My G/F and I have a Navajo friend, Dewayne. Several years ago, she wanted to buy a pair of moccasins for her sister, and since she didn't know much about moccasins, she decided in early November to give Dewayne a call. Now, Dewayne is one of these folks that if you ask him what time it is, he will tell you how to build a watch, so after about 45 minutes, she knew way more about moccasins than she wanted to know, but at least knew enough to buy a proper gift. Anyway, she told him, "Thank you, and have a happy Thanksgiving." He replied, "We don't celebrate that one."

(11-25-2021 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 01:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-20-2021 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Personally, I would prefer other candidates over Trump, but if he is nominated, I would prefer Trump over any Democrat. After all, what are the odds of the Dems nominating Manchin?

I'd place the odds near 100% that if Biden doesn't run, that the DNC would feel obligated to run Kamala. As unpopular as she may be in certain corners of the DNC, I simply can't imagine how they would answer the question of why they passed her over, especially in favor of another white man.

But, the Dems have never really subscribed to the idea of 'its their turn' as much as the Reps have.

The only thing Harris would have going in her favor is colored and woman -- its not like her record is singularly even decent......

Browsing quickly as I just got back from vacation. Colored? Did I miss some context?

Maybe he meant "person of color". Frankly I don't see the difference. Black, brown, asian, POC, whatever - it is a main qualifier for her as far as the Democrats are concerned..

You do understand that in 2021 referring to black people as "colored" is considered offensive by many/most?

You may not see the difference or want to do the work to understand the difference however the information is out there if you want it.

Quote:Now, in 2020, “people of color” often is used to refer to the collective group of non-white Americans. It is offensive to single blacks out as “colored.” That, in part, is because of the painful segregationist history associated with the term prior to the mid-1960s. “Colored-only” restrooms and water fountains are examples of harmful relics of the Jim Crow South that black people had to fight, and die, to remove from American culture.

While the distinctions can be complicated, the information is readily available for anyone willing to seek it out. That means reading and having meaningful conversations with people of different races.

The problem is that many white people aren’t willing to work that hard. It is much easier to email a columnist and complain about how unfair it is that white people can’t use the term “colored,” though the NAACP uses it in its name.

Not long ago, I would have eagerly taken the time to explain that the NAACP, which was established in 1909, was founded during a time when “colored” was acceptable. The group has since broadened its mission to include not only African Americans, but all people of color.

A white woman named Elaine Soloway taught me that I shouldn’t have to do the work for others. Younger African Americans have long balked at the idea that black people have an obligation to explain race to white people. They refuse to try and educate white people about what it means to be black in America.

They have understood what many older black people and white people have not. The responsibility lies solely with white people, if they are interested.

From an article as to the difference between "colored" and "people of color" if you're interested.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/d...story.html

(11-25-2021 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You do understand that in 2021 referring to black people as "colored" is considered offensive by many/most?
You may not see the difference or want to do the work to understand the difference however the information is out there if you want it.

I have plenty of far more important things to "do the work" on.

(11-25-2021 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You do understand that in 2021 referring to black people as "colored" is considered offensive by many/most?
You may not see the difference or want to do the work to understand the difference however the information is out there if you want it.

I have plenty of far more important things to "do the work" on.

I'm sure you do.

The Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where there is an effort to normalize referring to black people as "colored". HAPPY THANKSGIVING, GUYS!!!!

(11-25-2021 11:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You do understand that in 2021 referring to black people as "colored" is considered offensive by many/most?
You may not see the difference or want to do the work to understand the difference however the information is out there if you want it.

I have plenty of far more important things to "do the work" on.

I'm sure you do.
The Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where there is an effort to normalize referring to black people as "colored". HAPPY THANKSGIVING, GUYS!!!!

Not making an effort to normalize anything. Just have no interest in walking around on eggshells to make sure that I don't "offend" anyone. Particularly when there are so many who seek to make it their life's mission to be "offended" by something.

(11-25-2021 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You do understand that in 2021 referring to black people as "colored" is considered offensive by many/most?
You may not see the difference or want to do the work to understand the difference however the information is out there if you want it.

