• Arkady
    687

    Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you implored the opposition to be more "ruthless" and to abandon decorum. If your definition of "decorum" is merely something like "failing to stridently condemn GOP voter suppression and fight it by all legal means," then, yes, I agree that "decorum" should be abandoned.

    However, if you are calling on the opposition to likewise in engage in such dirty tricks, then I would vehemently disagree for the reasons I've already stated.
  • fdrake
    1.5k


    Whether the dirty tricks are legal or not, what matters is that they'll get away with it. No one in the GOP will go to jail for what they've done. If there are no effective legal means of combatting vote repression, then I'm sure rules can be bent or new rules can be made. There's a reason why America is founded on amendments. It's not so that all principle can be sacrificed on the altar of an idealised representation of political process.

    What the GOP's actions reveal (and they've been at it for a long time) is that the supposedly pure process by which justice is administered to America is pretty easy to subvert for horrible ends. It should be subverted for noble ones.

    For once I agree with @Hanover, the dems are a being a bunch of lunatic whiners.
  • andrewk
    1.6k
    The solution to the problem is to have electoral processes and boundary-drawing controlled by an independent commission. In Australia that is done by the Australian Electoral Commission, for which the senior officers have long-term appointments and generally see several changes of government.
    Having it controlled by the very people that stand to benefit by misuse of the power is a recipe for disaster, and that's what happens.

    Apparently Democrats do gerrymander as well when they can - the 3rd district of Maryland being the most bizarre example. But most suppression of democracy seems to come from the Republican side.

    Is there any prospect of the US parties ever agreeing to set up an independent electoral commission, to prevent either side doing this? Or is that yet another problem the poor country is stuck with via its 200+ year old constitution that seems almost impossible to change these days.
  • MindForged
    512
    And I think you'd be incredibly naive to assume things that you don't have evidence for.Terrapin Station

    Of course the fact that such laws were implemented almost immediately after the Voting Rights Act (which prevented such laws for obvious and historical reasons) was repealed is apparently lost on you. Again, you are being ridiculous if your expectation is for politicians to be up front about nefarious deeds. Indeed, Trump must be innocent of any nefarious connection to Russia because Trump hasn't conformed it.

    I'm being rational and evidence based, of course. That Kemp is both the man in charge of determining if the upheld voters are denied whilst also being the one running for governor likewise must be irrelevant evidence because Kemp has not admitted to doing this to benefit his own bid for governor.
  • MindForged
    512
    It's all about their attempt to obtain power at all costs. It has nothing to do with righteousness. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.Hanover

    I don't think this has any bearing on the fact about what the GOP is doing, particularly in the Georgia case. The Dems being self-interested tells me Precisely nothing about the validity of the GOP denying or stalling more than 50,000 from voting in Georgia and 80% of them are non-whites who tend to vote Dem.
  • frank
    1.7k
    Giving up when challenged with a dirty trick is exactly what will bring this scenario you fear about quicker.fdrake

    I don't fear dictatorship. I don't think the species is quite ready for real democracy, in part because of the sentiment you expressed.

    But the gerrymandering is being addressed. It just takes a long time because Republicans send new maps up for court approval, they get struck down as unconstitutional, new ones are sent up, they get struck down too, and it goes on and on until Republicans find out exactly how much gerrymandering the court will accept.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    I don't know if you are an American yourself, but "colored people" is a somewhat antiquated term to refer to certain ethnic minorities (especially blacks/African-Americans). It doesn't appear as if you meant anything pejorative by it, but it still strikes one as being a bit "off."Arkady
    Go tell that to the NAACP.

    Are you black? If not, then why are you speaking for all of them (making a generalization), as if they ALL would be offended by the term, "colored people"? How racist.

    In poll after poll, we know that the vast majority of Americans side with the left on virtually every public policy issue. We also know that in presidential elections, the GOP candidate seldom wins the popular vote, in recent decades. So, why should anyone be surprised when we hear of the GOP committing voter suppression where they are tossing out the ballots of colored people who are likely to vote against them? After all, since the majority of Americans are opposed to the GOP's policies, the GOP has to take a stand against democracy to maintain power. Yet, I have never heard a single mainstream news network connect these dots. Instead, when reporting on voter suppression, they focus on the suppression of likely democratic votes within a specific county or state region, as opposed to recognizing that the problem with the GOP is nation-wide.LD Saunders
    I don't see any real evidence here of GOP voter suppression, but that isn't to say that it doesn't exist. What we do have is real evidence of Democrat voter suppression. Remember the 2016 Democratic primary?

