Jump to content

Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court - Jordan Peterson has something to say - is he right or is he in the wrong?


koti
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

a candidate who is colored

1963 called. They want their misused labels back, but say you can keep the hoses and the dogs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how you don't admonish others who have previously used the term PoC.
What did you think the C stood for ?

Try to make a better argument ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Funny how you don't admonish others who have previously used the term PoC.

Because that’s a different label and not equivalent to calling black citizens “colored.”

It doesn’t matter. I can’t force you to be more aware of or empathetic about how your words affect people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what version of English is the term 'colored people' different from 'people of color' ?

Or does the abbreviation make it more palatable ?
Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

I didn’t neg you

I know.

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Here is the pertinent quote from your provided link

"The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations,"

And I bolded and underlined the section that applies to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you, it’s long been recognized as being out of favor and used only by the ignorant and hateful and shriveled fossils clinging to a spiteful past. 

It’s akin to calling a handicapped person a cripple or an autistic kid retarded. People worth half a damn have recognized it’s inappropriate and stopped saying it.

Also in fairness to another question you asked me, I absolutely favor moving away from the term PoC, but it’s still much more open to different views and since that one’s not such a LONG settled issue like not calling people “colored,” I let it slide this time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

In what version of English is the term 'colored people' different from 'people of color' ?

Or does the abbreviation make it more palatable ?
Please explain.

This is also a pet peeve of mine. I also don't like it when dialectical differences are ignored. Nor do I like Americans trying to dictate to me how to speak English. My Nana still says colored. Considering that she works for, ministers for and tends to the homeless of all descriptions, I'm pretty sure she isn't racist. I'd only really have a problem if she started saying the N word.

Which tbh, I feel as if some of the outrage directed towards people who use old words or dialectical colloquialisms but without in combination with bigoted behaviors, is as proxy for the people who do have those behaviors but are usually underground or not around us very often. 

So quite often we see this phenomenon in language use where a word, isn't considered a pejorative in usage until someone refuses not to use it upon request or demand. 

In conclusion; ALUMINIUM! 😆 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you, it’s long been recognized as being out of favor and used only by the ignorant and hateful and shriveled fossils clinging to a spiteful past. 

It’s akin to calling a handicapped person a cripple or an autistic kid retarded. People worth half a damn have recognized it’s inappropriate and stopped saying it.

Also in fairness to another question you asked me, I absolutely favor moving away from the term PoC, but it’s still much more open to different views and since that one’s not such a LONG settled issue like not calling people “colored,” I let it slide this time. 

Only by the ignorant and hateful? You've obviously never met my grandmother. 😆 I agree with the second paragraph, not the first. Also did I detect a hint of anti-canadian animosity in your first sentence? Might want to check yourself a little iNow. Lest you veer into hypocritical territory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

did I detect a hint of anti-canadian animosity in your first sentence?

If you did, it was a false positive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you

Then what was that about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

According to your timeline he twice made the announcement that he would choose a candidate who is colored and a female.

He announced an intention. He did not pre-announce anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can pre-announce anything. You can announce a plan or an intention, which is no more than a statement regarding your current state of mind. 

You can predict (but not pre-predict), state (but not pre-state), promise (but not pre-promise), pledge (but not pre-pledge), declare (but not pre-declare), proclaim (but not pre-proclaim), publicize (but not pre-publicise), disclose (and disclose prematurely, but not pre-disclose) You can's do anything before doing it.

37 minutes ago, MSC said:

You're being deliberately obtuse. How old are you?

Look again, from a more proximal pov. 

(It's a tiny misunderstanding, not a federal issue.)

Edited by Peterkin
More
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MSC said:

Then what was that about?

It was another way of saying "the United States". No need to make a negative interpretation when someone uses creative writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MSC said:

This is also a pet peeve of mine. I also don't like it when dialectical differences are ignored. Nor do I like Americans trying to dictate to me how to speak English

+1

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

It was another way of saying "the United States". No need to make a negative interpretation when someone uses creative writing.

Well as a bystander, I interpreted it the same as MSC, so creative or not it appeared to be a dig. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nobody can pre-announce anything. You can announce a plan or an intention, which is no more than a statement regarding your current state of mind.

I think in this instance "pre-announcement" just means he announced his selection would be limited to a certain gender and a certain skin colour. So he effectively "pre" selected prior to selection.  

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you, it’s long been recognized as being out of favor and used only by the ignorant and hateful and shriveled fossils clinging to a spiteful past. 