I have plenty of far more important things to "do the work" on.

I'm sure you do.
The Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where there is an effort to normalize referring to black people as "colored". HAPPY THANKSGIVING, GUYS!!!!

Not making an effort to normalize anything. Just have no interest in walking around on eggshells to make sure that I don't "offend" anyone. Particularly when there are so many who seek to make it their life's mission to be "offended" by something.

Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?

I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.

But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

(11-25-2021 11:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You do understand that in 2021 referring to black people as "colored" is considered offensive by many/most?
You may not see the difference or want to do the work to understand the difference however the information is out there if you want it.

I have plenty of far more important things to "do the work" on.

I'm sure you do.
The Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where there is an effort to normalize referring to black people as "colored". HAPPY THANKSGIVING, GUYS!!!!

Not making an effort to normalize anything. Just have no interest in walking around on eggshells to make sure that I don't "offend" anyone. Particularly when there are so many who seek to make it their life's mission to be "offended" by something.

Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?

I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.

But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

Perhaps some should note their tone and timbre in light of the closing comment of the article posted. That is “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Perhaps those didn’t read that portion of the article, or just felt their expression of preachy outrage was a better response.

Second, perhaps someone can tell me what the ‘C’ stands for in the group known as the NAACP. Maybe someone here should preach to that group in an as energetic fashion.

Thirdly, back in the mid-90’s I was counseled prior to a Houston Bar Association civics outreach class to a minority school that the term ‘black’ shouldn’t be used. I will assume after reading that article posted that that is no longer the case.

(11-25-2021 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have plenty of far more important things to "do the work" on.

I'm sure you do.
The Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where there is an effort to normalize referring to black people as "colored". HAPPY THANKSGIVING, GUYS!!!!

Not making an effort to normalize anything. Just have no interest in walking around on eggshells to make sure that I don't "offend" anyone. Particularly when there are so many who seek to make it their life's mission to be "offended" by something.

Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?

I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.

But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

Perhaps some should note their tone and timbre in light of the closing comment of the article posted. That is “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Perhaps those didn’t read that portion of the article, or just felt their expression of preachy outrage was a better response.

Was I outraged? I was surprised that somebody (you) used the term "colored" to refer to a black person. Please point out the part where my words signalled outrage to you.

Quote:Second, perhaps someone can tell me what the ‘C’ stands for in the group known as the NAACP. Maybe someone here should preach to that group in an as energetic fashion.

I thought you read the article? Did you not see where this was addressed?

Quote:Thirdly, back in the mid-90’s I was counseled prior to a Houston Bar Association civics outreach class to a minority school that the term ‘black’ shouldn’t be used. I will assume after reading that article posted that that is no longer the case.

This is an excuse for using the term "colored"? It seems the same excuse could be put forth for using the N-word. "Look... it's impossible for me to keep track of which words are not OK so that means to me that ALL words are available for my use."

Still no outrage. Just continued suprise at the pushback over the idea that you shouldn't use the term "colored". Again... it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me.

(11-25-2021 11:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?
I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.
But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

Quite frankly, what is or is not acceptable terminology has moved around so much that I seriously don't know where the goalposts are today. As far as I know, African-American is still okay, but 1) I despise all hyphenated-American descriptives as inherently divisive, and 2) using African-American all the time comes off as stilted and awkward.

Therefore, quite frankly, I don't know the answer to your question. All I do know is that it is never my intent to offend, but some folks take offense at anything. Being offended has become almost a cottage industry in some quarters, and I find that offensive.

So, tell me what offends and what doesn't, and I will do my best to follow instructions.

(11-25-2021 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm sure you do.
The Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where there is an effort to normalize referring to black people as "colored". HAPPY THANKSGIVING, GUYS!!!!

Not making an effort to normalize anything. Just have no interest in walking around on eggshells to make sure that I don't "offend" anyone. Particularly when there are so many who seek to make it their life's mission to be "offended" by something.

Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?

I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.