    The fact is that both parties engage in underhanded and unfair tactics. You only realize this once you step back and take an objective look at the American political system. It is broken and the main problem is that we have political parties in the first place. People now treat their political party as a religion, as if their side is always righteous and the other side is a horde of demons. They divide us and have us at each other's throats when we shouldn't be pointing the finger at each other, rather we should be pointing the finger at them and the system that they have designed to keep themselves in power.
  • Arkady
    687
    Go tell that to the NAACP.

    Are you black? If not, then why are you speaking for all of them (making a generalization), as if they ALL would be offended by the term, "colored people"? How racist.
    Harry Hindu
    No, I'm not black, but rest assured that black people (f/k/a "colored people" or "negroes") have empowered me to speak blackly on their behalf on all matters relating to blackness, including on the proper use of descriptive terms pertaining thereto. Glad we cleared that up.
  • Bitter Crank
    6.7k
    Arkady: Why should I say in three words what I can say in two? I'm economically efficient with my rhetoric. "People of color" sounds like a throwback to Che's era if anything is.LD Saunders

    It's the NAACP not the NAAPOC. What is the matter with 'you people'?

    Golly gee whiz! It's fine that people are sensitive to language, but the fault of 'political correctness' is that it implies one is exceptionally informed and caring about everyone with disadvantages and diversity and equal opportunity, and all that when, in fact, such actual sensitivity may be far from the reality. And even if it isn't far from reality, most of the language correction I hear hear is mere game playing, point scoring.

    Oh, I'm not gay, I'm queer. Oh, I'm not queer, I'm homosexual. Oh, you know, I'm non-binary. Oh, I just don't believe in labeling people.

    Negroes, "I'm a colored spade, a nigger; a jungle bunny, jigaboo, coon, pickaninny, mau mau, Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, Little Black Sambo..." (line from Hair), darkies, niggas, blacks, colored people, people of color, African American, Afro-centric... Hispanic, Spanish American, Chicano, Mexican, wetback, spic, beaner, latino, illegal alien ... WASP, white, wop, kike, bohunk, anglo, dago, redneck, hillbillies, trailer trash (not a slur! it's merely descriptive) peckerwood, honky, whitey, gringo, cracker, caucasian...
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    Go tell that to the NAACP.

    Are you black? If not, then why are you speaking for all of them (making a generalization), as if they ALL would be offended by the term, "colored people"? How racist. — Harry Hindu

    No, I'm not black, but rest assured that black people (f/k/a "colored people" or "negroes") have empowered me to speak blackly on their behalf on all matters relating to blackness, including on the proper use of descriptive terms pertaining thereto. Glad we cleared that up.
    Arkady
    Uhh.. The NAACP is a black organization calling themselves "Colored People". Obviously not all blacks think that it is an improper descriptive term. Those blacks who think that it should be are racist in thinking that other blacks shouldn't think for themselves.
  • Arkady
    687

    You do realize that the NAACP was formed over 100 years ago, don't you?
  • Baden
    6.8k
    "Colored: DATED•OFFENSIVE
    a person who is wholly or partly of non-white descent."

    Google.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    You do realize that the NAACP was formed over 100 years ago, don't you?Arkady
    Genetic fallacy.

    Put your money where your mouth is. Go tell it to the NAACP.
  • Arkady
    687

    Don't worry: the next time the NAACP and I meet to update our agreement wherein I am empowered to be the white guy who speaks for black people the world over, I will remind them that their name is a bit outdated.
  • Michael
    7.4k
    Lohan calls Obama 'colored', NAACP says no big deal

    "The term 'colored' is not derogatory," [NAACP communications director] Sims continued. "[The NAACP founders] chose the word 'colored' because it was the most positive description commonly used at that time. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive."

    I hereby rule in favour of @Arkady.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    Colored: DATED•OFFENSIVE
    a person who is wholly or partly of non-white descent."

