4 ms·
Did the NAACP have anything to do with this at all? I rather get the impression that it's something WASPs in left-liberal tech companies and news outlets came u
by Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
Did the NAACP have anything to do with this at all? I rather get the impression that it's something WASPs in left-liberal tech companies and news outlets came up with. Which is why I'm surprised seeing this language in The New Yorker.
- Alupis 5y ago"Dark Side" is used here to describe something that cannot be easily seen or is not well known... as in "I cannot see because it's dark". What else would you call it... "un-light"? It literally has nothing to do with race or skin color.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoCuriously "whitewashing" is still used liberally, and specifically to mean "bad stuff that white people do". Of course it doesn't have anything to do with skin colour either, but rather the metaphorical act of painting over flaws with cheap calcium hydroxide paint in order to hide them rather than actually fix them.
- Alupis 5y agoOK, that's fine, but let's not try to inject skin color issues into everything please. It serves no good purpose but to reduce people, and arguments, down to the color of some individual's skin - a trait that has nothing to do with the argument being put forth.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tha0xb3 5y agoIt's tying darkness to something negative, making "dark" or "black" negative in general. This means "dark skinned people" are also similarly looked at negatively. Please use inclusive language. It costs you nothing and makes the world safer for BIPOCs.