But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

Perhaps some should note their tone and timbre in light of the closing comment of the article posted. That is “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Perhaps those didn’t read that portion of the article, or just felt their expression of preachy outrage was a better response.

Was I outraged? I was surprised that somebody (you) used the term "colored" to refer to a black person. Please point out the part where my words signalled outrage to you.

And I find your (continued) preaching on it rather fing superfluous, my friend. Outraged or not. It is seemingly so unseeming to you apparently you cannot let go of it. Mea culpa on the usage. Hopefully that last sentence will get you to shut your trap on the preachy bent you have going today. Perhaps not.

Quote:

Quote:Second, perhaps someone can tell me what the ‘C’ stands for in the group known as the NAACP. Maybe someone here should preach to that group in an as energetic fashion.

I thought you read the article? Did you not see where this was addressed?

On par with what you obviously missed, my friend, as noted above.

Quote:

Quote:Thirdly, back in the mid-90’s I was counseled prior to a Houston Bar Association civics outreach class to a minority school that the term ‘black’ shouldn’t be used. I will assume after reading that article posted that that is no longer the case.

This is an excuse for using the term "colored"? It seems the same excuse could be put forth for using the N-word. "Look... it's impossible for me to keep track of which words are not OK so that means to me that ALL words are available for my use."

Still no outrage. Just continued suprise at the pushback over the idea that you shouldn't use the term "colored". Again... it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me.

Pushback? Excuse? Far from it my friend. Your above characterization is quite the hypocritical extension and counterpoint to your chastisement of my verbiage of outrage you denote above. Funny that.

Absolutely fing rich there pardner Next time you chastise one for ‘extending’ your prose, perhaps don’t follow it up with the exact extension of prose in the almost very next comment. Looks kind of shallow.

Hope your turkey was good, my friend.

Remember, “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Except apparently when that world has Preacher 93 in it to beat the fing drum….

Not every black person is of African ancestry nor is every one an American. I have met an Australian who was very black. I met him in Dallas.

But if we are to refer to every person by some hyphenate of ancestry/citizenship, I wish to be known henceforth as Anglo-Germano-Tejano-American.

As for the word "colored", I certainly see where some people would be offended by it. I remember "colored only" signs. I just fail to see "person of color" as any better. Had the signs back then said "Persons of color only", what would now be the preferred nomenclature? The only thing POC does is include everyone who isn't white. But we already have a word for that: nonwhite.

(11-25-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not making an effort to normalize anything. Just have no interest in walking around on eggshells to make sure that I don't "offend" anyone. Particularly when there are so many who seek to make it their life's mission to be "offended" by something.

Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?

I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.

But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

Perhaps some should note their tone and timbre in light of the closing comment of the article posted. That is “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Perhaps those didn’t read that portion of the article, or just felt their expression of preachy outrage was a better response.

Was I outraged? I was surprised that somebody (you) used the term "colored" to refer to a black person. Please point out the part where my words signalled outrage to you.

And I find your (continued) preaching on it rather fing superfluous, my friend. Outraged or not. It is seemingly so unseeming to you apparently you cannot let go of it. Mea culpa on the usage. Hopefully that last sentence will get you to shut your trap on the preachy bent you have going today. Perhaps not.

Quote:

Quote:Second, perhaps someone can tell me what the ‘C’ stands for in the group known as the NAACP. Maybe someone here should preach to that group in an as energetic fashion.

I thought you read the article? Did you not see where this was addressed?

On par with what you obviously missed, my friend, as noted above.

Quote:

Quote:Thirdly, back in the mid-90’s I was counseled prior to a Houston Bar Association civics outreach class to a minority school that the term ‘black’ shouldn’t be used. I will assume after reading that article posted that that is no longer the case.

This is an excuse for using the term "colored"? It seems the same excuse could be put forth for using the N-word. "Look... it's impossible for me to keep track of which words are not OK so that means to me that ALL words are available for my use."

Still no outrage. Just continued suprise at the pushback over the idea that you shouldn't use the term "colored". Again... it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me.

Pushback? Excuse? Far from it my friend. Your above characterization is quite the hypocritical extension and counterpoint to your chastisement of my verbiage of outrage you denote above. Funny that.

