this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
604 points (92.5% liked)

politics

19127 readers
2416 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Eli Crane used the derogatory phrase in describing his proposed amendment to a military bill. Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty asked that his words be stricken from the record.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sterile_Technique 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

TIL "colored people" is offensive. Seems pretty benign to me...?

[–] dezmd 17 points 1 year ago

Context and intent is important. Faking ignorance about knowing if it was offensive is an equally important consideration.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Honestly, this has more nuance than you’d immediately think. Dude’s lived through at least a few iterations of euphemisms that turned into pejoratives, and keeping it straight can be difficult. Depending on the time period, negro, colored, African American, and black could all be considered kind or harsh. That said, definitely racist as hell given he continues with…

“The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”

[–] Sterile_Technique 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“The military was never intended to be, you know, inclusive. Its strength is not its diversity. Its strength is its standards”

Ah, yeah he's a racist piece of shit. And also, unsurprisingly, 100% wrong. Speaking as a veteran (US), the diversity of our military is a HUGE source of its strength. This dumbass is literally advocating for weakening our military for the sake of being racist.

That's not just stupid, that's dangerous stupid.

[–] dudebro 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is he saying people should be denied access to the military even if they meet the miliary's standards?

[–] Gullible 1 points 1 year ago

Forgive my brevity. Yes. Generally, and subconsciously, people prefer to see themselves in those they put in leadership positions. This policy will exclusively make military officers paler as a result, not better. The military has been promoting people of color to higher positions in line with racial enlistment proportions for like 50 years without issue. Reduced potential for bias is always welcome.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Last part you quoted seems reasonable, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.

[–] crossal -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How is the last bit racist? Sounds like he's saying it's purely based on measurable standards, that race/ethnicity is not a factor

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

To paraphrase, he doesn’t want all of those diverse sorts, just the good ones. It’s a dog whistle at an octave that even octogenarians can hear.

[–] DiachronicShear 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's been racist for several decades, and it's not benign at all.

[–] Sterile_Technique 1 points 1 year ago

Noted. As other posters have mentioned, it carries a lot of historical connotation... I've either never run into it or never noticed it before (again, seems benign, barring the historical context). Thankfully I've also never used it, cuz it's kind of a shitty descriptor - not specific at all.

[–] ProffessionalAmateur 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a non-American I'm perplexed by this. I remember growing up and hearing the accepted euphemism 'coloured person' instead of black person. I'd worry about myself if I ever visited that I'd accidentally cause insult. PC seems to be gone nuts

[–] _cerpin_taxt_ 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you call white people non-colored people? No? Then why would you call a black person colored? Lol

[–] ProffessionalAmateur 0 points 1 year ago

You never let me answer before your smarmy remark. But beleive it or not back then, yes you could. Are white people actually 'white'? Are black people actually 'black'? It was a means to denote race the same as black and white is these days. My point was I didn't realise this term was an actual insult now but it's good to know. Have off with your lol