I should have said 'potentially offensive'. I do feel like the context in how it was used matters in this case. Our perception of things sometimes changes over time. If we have truely decided as a society to avoid the phrase entirely, then perhaps it's time to rename the NAACP?

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

TIL "colored people" is offensive. Seems pretty benign to me...?

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] canthidium@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Disgusting, but I don't really see the point in having it stricken from the record. Keep it on record so it's part of Crane's legacy. I mean, why hide that he's a racist?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thefloweracidic@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Its not just pedantic semantic, word choice matters. Language is fluid and mutable, acting like the meaning and context behind one phrase is the same as the other is ignorant to the current state of the US and its history.

For example, each of these sentence read differently depending on each word you emphasize, but the all say "the same thing".

I have a cookie, not you.

I have a cookie, not you.

I have a cookie, not you.

I have a cookie, not you.

I have a cookie, not you.

I have a cookie, not you.

Back in the Jim Crow days there were plenty of "Colored People" signs, but no "People of Color Signs".

Word choice matters.

I'm not reading the responses. Sorry not sorry.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

When pressed on his remarks he clarified: "I meant to say them nigros are real good at pickin cotton. It's a compliment!"

[-] _cerpin_taxt_@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

I had several coworkers at Best Buy that called black people colored. I got into so many arguments. Like dude, that's racist as fuck. The sad thing is most folks at that store didn't see the problem with it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] StarServal@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

I thought People of Color was acceptable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Openly saying what they’ve been saying behind closed doors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kemal007@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Yet another complete piece of shit I don’t like this regression to outspoken racism being okay.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
652 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3161 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