Absolutely fing rich there pardner Next time you chastise one for ‘extending’ your prose, perhaps don’t follow it up with the exact extension of prose in the almost very next comment. Looks kind of shallow.

Hope your turkey was good, my friend.

Remember, “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Except apparently when that world has Preacher 93 in it to beat the fing drum….

In terms of that article, you left out the final sentence. It reads:

"There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world. The disgrace is in choosing to remain in the past."

I wonder why you left out the follow-up sentence?

As to unseeming, honestly it does strike me as quite unseemly to refer to black people as "colored". Apparently we disagree with that notion.

I'm sorry if pointing out that your referring to black people as "colored" may be offensive seems preachy to you. My thought it if that type of thing doesn't get a comment then we all normalize it. It's sort of like that time I used the phrase, "It seems that you are being intentionally dense here." You went on a real bender about just how offensive that phrase was. You even completely fabricated an imaginary legal search to strengthen your point in that matter. I wonder which you think is more offensive? Referring to black people as "colored" or telling somebody that they seem to be being intentionally dense?

(11-26-2021 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Acknowledging that referring to black people as "colored" is not OK is tantamount to walking around on eggshells?

I understand your point to some extent. I am not down with the woke cancel mob.

But not calling black people "colored" is pretty low-hanging fruit in 2021, is it not?

Perhaps some should note their tone and timbre in light of the closing comment of the article posted. That is “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Perhaps those didn’t read that portion of the article, or just felt their expression of preachy outrage was a better response.

Was I outraged? I was surprised that somebody (you) used the term "colored" to refer to a black person. Please point out the part where my words signalled outrage to you.

And I find your (continued) preaching on it rather fing superfluous, my friend. Outraged or not. It is seemingly so unseeming to you apparently you cannot let go of it. Mea culpa on the usage. Hopefully that last sentence will get you to shut your trap on the preachy bent you have going today. Perhaps not.

Quote:

Quote:Second, perhaps someone can tell me what the ‘C’ stands for in the group known as the NAACP. Maybe someone here should preach to that group in an as energetic fashion.

I thought you read the article? Did you not see where this was addressed?

On par with what you obviously missed, my friend, as noted above.

Quote:

Quote:Thirdly, back in the mid-90’s I was counseled prior to a Houston Bar Association civics outreach class to a minority school that the term ‘black’ shouldn’t be used. I will assume after reading that article posted that that is no longer the case.

This is an excuse for using the term "colored"? It seems the same excuse could be put forth for using the N-word. "Look... it's impossible for me to keep track of which words are not OK so that means to me that ALL words are available for my use."

Still no outrage. Just continued suprise at the pushback over the idea that you shouldn't use the term "colored". Again... it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me.

Pushback? Excuse? Far from it my friend. Your above characterization is quite the hypocritical extension and counterpoint to your chastisement of my verbiage of outrage you denote above. Funny that.

Absolutely fing rich there pardner Next time you chastise one for ‘extending’ your prose, perhaps don’t follow it up with the exact extension of prose in the almost very next comment. Looks kind of shallow.

Hope your turkey was good, my friend.

Remember, “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Except apparently when that world has Preacher 93 in it to beat the fing drum….

In terms of that article, you left out the final sentence. It reads:

"There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world. The disgrace is in choosing to remain in the past."

I wonder why you left out the follow-up sentence?

Because it isn’t applicable. Being the smartest guy in creation you apparently failed to see my explicit ‘mea culpa’ on the issue, That is *after* reading your proffered article, preacher man. Good fing grief.

Quote:As to unseeming, honestly it does strike me as quite unseemly to refer to black people as "colored". Apparently we disagree with that notion.

I suggest you look up the term ‘mea culpa’. You either failed to notice that, don’t understand it, or just want to gnash your lips over a non-existent issue. Jeezus fing H Krist.