    Google.
    Baden
    What is offensive is subjective. Claiming that you are offended is just a passive-aggressive way of limiting free speech.
  • Baden
    6.8k
    Claiming that you are offended is just a passive-aggressive way of limiting free speech.Harry Hindu

    Claiming that claiming that you are offended is just a passive-aggressive way of limiting free speech is just a passive-aggressive way of defending a bad argument.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    Wrong. The fact is that claiming something is offensive is speaking for yourself, not for others.
  • Baden
    6.8k


    No, that's not the way it works in a society with norms of communication that are generally accepted and agreed upon. It's about as sensible as saying that the claim that 'this paper stuff I have in my hand is dollars' is purely subjective, or the claim that 'Donald Trump is the President of the United States' is purely subjective.

    I guess it's based on the obvious falsity that being offended is always a choice as if if someone came up to you on the street and shouted "get out of my way, you cunt" you could somehow choose not to feel anything at all. As if there isn't a visceral system of physical defense that is triggered by a verbal attack that has real physiological consequences beyond the immediate control of almost every normal human being. As if it's the offended person's fault that they feel offended rather than the offenders because they choose to feel bad. Et voila, a get out of jail free card for racists, sexists, homophobes and miscellaneous verbal abusers everywhere. After all, they are the real victims just exercising their right to free speech while their targets are the real culprits with all this passive-aggressive being offended!
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    No, that's not the way it works in a society with norms of communication that are generally accepted and agreed upon. It's about as sensible as saying that claiming that this paper stuff I have in my hand is dollars is purely subjective, or claiming that Donald Trump is the President of the United States is purely subjective.Baden
    Yet we have comedians pushing the envelope of what is acceptable to say. We have new words with new meanings, and even old words with new meanings (take the n-word for example. It isn't offensive to some because they accept being called the name).

    I guess it's based on the obvious falsity that being offended is always a choice as if if someone came up to you on the street and shouted "get out of my way, you cunt" you could somehow choose not to feel anything at all.Baden
    That person on the street doesn't know me. Their use of words speaks volumes about them and nothing about me. I won't get offended by that because I know the person saying it is the actual cunt for behaving in such a way.

    Being offended is just giving power to others to define you. You'd only get offended if you believe that what they say is true in some sense.
  • Arkady
    687
    Et voila, a get out of jail free card for racists, sexists, homophobes and miscellaneous verbal abusers everywhere. After all, they are the real victims just exercising their right to free speech while their targets are the real culprits with all this passive-aggressive being offended!Baden
    It's always a bizarre non-sequitur to me when people conflate a legal or constitutional right to free speech with the "right" to not have said speech criticized (which, ironically, would thereby limit the free speech of their critics - free speech for me and not for thee, in other words).
  • LD Saunders
    314
    I think there are a number of valid points being made by people above regarding freedom of speech. It is definitely true that in order to preserve free speech, people need to be permitted to say all sorts of nasty things. However, it's also true that if someone walks up to a person on the street and shouts, "fuck you, nigger," that this may actually be a crime, not protected by freedom of speech. After all, we aren't really talking about preserving the marketplace of ideas, but would instead be condoning a verbal assault and behavior likely to cause a fight. My love for free speech does not support personal attacks against people walking down a street. I support freedom of speech primarily to protect minority viewpoints from oppression by majorities, by allowing everyone the freedom to question ideas whether they be scientific, artistic, or historical, etc. While freedom of speech protects the content of speech, it does not protect all methods for carrying it out. Shouting out a political speech at your neighbors with a bullhorn at 2:00 a.m., would be unlawful, not because of the content of the speech, but in making a loud noise waking people up at 2:00 a.m.


    I also think that while political correctness, on both the right and left, has gotten way out of hand these days, hat the original idea, of having people be more adult and not needlessly hurt the feelings of others, is a good idea, in fact, an excellent one. If only it didn't get so far out of control.
  • Relativist
    446
    I am an American, and disagree that mentioning colored people is in any way insultingLD Saunders
    Here's why it's insulting:
    dsc08626.jpg
    dsc08619.jpg

    It reminds one of those times. Semantically equivalent, but less charged, is the term "people of color".
  • Harry Hindu
    1.4k
    It's real easy to make that claim anonomously here on these forums. Like I said, if that is how you really feel, put your money where your mouth is and go tell it to the NAACP.