It’s akin to calling a handicapped person a cripple or an autistic kid retarded. People worth half a damn have recognized it’s inappropriate and stopped saying it.

Also in fairness to another question you asked me, I absolutely favor moving away from the term PoC, but it’s still much more open to different views and since that one’s not such a LONG settled issue like not calling people “colored,” I let it slide this time. 

Though I agree with you, I think its not fair (my bold) to tar every person with the same brush. Some people maybe, or may seem, ignorant due to their age, education, country of origin, or culture... It can certainly take a while for these things to filter through.  

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I fail to understand how anyone can consider the appearance of his two pre-announcements, based on skin color and gender, not discriminatory.

A number of people in the thread have agreed that it is, under a strict dictionary definition. Skin color was used a a criterion. Gender was used as a criterion. Two of many criteria used.

You continue to rail against a position nobody seems to be taking.

Nobody has given a pithy "yes, it's discrimination" answer, likely because of the danger of someone jumping in and using the equivocation fallacy; a couple of people have explained in detail the different applications of the word. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think in this instance "pre-announcement" just means he announced his selection would be limited to a certain gender and a certain skin colour. So he effectively "pre" selected prior to selection. 

The final selection, yes. But it has been implied or stated that some think this was the beginning of the process, and have not provided any evidence that this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Well as a bystander, I interpreted it the same as MSC, so creative or not it appeared to be a dig. 

Then you also suffered from a false positive.

This is now the second time I've confirmed there was no "anti-Canadian animosity" in my comment. I've also already clarified that my intent was solely to highlight proximity.

Anyone else who feels I acted with malice by suggesting "the US isn't that far away and it's clear to essentially everyone that calling people 'colored' not far from your own front door is wrong" is free to do so, but then you too will be ignoring the inaccuracy of your stance and in parallel be arrogantly pretending to know more about my own intentions than I do. 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Though I agree with you, I think its not fair (my bold) to tar every person with the same brush.

If they don't know and are simply unaware, then that's one thing, but if upon being informed they choose to persist anyway, then the brush spreads its tar quite appropriately IMO. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you, it’s long been recognized as being out of favor and used only by the ignorant and hateful and shriveled fossils clinging to a spiteful past. 

Now that I know it offends you, I will try not to use the term in conversation with you.
But in Canada the term 'colored' still means of a visibly different skin color than a white Caucasian, and does not have the 'racist' connotations of the southern American States.

Your response to me would be similar to me, going to India, and upon hearing one person call another 'Indian', correcting them and telling then they should use the term indigenous, or native American.
Or going to the UK, and being shocked when String Junky asks for a packet of 'fags' at the store.

As a matter of fact, it could be considered discriminatory to push your American sensibilities and biases on me and the rest of the world.
America stops at the 49th parallel.
( would it have made a difference had I written 'coloured' nstead of 'colored' ? )

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You continue to rail against a position nobody seems to be taking.

Peterkin, for one, is still confusing the discriminatory nature of the pre-announcement, or communicated intention, with the non-discriminatory selection of KBJ.
So, I'm not 'railing' against your position, which I agree with ( J Biden used many more criteria than skin color and gender to make his selection ), but arguing that the prior announced selection criteria give the impression of being discriminatory.
( did not want to use 'optics' as he might go off on a tangent about its meaning again )

 

2 minutes ago, iNow said:
5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Well as a bystander, I interpreted it the same as MSC, so creative or not it appeared to be a dig. 

Then you also suffered from a false positive.


I don't consider it a 'dig'. Case closed.
( besides, INow has said much worse to me 😄 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Then you also suffered from a false positive.

This is now the second time I've confirmed there was no "anti-Canadian animosity" in my comment. I've also already clarified that my intent was solely to highlight proximity.

Anyone else who feels I acted with malice by suggesting "the US isn't that far away and it's clear to essentially everyone that calling people 'colored' not far from your own front door is wrong" is free to do so, but then you too will be ignoring the inaccuracy of your stance and in parallel be arrogantly pretending to know more about my own intentions than I do. 

If they don't know and are simply unaware, then that's one thing, but if upon being informed they choose to persist anyway, then the brush spreads its tar quite appropriately IMO. 

I wasn't arrogant or claiming to know your intent. I said "appeared", anyhow case closed as MigL stated, so apologies for my misunderstanding. 