Quote:I'm sorry if pointing out that your referring to black people as "colored" may be offensive seems preachy to you. My thought it if that type of thing doesn't get a comment then we all normalize it. It's sort of like that time I used the phrase, "It seems that you are being intentionally dense here." You went on a real bender about just how offensive that phrase was. You even completely fabricated an imaginary legal search to strengthen your point in that matter. I wonder which you think is more offensive? Referring to black people as "colored" or telling somebody that they seem to be being intentionally dense?

Go look up ‘mea culpa’ shitball. Even after that you charge down the road like a real serious minded fing turd bucket in this last post here. Amazing display there, mr preacher. <slow clap>.

Maybe a proctologist will help with that stick that seems jammed so amazingly far up your ass on this even after an acknowledgment of the mea culpa.

(11-26-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps some should note their tone and timbre in light of the closing comment of the article posted. That is “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Perhaps those didn’t read that portion of the article, or just felt their expression of preachy outrage was a better response.

Was I outraged? I was surprised that somebody (you) used the term "colored" to refer to a black person. Please point out the part where my words signalled outrage to you.

And I find your (continued) preaching on it rather fing superfluous, my friend. Outraged or not. It is seemingly so unseeming to you apparently you cannot let go of it. Mea culpa on the usage. Hopefully that last sentence will get you to shut your trap on the preachy bent you have going today. Perhaps not.

Quote:

Quote:Second, perhaps someone can tell me what the ‘C’ stands for in the group known as the NAACP. Maybe someone here should preach to that group in an as energetic fashion.

I thought you read the article? Did you not see where this was addressed?

On par with what you obviously missed, my friend, as noted above.

Quote:

Quote:Thirdly, back in the mid-90’s I was counseled prior to a Houston Bar Association civics outreach class to a minority school that the term ‘black’ shouldn’t be used. I will assume after reading that article posted that that is no longer the case.

This is an excuse for using the term "colored"? It seems the same excuse could be put forth for using the N-word. "Look... it's impossible for me to keep track of which words are not OK so that means to me that ALL words are available for my use."

Still no outrage. Just continued suprise at the pushback over the idea that you shouldn't use the term "colored". Again... it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me.

Pushback? Excuse? Far from it my friend. Your above characterization is quite the hypocritical extension and counterpoint to your chastisement of my verbiage of outrage you denote above. Funny that.

Absolutely fing rich there pardner Next time you chastise one for ‘extending’ your prose, perhaps don’t follow it up with the exact extension of prose in the almost very next comment. Looks kind of shallow.

Hope your turkey was good, my friend.

Remember, “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Except apparently when that world has Preacher 93 in it to beat the fing drum….

In terms of that article, you left out the final sentence. It reads:

"There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world. The disgrace is in choosing to remain in the past."

I wonder why you left out the follow-up sentence?

Because it isn’t applicable. Being the smartest guy in creation you apparently failed to see my explicit ‘mea culpa’ on the issue, Good fing grief.

Quote:As to unseeming, honestly it does strike me as quite unseemly to refer to black people as "colored". Apparently we disagree with that notion.

I suggest you look up the term ‘mea culpa’. You either failed to notice that, don’t understand it, or just want to gnash your lips over a non-existent issue. Jeezus fing H Krist.

Quote:I'm sorry if pointing out that your referring to black people as "colored" may be offensive seems preachy to you. My thought it if that type of thing doesn't get a comment then we all normalize it. It's sort of like that time I used the phrase, "It seems that you are being intentionally dense here." You went on a real bender about just how offensive that phrase was. You even completely fabricated an imaginary legal search to strengthen your point in that matter. I wonder which you think is more offensive? Referring to black people as "colored" or telling somebody that they seem to be being intentionally dense?

Go look up ‘mea culpa’ shitball. Even after that you charge down the road like a real serious minded fing turd bucket in this last post here. Amazing display there, mr preacher. <slow clap>

I saw your mea culpa mixed in with a bunch of pejorative pablum about how I was a preacher for pointing out that your use of the term "colored" was considered offensive by most. I was responding to the pablum.

Actually, we are all colored--some color. I suppose there may be some albino somewhere who is totally white, but that would be unusual in the extreme.

