3 ms·

I think the original reasoning went like this. When you refer to a black person standing by a tree, it is preferable to say "That guy in a blue shirt/in glasses

I think the original reasoning went like this. When you refer to a black person standing by a tree, it is preferable to say "That guy in a blue shirt/in glasses" and omit the skin color. Similarly here, you omit the names of body parts that could be used to identify the biological sex and therefore infer the gender of the person you refer to. But I'm not convinced it's actually beneficial to the people in question.

throwaway22032 4y ago
But, to use your analogy there, the table is simply replacing "myopic person" with "person who wears glasses". The terms are specifically being used to refer to the same things, just with some sort of bizarre euphemism for basic terminology. It feels like saying "the colour at the low energy end of the spectrum" instead of "red". Are people offended by the mere utterance of the word "breast"?
another_story 4y ago
Why is using a defining characteristic of someone offensive in and of itself? If you're in Asia you might say "that white guy over there" because it's the most easily recognized characteristic when picking a person out. If you're in a minority, no matter the characteristic, it's a matter of convenience for others to use it to denote you. The priest, the tall woman, the handicapped person, etc...
- pnt12 4y ago
  I agree: it's not racist to acknowledge race. There's two things at play here: 1. Some people don't want to be racist, so they over correct. That's OK, but we can also take a step back in some cases eg "actually acknowledging race is not racist, let's stop avoiding it all costs". 2. Some people like to be virtuous and tell others what they can think and say. It's a powerful position. So they spend their time telling others what is OK or not to say, and find reasons to be outraged. Not that we've solved racism: there's still lots of violence and re-appearance of racist ideologies. But we should fight those, not the "micro-agressions" which just create fights between people who could be OK the same side.

throwaway22032 4y ago

But, to use your analogy there, the table is simply replacing "myopic person" with "person who wears glasses". The terms are specifically being used to refer to the same things, just with some sort of bizarre euphemism for basic terminology. It feels like saying "the colour at the low energy end of the spectrum" instead of "red". Are people offended by the mere utterance of the word "breast"?

another_story 4y ago

Why is using a defining characteristic of someone offensive in and of itself? If you're in Asia you might say "that white guy over there" because it's the most easily recognized characteristic when picking a person out. If you're in a minority, no matter the characteristic, it's a matter of convenience for others to use it to denote you. The priest, the tall woman, the handicapped person, etc...

pnt12 4y ago
I agree: it's not racist to acknowledge race. There's two things at play here: 1. Some people don't want to be racist, so they over correct. That's OK, but we can also take a step back in some cases eg "actually acknowledging race is not racist, let's stop avoiding it all costs". 2. Some people like to be virtuous and tell others what they can think and say. It's a powerful position. So they spend their time telling others what is OK or not to say, and find reasons to be outraged. Not that we've solved racism: there's still lots of violence and re-appearance of racist ideologies. But we should fight those, not the "micro-agressions" which just create fights between people who could be OK the same side.