    "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909 as a bi-racial endeavor to advance justice for African Americans"
  • Bitter Crank
    6.7k
    It should be noted that in this discussion presumably white people are debating what people who are not white should be called. Some non-whites think white people should take direction from them, not the other way around.

    Negroes, niggers, colored, people of color, blacks, African American, and so on are terms which a demographic found being applied to them. Sometimes a particular term were preferred, sometimes not. We white folks might decide that from now on we are going to use the term "aboriginal" to apply to the original inhabitants of the western hemisphere -- whether the native Americans, American Indians, red skins, and Indians like it or not. Are people asians, orientals, yellow, asiatic, or something else?

    What about that Sunday school song, Jesus Loves the Little Children? "...red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight"? "Yellow" has negative associations, after all, when referencing people. Loving little children might reference pedophilia. BANNED!

    'Colored' and 'Indian' may be dated, may not be the preferred term of the people about whom one is speaking, but neither term is in the category of scandal that using 'nigger', 'red skin', gook, or honky is.
  • Relativist
    446

    John McWhorter, a Professor of Linguistics, writes
    in this article
    on use of the term "colored":

    Malcolm X didn’t spearhead a change from colored and Negro to black because he wanted to keep the white man on his toes, but because he felt that those terms had associations with evil, negativity, and more specifically slavery and Jim Crow. He wanted to start afresh with a more neutral and even muscular term...The rolling terminology, then, is an attempt to refashion thought, not to be annoying....
    ...colored was replaced not because it was processed as an insult but because of something subtler, its association with a bleak past. As such it can seem odd that anyone would treat someone’s slipping and saying the term as an insult, given that “Colored!” was never a slur in the way that a word I need not mention was and is...

    "The reason 'colored people' is offensive without being a term of abuse is that it reminds many people of times when we were, whatever we were being called, abused."
  • Bitter Crank
    6.7k
    Yes, I understand the term is dated. "Dating" is part of the normal 'churn' in language as people apply different adjectives to familiar nouns. I don't find the "association with a bleak past" very compelling not because there was no bleak past, but because there are myriad reminders of the bleak past, everywhere. When a people claim a new term for themselves (such as 'gay' instead of 'homosexual') they want to retire the old term. Malcolm X is an example: He original name was Malcolm Little.

    If people can get away with it, names change. Philip Morris is now called Altria, but they are still in the same old tobacco business. Younger people probably wouldn't have heard of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, but they have heard of 3M. Scotch tape is a 3M brand, even though people shamelessly misuse the term for non-3M sticky products. Best Buy used to be Sound of Music (they didn't sell refrigerators back then). Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo is more memorable as Sony. You'd probably rather have a Nintendo than a Marufuku, its original name.
  • Relativist
    446
    I don't find the "association with a bleak past" very compellingBitter Crank
    I don't find your reasoning very compelling. You know that the term is considered offensive by some people, and abandoning the term doesn't constrain your ability to communicate since other terms are available that have the exact same referrent. Therefore willfully continuing to use the term implies you're fine with offending some people.
  • Bitter Crank
    6.7k
    It is true that I am fine with offending some people. It is also true that I do not use colored, negro, and other dated terms. I use either the adjective black or African American and have for a long time.

    My usage is quite correct, but I do not think we must be bound by either a fear of offending people (so, some people are just plain fat) or an excessive concern with using the most up to date term. If I hear someone reference "colored", I don't feel obligated to correct them.

    I don't find the case for transsexuals or transgendered people compelling either -- but I will consistently use the preferred name and pronoun if I interact with a trans person often enough to know what they prefer.
  • Bitter Crank
    6.7k
    I have no doubt that the GOP is suppressing votes, but we should remember that manipulating the vote (vote early and vote often) is something that Democratic and Republican political machines are both guilty of. Different methods have been applied at various times, and different groups have been targeted.

    Be that as it may, vote suppression is not tolerable in a society that considers its political establishment legitimate.

    The GOP seems bent on achieving long-term or permanent dominance. This is extremely worrisome. No political party can be trusted that far, that much. The consequence would ultimately be the disenfranchisement and marginalization of not only liberals of any stripe, but the poor, racial minorities who do not vote Republican, and various other groups (like gays).
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.