zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
> Imagine having to explain to a well-meaning visitor from another planet why using the phrase "people of color" is considered particularly enlightened, but saying "colored people" gets you fired. [...] There are no underlying principles.

To understand much of our language, Gnorts would have to already be aware that our words and symbols gain meaning from how they're used, and you couldn't, for instance, determine that a swastika is offensive (in the west) by its shape alone.

In this case, the term "colored people" gained racist connotations from its history of being used for discrimination and segregation - and avoiding it for that reason is the primary principle at play. There's also the secondary/less universal principle of preferring "person-first language".

>>Ukv+rD
they’re not negroes, they’re colored

they’re not colored, they’re African-American

they’re not African-American, they’re black

they’re not black, they’re Black

they’re not Black, they’re People of Color

they’re not People of Color, they’re BIPOC

I wonder what the next twist of the pretzel will look like

>>dasein+Gj1
What, IYO, is being twisted here? What should people be called?

>>JohnMa+Jl1
Truthfully I think that it is a dialectic process that counterintuitively perpetuates a mentality of victimhood and otherness. The neverending process of being othered//feeling othered//trying to empower oneself in one's otherness is entirely futile. To assimilate, you must assimilate.

I'm well-aware that I'm being rather evasive and I certainly don't think anyone is fooled by what I'm really saying.

>>dasein+3m1
Yep, just the age-old trick of creating a problem and then selling an ineffective solution. Unbounded profit!