[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
stuffwehate

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 17870)
Message
File  []
close
arbitrary.png
178701787017870
>> No. 17870 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 7:06 pm
17870 spacer
It's so fucking arbitrary in difference and it makes me want to cry that one is okay and the other one isn't okay.
Expand all images.
>> No. 17871 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 7:08 pm
17871 spacer
>>17870
Tell your white community to stop getting offended on behalf of us.
>> No. 17872 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 7:10 pm
17872 spacer
"People of colour" is such a curiously vague term.

Whatever, the day I take lessons in race relations from a Seppo is the day I've officially done overboard.
>> No. 17873 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 8:37 pm
17873 spacer
>>17872
>"People of colour" is such a curiously vague term.
It's not vague, it means non-white.
>> No. 17874 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 8:47 pm
17874 spacer
>>17873
Such disgusting exclusive language.
>> No. 17876 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 10:23 pm
17876 spacer
>>17872
Whenever I see the abbreviation "PoC", after browsing the other place I always see it as "Perpetrators of Crime".
>> No. 17877 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 10:50 pm
17877 spacer
It seems like more polysyllabic means less offensive (African American, Afro-Caribbean etc.)
>> No. 17878 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 10:51 pm
17878 spacer
>>17876

If I saw PoC completely devoid of context, my first thought would be "piece of crap".
>> No. 17879 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:00 pm
17879 spacer
>>17877
I think there's element of truth to that. It sounds more dry and dispassionate, therefore less likely to be used as a slur.
>> No. 17880 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:05 pm
17880 spacer
>>17877
Why can't everyone just be American, British or whatever, without all the identity politics?
>> No. 17881 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:08 pm
17881 spacer
>>17880
Why can't everyone just be a person, without all the nationalism?
>> No. 17882 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:23 pm
17882 spacer
>>17880
A sentiment straight from the book of white privilege, in which race is invisible.
>> No. 17883 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:24 pm
17883 spacer
>>17880
American, British and whatever are all identities.
>> No. 17884 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:26 pm
17884 spacer
>>17882
Is it not the same sentiment encouraged by Morgan Freeman here?

https://www.youtube.com/v/z2d2SzRZvsQ
>> No. 17885 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:34 pm
17885 spacer
>>17882
I'm not white. It is just uncomfortable dealing with will these identities that is forced upon me.

>>17884 Morgan Freeman has it right.
>> No. 17886 Anonymous
27th January 2015
Tuesday 11:38 pm
17886 spacer
>>17885
>>17884
There might not be a Jewish History month but there's a Holocaust Memorial Day. Shared with all holocausts of all peoples, not just the Jews and gays and cripples and gypsies in the second world war. Hey, that's today! Weird. I'm not sure what my point is any more.
>> No. 17887 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 12:56 am
17887 spacer
>>17884
Yes, it is, and it's stupid. Despite his race, Morgan Freeman is a pretty privileged individual, and his idea that you can end oppression by not talking about it is facile. Black History Month is not evidence of 'relegating' black history supposedly because there is no equivalent White History Month. It is necessary because every other month is White History Month. He us correct that black history is American history, but it will only be considered American history once every month is Black History Month.

Freeman probably subscribes to the teaching of Martin Luther King, who famously said he dreamt of a world where people were not judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. The problem is, people are judged by the colour of their skin whether you like it or not because racism is structural, and if you don't take that inherent judgement into account when you try and combat racism you make the problem worse.
>> No. 17888 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 1:08 am
17888 spacer
>>17887
I feel like you're missing the point. It's not that black history is being "relegated", it's that the fact that it exists at all is drawing lines between people. As he says; I'll think of you as you, and not of you as a "white person", if you'll think of me as me and not as a "black person". Making every month black history month is stupid. Making every month as-close-to-historically-accurate-as-we-possibly-can is better. As you mention MLK- having a black history month feeds into judging people by the colour of their skin, instead of anything else. It's drawing a distinction.
>> No. 17889 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 4:22 am
17889 spacer
>>17882

Fucking nig-nog lovers. You want to focus on someone's race? You're a racist. You want to never have it actually occur to you that someone is different because of their skin colour? You're a racist.

