5 ms·

What changes if we call people negros instead of black? > Unless we just want to be offended by existance of Jews If you dislike the use of a world, you must

by unmole 5y ago

What changes if we call people negros instead of black? > Unless we just want to be offended by existance of Jews If you dislike the use of a world, you must be an anti-Semite? I guess the people who dislike the Spanish derived term must be anti-Hispanic.

roenxi 5y ago
> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? Well, they're a minority. If the majority loses control then they are at extreme risk of being hit by an ethnic cleansing or something. It can happen pretty much anywhere with only a relatively short lead-up. Picking a stupid act and making it compulsory is a classic way to keep tabs on how the wind is blowing. There isn't really any threat like that from the Jews posed to anyone else, they don't have the numbers. There is no need to police them; indeed policing the language of minorities trying to maintain their own culture is in really bad taste. The issue with negro doesn't have anything to do with the word itself being offensive; that has the same logical problems as objecting to 'gentile' does.
- unmole 5y ago
  Negro and gentile are both Othering. You might think that insular attitudes amongst minority communities can't have a negative effect. I respectfully disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/another-blow-to-one-of-americas-most-controversial-school-board/546227/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/anothe...
  - roenxi 5y ago
    That doesn't make sense; "non-Jew" is also Othering. The only difference between the two is one is the term a Jew has used and one is the term you want them to use. That isn't a reasonable distinction; in fact given the lack of distinction the attempt to erode Jewish culture as a distinct thing may in itself be rather objectionable depending on who you ask. Mainly because it is pressuring a minority culture. You aren't drawing a distinction here to show why your word is kosher and the term gentile isn't.
    - unmole 5y ago
      Anno Domini and Christian Era both refer to the same system of reckoning. However, the former presupposes the Christian Lord while the latter only references the existence of Christianity. Non-Jew only presupposes the existence of a Jewish people. Gentile on the other hand is a neologism which uses Jewish ontology to Other everyone else. The idea that what is acceptable behaviour is dependent on membership is abhorrent to me. I don't see how gentile is different from barbarian, kaffir or mleccha.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        When it comes to 'gentile', the etymology of the word isn't important to you because you don't want people to use it. When it comes to AD, the etymology becomes important because you don't want people to use it. And I think I'm picking up a bit that the context and intent matter unless the context is innocent and the intent is mild, in which case there is some linguistic argument about why there is unintended problems with language. I put it to you that this is making up reasons to be offended as the conversation goes along. There is no difference between calling people gentiles or non-Jews, except possible one shows that your in-group is more important than the orthodox Jewish in-group (or whoever it is who uses the word gentile). You aren't drawing meaningful reasons out to support this position. The two terms have the same intent, same implications and same meaning.
  - tux2bsd 5y ago
    Minority is thoroughly abused word. (You have used it correctly, this statement does not relate to your comment.) You are spot on about "Othering".
dragonwriter 5y ago
> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? I don't know, let's ask the United Negro College Fund, and it's work for African American youth, particularly at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Within the actual community, there's differences as to the most-preferred term for the community, and there’s generational differences in the distribution of preferences, but unless you are using one of the terms that historical principally a slur or indicating a racist attitude in some other way, it's not as big of a deal as white racists who like to place the blame for the anger they incite on nitpicking about anthroponymy rather than the substance of their ideas.
- unmole 5y ago
  So, what you're saying is: > It's almost as if intent and context matters more than etymology. Which you'll notice is what I said earlier in this very thread.
  - blowski 5y ago
    I agree, intent and context are what matters. And the original use of “gentile” didn’t show any bad intent, and seemed appropriate within the context.
    - unmole 5y ago
      I don't believe TchoBeer, like most people who use gentile had any ill intent. I don't even think it's something to get worked up about. I only responded in the thread because it was brought up.

by unmole 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? Well, they're a minority. If the majority loses control then they are at extreme risk of being hit by an ethnic cleansing or something. It can happen pretty much anywhere with only a relatively short lead-up. Picking a stupid act and making it compulsory is a classic way to keep tabs on how the wind is blowing. There isn't really any threat like that from the Jews posed to anyone else, they don't have the numbers. There is no need to police them; indeed policing the language of minorities trying to maintain their own culture is in really bad taste. The issue with negro doesn't have anything to do with the word itself being offensive; that has the same logical problems as objecting to 'gentile' does.

unmole 5y ago
Negro and gentile are both Othering. You might think that insular attitudes amongst minority communities can't have a negative effect. I respectfully disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/another-blow-to-one-of-americas-most-controversial-school-board/546227/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/anothe...
- roenxi 5y ago
  That doesn't make sense; "non-Jew" is also Othering. The only difference between the two is one is the term a Jew has used and one is the term you want them to use. That isn't a reasonable distinction; in fact given the lack of distinction the attempt to erode Jewish culture as a distinct thing may in itself be rather objectionable depending on who you ask. Mainly because it is pressuring a minority culture. You aren't drawing a distinction here to show why your word is kosher and the term gentile isn't.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Anno Domini and Christian Era both refer to the same system of reckoning. However, the former presupposes the Christian Lord while the latter only references the existence of Christianity. Non-Jew only presupposes the existence of a Jewish people. Gentile on the other hand is a neologism which uses Jewish ontology to Other everyone else. The idea that what is acceptable behaviour is dependent on membership is abhorrent to me. I don't see how gentile is different from barbarian, kaffir or mleccha.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      When it comes to 'gentile', the etymology of the word isn't important to you because you don't want people to use it. When it comes to AD, the etymology becomes important because you don't want people to use it. And I think I'm picking up a bit that the context and intent matter unless the context is innocent and the intent is mild, in which case there is some linguistic argument about why there is unintended problems with language. I put it to you that this is making up reasons to be offended as the conversation goes along. There is no difference between calling people gentiles or non-Jews, except possible one shows that your in-group is more important than the orthodox Jewish in-group (or whoever it is who uses the word gentile). You aren't drawing meaningful reasons out to support this position. The two terms have the same intent, same implications and same meaning.
- tux2bsd 5y ago
  Minority is thoroughly abused word. (You have used it correctly, this statement does not relate to your comment.) You are spot on about "Othering".

dragonwriter 5y ago

> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? I don't know, let's ask the United Negro College Fund, and it's work for African American youth, particularly at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Within the actual community, there's differences as to the most-preferred term for the community, and there’s generational differences in the distribution of preferences, but unless you are using one of the terms that historical principally a slur or indicating a racist attitude in some other way, it's not as big of a deal as white racists who like to place the blame for the anger they incite on nitpicking about anthroponymy rather than the substance of their ideas.

unmole 5y ago
So, what you're saying is: > It's almost as if intent and context matters more than etymology. Which you'll notice is what I said earlier in this very thread.
- blowski 5y ago
  I agree, intent and context are what matters. And the original use of “gentile” didn’t show any bad intent, and seemed appropriate within the context.
  - unmole 5y ago
    I don't believe TchoBeer, like most people who use gentile had any ill intent. I don't even think it's something to get worked up about. I only responded in the thread because it was brought up.