For that matter, I can claim to be a person of color. I am a descendent of Nicholas Martiau, a Moorish French Huguenot. About the same as Fauxcahontas's Native American ancestry claim. Other descendants of his include George Washington, Meriwether Lewis, and Queen Elizabeth II. So Obama is not the first USA President of color and Meghan Markle is not the first person of color to be a member of the UK royal family.

And no, words don't offend me. But actions sure as heck do.

Interesting. For at least the second time(slut, colored), we have a leading liberal here telling people how they should talk.

Who knows, this could someday lead to people being told what they can say. We could call the violations of this standard hate speech, and enact laws that punish it.

Or we could just punish it by making those vile people lose their jobs. We could call that canceling them.

Nah. Never happen. This is America, not North Korea. No need to worry about America ever becoming that rigid and authoritarian.

(11-26-2021 10:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Was I outraged? I was surprised that somebody (you) used the term "colored" to refer to a black person. Please point out the part where my words signalled outrage to you.

And I find your (continued) preaching on it rather fing superfluous, my friend. Outraged or not. It is seemingly so unseeming to you apparently you cannot let go of it. Mea culpa on the usage. Hopefully that last sentence will get you to shut your trap on the preachy bent you have going today. Perhaps not.

Quote:I thought you read the article? Did you not see where this was addressed?

On par with what you obviously missed, my friend, as noted above.

Quote:This is an excuse for using the term "colored"? It seems the same excuse could be put forth for using the N-word. "Look... it's impossible for me to keep track of which words are not OK so that means to me that ALL words are available for my use."

Still no outrage. Just continued suprise at the pushback over the idea that you shouldn't use the term "colored". Again... it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit to me.

Pushback? Excuse? Far from it my friend. Your above characterization is quite the hypocritical extension and counterpoint to your chastisement of my verbiage of outrage you denote above. Funny that.

Absolutely fing rich there pardner Next time you chastise one for ‘extending’ your prose, perhaps don’t follow it up with the exact extension of prose in the almost very next comment. Looks kind of shallow.

Hope your turkey was good, my friend.

Remember, “There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world.” Except apparently when that world has Preacher 93 in it to beat the fing drum….

In terms of that article, you left out the final sentence. It reads:

"There is no shame in having fallen behind in a changing world. The disgrace is in choosing to remain in the past."

I wonder why you left out the follow-up sentence?

Because it isn’t applicable. Being the smartest guy in creation you apparently failed to see my explicit ‘mea culpa’ on the issue, Good fing grief.

Quote:As to unseeming, honestly it does strike me as quite unseemly to refer to black people as "colored". Apparently we disagree with that notion.

I suggest you look up the term ‘mea culpa’. You either failed to notice that, don’t understand it, or just want to gnash your lips over a non-existent issue. Jeezus fing H Krist.

Quote:I'm sorry if pointing out that your referring to black people as "colored" may be offensive seems preachy to you. My thought it if that type of thing doesn't get a comment then we all normalize it. It's sort of like that time I used the phrase, "It seems that you are being intentionally dense here." You went on a real bender about just how offensive that phrase was. You even completely fabricated an imaginary legal search to strengthen your point in that matter. I wonder which you think is more offensive? Referring to black people as "colored" or telling somebody that they seem to be being intentionally dense?

Go look up ‘mea culpa’ shitball. Even after that you charge down the road like a real serious minded fing turd bucket in this last post here. Amazing display there, mr preacher. <slow clap>

I saw your mea culpa mixed in with a bunch of pejorative pablum about how I was a preacher for pointing out that your use of the term "colored" was considered offensive by most. I was responding to the pablum.

Actually the ‘pablum’ seems to be exactly how you *had* acted all day yesterday, and continue to act today. As I somewhat predicted in the sentence following the mea culpa. But feel free to throw another 93 maddy poo temper tantrum as you seemingly kept building up to yesterday and actually did today.

(11-26-2021 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting. For at least the second time(slut, colored), we have a leading liberal here telling people how they should talk.