It's still not clear to people where I live and the use of the term coloured is still used regularly, and by people who are not intentionally racist or mean any offense. The change to it now being offensive appears to be an American import, like many other imported trends it will take time to filter through and become the "norm" I guess.  

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

As a matter of fact, it could be considered discriminatory to push your American sensibilities and biases on me and the rest of the world.

That's an interesting point of view, we acquire many American imports, especially trends that, as I mentioned to iNow can take a while to filter through. This can be (and has been proven in this thread alone) consequential especially with PC and what is often assumed globally accepted or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think in this instance "pre-announcement" just means he announced his selection would be limited to a certain gender and a certain skin colour. So he effectively "pre" selected prior to selection.  

It did not refer, however to this selection, or any selection in particular. At that time, there was no specific nomination to announce, because there was no vacancy to select for. Most presidential candidates talk about their political agenda when campaigning. Appointing a Black woman  to the supreme court during his term in office was part of his stated agenda. I don't recall his ever saying that he would not appoint any other other judges from any other demographic.

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This is now the second time I've confirmed there was no "anti-Canadian animosity" in my comment. I've also already clarified that my intent was solely to highlight proximity.

I thought it was mild levity. I live another 300 klicks away, and still feel too close for comfort. 

Borders do not contain ideas and attitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Proximity

France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. 

It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. 

I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. 

Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. 

I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? 

I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Or going to the UK, and being shocked when String Junky asks for a packet of 'fags' at the store.

Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. 

Ahhh linguistics :) ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

don't consider it a 'dig'. Case closed.
( besides, INow has said much worse to me

Fair enough. I'll leave that alone.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

thought it was mild levity. I live another 300 klicks away, and still feel too close for comfort. 

Borders do not contain ideas and attitudes.

But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way?

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyone else who feels I acted with malice by suggesting "the US isn't that far away and it's clear to essentially everyone that calling people 'colored' not far from your own front door is wrong" is free to do so, but then you too will be ignoring the inaccuracy of your stance and in parallel be arrogantly pretending to know more about my own intentions than I do. 

Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. 

What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MSC said:

France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works.

You do know they speak different languages and use the same units of measurement?

 

13 minutes ago, MSC said:

He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. 

I'm older and I was able to learn the difference in usage, even while sticking to the English spelling. It's not a function of age or nationality; it's a matter of selective attention.    

 

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes

I see the effort as being directed at persuading the majority of people to be mindful of one another's rughts, dignity and sensibility. To a surprising degree, despite voiceferous denunciation from some concentrated factions, it's worked. There are many hurtful, objectifying and divisive expressions that were in common usage in 1960 that almost nobody would consider using anymore. As to solving the real problem... well, I personally find it easier to tell one of my peers "I don't find that joke funny." than to arrest a 300lb gun-totin' white supremacist. I'd like to be a hero, just don't have what it takes.

 

24 minutes ago, MSC said:

I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? 

One reason is, when the Canadians - old or young doesn't make any difference refers to a person as 'coloured', they generally mean non-white, not like us, other - it may refer to anyone from Asia, Africa, Micronesia, the Middle east or south of the Rio Grande.  When a Spanish speaker asks for his coffee black, he's not talking about all 'other' races. There may be other reasons... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MSC said:

you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate

No thanks. Far too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this ridiculousness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MSC said:

If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.

I think that's been done a number of times. Some people don't get it, some simply reject it. As to the colour thing, I'll try one more approach. 

In post-abolition US terminology, 'colored' was anyone of African descent, no matter how diluted by white um... interaction. It did not refer to the spectrum of light, but of race. Resources, civil rights, housing, access to government services, property, credit, legal recourse and employment, everything was allocated on the basis of one's designation of 'white' or 'colored'. I did not find it surprising when African-Americans repudiated the term.

In Canada, the situation was different, as was the history and public policy - very colourful, but too complicated to go into here - and so was the terminology. However, as that border is extremely porous, especially to movies and television broadcasting, Canadians of at least four generations have had access to the relevant information. 

It's not about skin pigmentation. People who identify as Black may be any shade from ebony to ivory, with spread into the ocher, copper and spice range. It is an ethno-political identity. And that is why, by convention if not grammar, we capitalize the word in that context. 

If someone buys  a black car, or refers to black ops or invites you to a black-tie dinner, or fears black helicopters or imposes a news blackout on a sequestered jury or blackballs an applicant to their club or takes their orange pekoe tea black, they are talking about quite different things.    

Even Canadians of a certain age know this.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.