We are supposed to call them "people of color." Why not "colored people?"

I hope you not saying calling somebody a name justifies punching them in the face. If you are, I really think you are wrong about that.

 

How lightly do I have to walk on these eggshells? If I see a black man dressed as a ghost at a Halloween party, is it okay to describe his costume as "spooky"?

I mean if the costume is scary enough.

 

You don't have to walk on eggshells at all. You are free to say whatever you want.

 

That's pretty much true in the US but you can still get locked up for saying or writing some things in other "democracies".

Also, there are a few reasonable restrictions at this forum. I say "reasonable" because I don't see anything constructive in slander, name calling etc.

While I've said some things that I later regretted, I never regretted anything I didn't say.

 

Hi, Conservative Democrat.

Rather than swerving off-track into the subject of stereotypes, let me address your OP.

A simple solution to your 'problem' in determining which phrases are going to be accepted without adverse comments is to listen to NPR. They keep their eye on changing connotations and manage to avoid any problems in their choice of words with very few exceptions.

On top of that, you'll get reportage and discussion on a very broad range of topics.

A self-identified secular humanist, I try to remember that each member of h. sapiens is unique and entitled to dignity and respect.

I do condemn some actions and statements by my fellow beings, but do not confuse them with the person or group to which the person belongs.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . informed.

 

It's strange what people get choose to get offended at sometimes. A couple decades back there a bunch of protest in my state, WI, over native tribe members spear fishing walleye from the spring run. It's part of their tradition and heritage, and so the northern half of the state is ceded territory when it come to walleye.

But it's a major hit to the tourist and sport fishing industry, with reduced bag limits and opportunity for recreational angling, and accusations against the native Indians of being greedy invariably got thrown around. The one protest I witnessed the protesters were calling the spear fishermen "spear chuckers" which made some of the spear fishermen become irate, saying it is a racial slur.

Well they were throwing spears. And the Indians were going to fill their quota anyway.

 

The bolded is not true. Stereotypes need not have any basis in fact whatsoever.

Even when they do have some basis in that lots of people who have X trait do Y, that is not good reason to presume that a person with trait X will also do Y.

 

I think we quite often presume people wish to be called something because other people say we should, rather than the people themselves actually wishing it. "Latinx" comes immediately to mind.

Also, it may not be much of a burden to call people what they want, but it also shouldn't be a right (unless earned).

 

I hope the above isn't meant to imply that it is acceptable to physically attack somebody because they spoke a taboo word.

 

Actually a stereotype is an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

 

No, it does not imply its acceptable, it only implies that its likely to happen sooner or later to people who sling the "n" word around too often, in the wrong places and to the wrong people.

 

How does a person "earn" the right to be called whatever he prefers to be called, and by whose criteria?

 

The point I was trying to make, in case I haven't said it, is that every time I've seen someone use that explanation, it's always in defense and it raises an eyebrow. Now, I've also said maybe this time I got it wrong and I'm just seeing things, I don't know it's possible I jumped the gun but I'm just going off of my own previous experiences.

 

But I do believe your story, I don't think you're lying, I'm just asking why not use Facebook or look them up and reconnect? My apologies if it sounded like I just dismissed your story.

 

You did jump the gun. I'm not a liar nor am I a bigot.

 

Don't ever remember saying you were a bigot.

 

"Doctor" in a hospital, "Your Honour" in a courtroom, etc.

 

You are addressing the matter of personal honorifics.

That is a different matter from group identity, e.g., "Indians," "Redskins," "Amerinds," "Native Americans."

 

The innuendo was there about certain people and their black friends. Review your posts on the matter.
I won't be revisiting it.

 

But I wasn't addressing you negatively.

 

You didn't. But that won't stop her from claiming you did. You're fighting a losing battle with this one.

 

Tell that to the Negroes who use that word frequently.

 

In human affairs we cannot prove theories the way chemists and physicists can. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.

The black ghetto riots began after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and the War on Poverty was declined. They ended when Richard Nixon was elected president. No riots of any significance happened in states that had been part of the Confederacy.

White racial moderates thought that by giving Negroes equal rights they were buying racial peace. When what they got was five years of black ghetto rioting, and more enduring increases in black social pathology, they felt betrayed. They left the Democrat Party, began voting Republican, and ended the New Deal Coalition that had dominated American politics since the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

 

Perhaps you are not meant to understand the issue. Bless your heart.

 

I do not refer to Orientals as "Nips," "Slants,' or "*****s." I do not use the word Oriental to express a low opinion of Orientals, Generally speaking, I prefer Orientals to members of my own race.