I was banned for telling a black person that "person of color" is a silly term, and that he should just call himself black. The justification cited : racism.
These are the people in charge.
These are the people in charge.
If they were accused of racism for saying someone was black rather than a person of colour, and they said that was silly. That seems more reasonable.
And while perhaps being rude, I don't think being of a certain colour gives or removes any authority or expertise you may have on the subject. If you want to identify as purple, can I not comment unless I also identify as purple?
It adjusts the implicit context of what is being said. Which is heavy when it comes to white men telling Black individuals how to perceive themselves. In any case, calling someone's provided identity "silly" is hard to construe as anything but an attack. The best case context here is that you have assumed it is not important to them and thus harmless to denigrate. Which comes with its own loaded baggage of how people of privileged social classes don't consider how or why identity is so central to disadvantaged groups because they never really need to think much about being a "normal" person.
It's not a particularly malicious attack. But it's needlessly abrasive. No, don't comment on someone's identification as purple. Nobody asked for your opinion. If you want to ask them about their identity that's probably ok.
My reply said it depends upon what actually happened. Your quoted part quotes me as saying it's perhaps rude (perhaps because we don't know what actually happened). So if I'm potentially accepting it's rude how am i assuming it isn't important? Youre the one that seems to be doing all the assuming here.
What I was disagreeing with is the statements about authority and expertise. It's got nothing to do with authority. And I would love it if expertise came into the picture at all. But I would guess any etymological defense of any word would probably be cited as more evidence of X group subjugating Y group, and as blackness is a lived experience then nobody but yourself is qualified to say whether you're black or not, and any attempt to biologically or socialogically delineate blackness is racist or something and further evidence of subjugation.
>No, don't comment on someone's identification as purple
Theres a difference between commenting on something and commenting on someone who identified as that thing.
It's the difference between talking about obesity and calling someone fat. I have just as much right to an opinion as the person who identified as obese, to talk about obesity. They are no more or less an expert on obesity just because they are (or identify as being) obese.
The you in my statement was generically directed towards someone calling another person's described identity silly.
> What I was disagreeing with is the statements about authority and expertise. It's got nothing to do with authority. And I would love it if expertise came into the picture at all. But I would guess any etymological defense of any word would probably be cited as more evidence of X group subjugating Y group, and as blackness is a lived experience then nobody but yourself is qualified to say whether you're black or not, and any attempt to biologically or socialogically delineate blackness is racist or something and further evidence of subjugation.
No, this is missing the point quite dramatically. You have no authority nor expertise in telling someone what their identity is, not because you lack credentials or a shared experience, but because you're not them. It is their identity. It's rude to say something like this even if you're Black as well.
> Theres a difference between commenting on something and commenting on someone who identified as that thing.
If someone tells you they identify as X, and you say X is silly, there's an overt implication that you have just called them silly.
> It's the difference between talking about obesity and calling someone fat. I have just as much right to an opinion as the person who identified as obese, to talk about obesity. They are no more or less an expert on obesity just because they are (or identify as being) obese.
You can have whatever opinions you want. But when you share an opinion that implies a negative trait about obese people, you will have insulted any obese people taking part in the conversation, or even implicitly not in the conversation but just known to the participants.
Everything you're saying here seems to suppose that you can only be held accountable for the first order effects of your speech. Which is perhaps how the law works, but it isn't how people communicate and understand each other.
> implies a sense of authority or expertise that you really have no business in.
What about this is inherently unique to the specific word 'silly'? Further the "no business in" applies to someone's (self identified) race.
So every way I try and parse this, I get to a general statement.
So why, when I challenge said general statement, do you insert the word 'silly' in there?
I'm not talking about that, I'm not talking about insulting people. That is rude. What I am challenging is the idea that you can't comment because it
> implies a sense of authority or expertise that you really have no business in.
That statement isn't limited to rude things.
So rather than running off saying > Everything you're saying here seems to suppose that you can only be held accountable for the first order effects of your speech.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Why don't you read your first post and even if you didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way, at least accept that I did.
If you want to talk about making some other comment on someone's provided identity, well, I'm still going to advise you not to do that. It's just not your business. There's very few contexts where it's going to be appreciated. What are these comments that you feel you must share?
> Further the "no business in" applies to someone's (self identified) race.
Lacking a shared identity and commenting on that identity does lessen your social pretext to comment on it. But no, it's not exclusively a race thing. It's moreso that it is their personal identity. It's not yours. And any unsolicited commentary on it is likely to be taken as adverse. It's not cool to tell someone how to be Black just because you're Black yourself. Or any other identity.
I'm saying, very plainly, that doing shit like this will make people think you're an asshole. And you're asking why can't you do it. And that's just not a valid question. You can do it. You ought not to. Why? Because it will make people think you're an asshole.
If you want to "foster a discussion" on an identity issue, that's different. But it begins with asking questions, or asking for feedback on ideas. Not with challenging their perceptions or asserting your own.
And I still don't think you understand what 'shit' I am saying.
Where did you tell off this person? How did PayPal catch wind of it?
Person of colour sounds very similar to coloured person, so presumably you'd want to avoid either of those terms.
But it reads like you're saying the opposite.
This isn't an an issue of semantics that you're trying to make it out to be - it's just not your business in the first place.
You seem to place more value in the views of the supposed victims of discrimination. Ironically, this is discriminatory to anyone else who has something to say on the topic.
> Ironically, this is discriminatory to anyone else who has something to say on the topic.
Pointing out discrimination is not discrimination. Telling a marginalized person how they should view their own identity is not your place. Doubly so because you don't seem to understand the meaning of "discrimination" outside "someone told me I was wrong."
Was I being discriminitory? Or are you referring to someone else?
If you want to have a discussion based on discrimination in the here and now that's one thing, dredging up century plus old things to complain about doesn't get anyone anywhere. In fact it weakens your argument because it suggests that the only discrimination is past discrimination, and we now live in an enlightened world where there is no discrimination.
Further. You're veering very far from the question posed, and inserting a lot of assumptions you have no basis for making.
> Further. You're veering very far from the question posed
I'm here because you decided to argue semantics. Try some self reflection.
> (in terms of your ancestors being forced into slavery for the color of their skin or the constant barrage of laws attempted to keep you below others in society because of the color of your skin)
Where's all this slavery? What are these laws?
>I'm here because you decided to argue semantics. Try some self reflection.
I wasn't arguing semantics, I was asking a genuine question. The GPs reasons seemed to conflict with their apparent position. So rather than arguing against what I thought it said, I asked the question.
Not sure what’s so difficult to understand lol.