There's no way to win with you twats.
>> No. 17891 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 4:41 am
17891 spacer
>>17889

Yeah, "fucking nig-nog" lovers, how the devil do you win one of them over?
>> No. 17899 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 8:59 am
17899 spacer
>>17879

I'm sure there are elderly people out there who consider Jap and Paki to be harmless abbreviations.
>> No. 17900 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 9:09 am
17900 spacer
According to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

the most polysyllabic ethnic slur is "Cheese-eating surrender monkey" but I'm not sure it counts if The Simpsons made it up.
>> No. 17901 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 9:20 am
17901 spacer
>>17899
Oh there are. My father and his friend have no problem using Jap, but apparently they find Paki offensive. Him finding Jap perfectly acceptable made being in Japan with him somewhat awkward though.
>> No. 17908 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 11:55 am
17908 spacer
>>17899
Paki is mostly a harmless abbreviation, though, it just means someone from Pakistan. I think it's only become offensive because English people started applying it to anyone brown and saying it with such vinegar.
>> No. 17910 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 1:00 pm
17910 spacer
>>17908
Jap and Paki are abbreviations, and 'coloured' and 'people of colour' have identical semantic meanings. Unfortunately, yes, it is the context of how these terms have been used that makes them offensive. I find it ridiculous, but it's not for me to tell the people whom these terms refer to what they should and shouldn't find offensive.
>> No. 17911 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 3:20 pm
17911 spacer
>>17908
No, not really. Paki is offensive because white Englishmen used to go around Paki-bashing. I don't remember any cases of Jap-bashing happening. So no, it isn't the same. Don't try to revise the grim history of racism in this country, you fucking twat.
>> No. 17913 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 4:30 pm
17913 spacer
>>17911
People have been going Jew-bashing for thousands of years, but Jew isn't an offensive term.
>> No. 17915 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 4:50 pm
17915 spacer
>>17899
Jap is offensive? Christ, why didn't anybody tell me?
>> No. 17916 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 5:12 pm
17916 spacer
>>17911
>Paki is offensive because white Englishmen used to go around Paki-bashing

Wonder what all those colonials did then.
>> No. 17918 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 5:54 pm
17918 spacer
>>17911

Paki became offensive because it was used as a slur by NF types and generally became a pejorative towards all Asians regardless of where they came ("why dont them pakis all fuck off back to pakiland" kind of thing). I'm not sure if "Jap" is offensive but I was told as a kid that "Nip" was ("Nippon" is Japanese for Japan).

I once got told I was being racist for identifying someone as "the black guy over there", whereas I doubt sayinig "that chinese guy over there" would get anyone's backs up.

We live in a strange world where everyone gets triggered by everything.
>> No. 17919 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 6:10 pm
17919 spacer
>>17918
>I once got told I was being racist for identifying someone as "the black guy over there"
That person was wrong. But your anecdote doesn't invalidate the concept of political correctness.
>> No. 17923 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 9:09 pm
17923 spacer

jap.jpg
179231792317923

>> No. 17924 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 9:14 pm
17924 spacer
I believe Americans find the word "Oriental" offensive (when it's applied to a person and not a rug) but it seems fine here. They call Orientals "Asians" and call the Indian type of Asians "Hindus". I've got a feeling assuming anyone of that appearance is "Hindu" would be a bit offensive here because you can't really make assumptions about their religion and you can't tell if they're maybe Bangladeshi or something.
>> No. 17930 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 5:00 am
17930 spacer
>>17924

Actually they call them "middle-eastern".
>> No. 17931 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 5:56 am
17931 spacer
>>17930

Really? I've definitely heard Americans use the word Hindu in that context more than once but I can't remember where or when. To me, middle-eastern means Arabic or Persian or something.

I remember in Manchester in the 80s we would call mixed race black/white people "Asian". They're of mixed European and African descent so let's throw a whole different continent into the mix.
>> No. 17932 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 6:03 am
17932 spacer
>>17931

My girlfriend is from California, she told me they say "middle-eastern". I asked if that included North Africans and South Asians and she said that most people just lump them all as Middle-Easterners.

People elsewhere in USA might say Hindu, though. It's a big country.
>> No. 17933 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 6:04 am
17933 spacer
>>17932

Oh also sometimes "Arabs".
>> No. 17934 Anonymous
29th January 2015
Thursday 10:59 am
17934 spacer
>>17923
Is this an American definition or a British one? The yanks find all kinds of innocuous words offensive and I'd hate for us to be facilitating their cultural supremacy.
>> No. 17942 Anonymous
30th January 2015
Friday 1:55 am
17942 spacer

Capture.jpg
179421794217942
>>17934

It's American but the Oxford Dictionary thinks it's offensive too.
>> No. 17950 Anonymous
30th January 2015
Friday 11:05 pm
17950 spacer
>>17932

Indians are clearly different-looking than Middle Easterns.
>> No. 17951 Anonymous
30th January 2015
Friday 11:26 pm
17951 spacer
>>17950

Thanks Sherlock. That solves everything.
>> No. 17952 Anonymous
31st January 2015
Saturday 1:07 am
17952 spacer
>>17950
'Murica though.
>> No. 17958 Anonymous
31st January 2015
Saturday 8:36 pm
17958 spacer
>>17942
I was all ready to take umbrage with the imposition of American offence upon our glorious tongue, so I looked up "cunt" only to find that it was listed merely as vulgar.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password