Who knows, this could someday lead to people being told what they can say. We could call the violations of this standard hate speech, and enact laws that punish it.

Or we could just punish it by making those vile people lose their jobs. We could call that canceling them.

Nah. Never happen. This is America, not North Korea. No need to worry about America ever becoming that rigid and authoritarian.

The Kent Rowland Memorial Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where we reserve the right to call women "sluts" and black people "colored". I was going to mess around with some photoshop stuff later today. I think I'll make us a logo.

Sorry for pointing out that the term "colored" is considered offensive. I have no doubt the punishment for my internet crime will sooner-rather-than-later invoke Godwin's Law. It seems that we are already at the edge of that precipice with OO's post.

(11-26-2021 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, we are all colored--some color. I suppose there may be some albino somewhere who is totally white, but that would be unusual in the extreme.

For that matter, I can claim to be a person of color. I am a descendent of Nicholas Martiau, a Moorish French Huguenot. About the same as Fauxcahontas's Native American ancestry claim. Other descendants of his include George Washington, Meriwether Lewis, and Queen Elizabeth II. So Obama is not the first USA President of color and Meghan Markle is not the first person of color to be a member of the UK royal family.

And no, words don't offend me. But actions sure as heck do.

I think most of us, if we had access to genealogies going back many generations would have "some" color in their background. A lot of those people would be designated as persons of no color by the currently accepted leaders of POCs. I knew of my spanish/mexican ancestry, but DNA testing revealed my NA and Jewish roots, as well as some North African and Middle Eastern ancestry. Yet I would likely be called a "white supremacist" by Biden if I interfered in a BLM mostly peaceful riot.

I will even grant Warren her 1000th of a percent NA heritage. I guess that makes her a POC too.

We are a melting pot and have been for centuries. Trying to designate one side of the stew as this and the other side as that is an endeavor for liberals and segregationists.

I hope somebody will publish a list of words that can be used soon. Thinking for ourselves is so tiring.

(11-26-2021 11:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting. For at least the second time(slut, colored), we have a leading liberal here telling people how they should talk.

Who knows, this could someday lead to people being told what they can say. We could call the violations of this standard hate speech, and enact laws that punish it.

Or we could just punish it by making those vile people lose their jobs. We could call that canceling them.

Nah. Never happen. This is America, not North Korea. No need to worry about America ever becoming that rigid and authoritarian.

The Kent Rowland Memorial Quad, ladies and gentleman. Where we reserve the right to call women "sluts" and black people "colored". I was going to mess around with some photoshop stuff later today. I think I'll make us a logo.

Sorry for pointing out that the term "colored" is considered offensive. I have no doubt the punishment for my internet crime will sooner-rather-than-later invoke Godwin's Law. It seems that we are already at the edge of that precipice with OO's post.

Sparky, as an aside, maybe you should look up Kamala's ancestry. And then, review the rationale why the term 'colored' is retained by the NAACP.

Or just bloviate some more.

You seemingly subscribe to the rationale that the 'C' in the NAACP (colored) is part and parcel of the mission of that organization dealing with all colors. To save you any effort, let me paste:

Quote:The group has since broadened its mission to include not only African Americans, but all people of color.

Since you are focusing on Kamala being 'black', you do know that is incorrect, right?

In fact, she is Indian/Black. That is kind of the ultimate example of the rationale why the word 'colored' is still accepted and used widely by the NAACP itself per the article and referred to by yourself as well therein.

Or is there some 'special' category or exception that we dont know abut here in light of all your preaching and maddy poo behavior?

SO if the term is offensive with respect to Kamala who slept her way to the top, then my original query still rings true that was roundly dismissed by you as to why the NAACP still uses it.

It may very well be considered offensive. But, your defense of Kamala the boinker to better position doesnt really ring true in light of the defense of the term *by* your own article source and in light of your automatic knee jerk and passionate diatribe against the term re: of Kamala being black when she is Black/Indian.

So is the defense of the term being used by the NAACP in the article ring hollow, or is your assertion of that term re: an Indain-black ring hollow?

Interested minds want to know.