4 ms·

That's the point. Spending time teaching people to use people of color instead of black is just performant. Actually firing a recruiter that immediately throws

That's the point. Spending time teaching people to use people of color instead of black is just performant. Actually firing a recruiter that immediately throws any black resume into the trash is real change.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
"People of color" is a broader term than "black people", and is meant to replace the (pretty widely accepted as) offensive "colored people", not "black people". I feel like it's useful to have a non-offensive phrase that means "nonwhites" without being defined in terms of white people, but maybe I'm just too woke to reason effectively ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- bpt3 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style and please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? You've been doing these things repeatedly, they're not what this site is for, and they destroy what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- layer8 2y ago
  > phrase that means "nonwhites" without being defined in terms of white people That does sound quite oxymoronic. (I’m not American.)
andrewstuart2 2y ago
How exactly would you go about implementing the "real change" here?
- bpt3 2y ago
  That's part of the problem, there is no silver bullet. I implement it by not being racist (or sexist or any other -ist) personally and refusing to support anyone who is. That's largely all anyone can do (and I have a lot more ability to do something about it as a business owner than the average progressive), which I'm sure feels inadequate and leads to roving bands of thought police members looking for perceived transgressions to attack.
  - theossuary 2y ago
    And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIPOC) as a way to gauge it? For example, if someone said the N word in front of you, or made an uncomfortable joke about a Mexican, would you decide not to support them? If so, then does that make you one of those roving thought police? You'd obviously be censoring free speech if you decided how you treat them based on what they say! On the other hand, people are clever, they know not to be too obvious or it may cause them social issues. So, as long as they don't do something too untoward right in front of you, does that mean they gain your full support? Of course, I won't be surprised if those proponents of free speech decide to censor me by downvoting instead of engaging speech with speech
    - bpt3 2y ago
      > And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIPOC) as a way to gauge it? The same way I determine anyone's beliefs on any other topic, which is watching their actions over time, including what they say. > For example, if someone said the N word in front of you, or made an uncomfortable joke about a Mexican, would you decide not to support them? Probably, but context matters. > If so, then does that make you one of those roving thought police? You'd obviously be censoring free speech if you decided how you treat them based on what they say! And here we go. I'm not censoring anyone by not continuing to associate with someone I don't agree with. I'm also not digitally screaming to ostracize someone I disagree with over terminology, as is the case with cancel culture advocates. > On the other hand, people are clever, they know not to be too obvious or it may cause them social issues. So, as long as they don't do something too untoward right in front of you, does that mean they gain your full support? See what I said above about how I assess people. But if someone is a closet racist and I know nothing about it, what am I supposed to do? > Of course, I won't be surprised if those proponents of free speech decide to censor me by downvoting instead of engaging speech with speech Knock it off.
chaps 2y ago
What term would you use to encompass non-white folk?
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Why are you trying to divide people based on immutable characteristics anyhow?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- iooi 2y ago
  Person of color is not for "non-white", see: east asians.
  - chaps 2y ago
    The question stands, then! What's your answer?
joejohnson 2y ago
From the article: >>Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one. pg, and many anti-woke crusaders, employ examples of performative anti-racism to undermine the necessity of genuine anti-racism altogether.
- Hongwei 2y ago
  Is it the critics of performative anti-racism or the actual performers of performative anti-racism who are undermining anti-racism?
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Do people that love Chipotle actually hate burritos? It's Sturgeon's law all the way down.
  - cocacola1 2y ago
    How do the critics divine the intention here? At a certain point, we're going to get to anything short of a riot being labelled virtue signaling. I'd like to avoid riots altogether.
Vegenoid 2y ago
This seems illustrative of the "boogeyman" points that many commenters are making. I think it is a very small number of people who don't want people to call black people "black", and that the majority of liberal people would find the notion "you can't call them black people" to be ridiculous. Are there people who believe this? I'm sure there are, but I think they are a vocal minority.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

"People of color" is a broader term than "black people", and is meant to replace the (pretty widely accepted as) offensive "colored people", not "black people". I feel like it's useful to have a non-offensive phrase that means "nonwhites" without being defined in terms of white people, but maybe I'm just too woke to reason effectively ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bpt3 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style and please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? You've been doing these things repeatedly, they're not what this site is for, and they destroy what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
layer8 2y ago
> phrase that means "nonwhites" without being defined in terms of white people That does sound quite oxymoronic. (I’m not American.)

andrewstuart2 2y ago

How exactly would you go about implementing the "real change" here?

bpt3 2y ago
That's part of the problem, there is no silver bullet. I implement it by not being racist (or sexist or any other -ist) personally and refusing to support anyone who is. That's largely all anyone can do (and I have a lot more ability to do something about it as a business owner than the average progressive), which I'm sure feels inadequate and leads to roving bands of thought police members looking for perceived transgressions to attack.
- theossuary 2y ago
  And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIPOC) as a way to gauge it? For example, if someone said the N word in front of you, or made an uncomfortable joke about a Mexican, would you decide not to support them? If so, then does that make you one of those roving thought police? You'd obviously be censoring free speech if you decided how you treat them based on what they say! On the other hand, people are clever, they know not to be too obvious or it may cause them social issues. So, as long as they don't do something too untoward right in front of you, does that mean they gain your full support? Of course, I won't be surprised if those proponents of free speech decide to censor me by downvoting instead of engaging speech with speech
  - bpt3 2y ago
    > And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIPOC) as a way to gauge it? The same way I determine anyone's beliefs on any other topic, which is watching their actions over time, including what they say. > For example, if someone said the N word in front of you, or made an uncomfortable joke about a Mexican, would you decide not to support them? Probably, but context matters. > If so, then does that make you one of those roving thought police? You'd obviously be censoring free speech if you decided how you treat them based on what they say! And here we go. I'm not censoring anyone by not continuing to associate with someone I don't agree with. I'm also not digitally screaming to ostracize someone I disagree with over terminology, as is the case with cancel culture advocates. > On the other hand, people are clever, they know not to be too obvious or it may cause them social issues. So, as long as they don't do something too untoward right in front of you, does that mean they gain your full support? See what I said above about how I assess people. But if someone is a closet racist and I know nothing about it, what am I supposed to do? > Of course, I won't be surprised if those proponents of free speech decide to censor me by downvoting instead of engaging speech with speech Knock it off.

chaps 2y ago

What term would you use to encompass non-white folk?

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Why are you trying to divide people based on immutable characteristics anyhow?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
iooi 2y ago
Person of color is not for "non-white", see: east asians.
- chaps 2y ago
  The question stands, then! What's your answer?

joejohnson 2y ago

From the article: >>Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one. pg, and many anti-woke crusaders, employ examples of performative anti-racism to undermine the necessity of genuine anti-racism altogether.

Hongwei 2y ago
Is it the critics of performative anti-racism or the actual performers of performative anti-racism who are undermining anti-racism?
- mindslight 2y ago
  Do people that love Chipotle actually hate burritos? It's Sturgeon's law all the way down.
- cocacola1 2y ago
  How do the critics divine the intention here? At a certain point, we're going to get to anything short of a riot being labelled virtue signaling. I'd like to avoid riots altogether.

Vegenoid 2y ago

This seems illustrative of the "boogeyman" points that many commenters are making. I think it is a very small number of people who don't want people to call black people "black", and that the majority of liberal people would find the notion "you can't call them black people" to be ridiculous. Are there people who believe this? I'm sure there are, but I think they are a vocal minority.