Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Options
1133134136138139251

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    " person of colour " is a political term

    i just say african american or black

    You’d call an Indian in America, African American or black? Why would you do that?

    PoC presumably covers non white people (in America). It’s broader than just black people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,388 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    I find 'person' to be the most inclusive, myself


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    " person of colour " is a political term

    i just say african american or black

    Morgan Freeman vehemently objects to African American as his ancestors are from Guyana or somewhere - he was told he was “borderline racist” (by a white person!) for wanting to call himself black.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,835 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Ok. Could you answer this question from the post you quoted: If someone told you they don’t like the term differently abled because they find it offensive, what would you do?

    I would never use the term because I think it is either patronising at best, or insulting at worst.

    But if someone did not like any term I would not use it.
    Much like how if I called Bernadette - 'Bernie'. And she said 'BERNADETTE'. I would get the message fairly sharpish and use Bernadette instead.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    I find 'person' to be the most inclusive, myself

    Or, maybe their name.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭km991148


    I would never use the term because I think it is either patronising at best, or insulting at worst.

    But if someone did not like any term I would not use it.
    Much like how if I called Bernadette - 'Bernie'. And she said 'BERNADETTE'. I would get the message fairly sharpish and use Bernadette instead.

    Or a secret cabal of James and Williams that hate anyone calling them Jim or Billy and trying to push their own non name shortening agenda?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    You’d call an Indian in America, African American or black? Why would you do that?

    PoC presumably covers non white people (in America). It’s broader than just black people.

    thats a mistake in my opinion as its much too broad , id call that person of indian ancestry american first and foremost , if they wanted me to refer to their indian heritage , id oblige , POC is an ideological term however , like using LGBTQ in a sentence while referring to ellen de genneres or boy george , they are just lesbian and gay people

    no need for the political agenda loading


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    I would never use the term because I think it is either patronising at best, or insulting at worst.

    But if someone did not like any term I would not use it.
    Much like how if I called Bernadette - 'Bernie'. And she said 'BERNADETTE'. I would get the message fairly sharpish and use Bernadette instead.

    Ok. So if someone to whom the term applies, told you they prefer the term differently abled or the term disabled, what would you do?


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    thats a mistake in my opinion as its much too broad , id call that person of indian ancestry american first and foremost , if they wanted me to refer to their indian heritage , id oblige , POC is an ideological term however , like using LGBTQ in a sentence while referring to ellen de genneres or boy george , they are just lesbian and gay people

    no need for the political agenda loading

    Whether you think it’s a mistake or not, is hardly your decision. You can have your opinion on it but you hardly expect your view to weigh as heavily as someone to whom the term actually applies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,835 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Ok. So if someone to whom the term applies, told you they prefer the term differently abled or the term disabled, what would you do?

    Pick disabled as it does not sound as silly as 'differently abled'. As I would not call a baldy fella 'differently hirsute'.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    Naming two women or two men on a child's birth certificate is bollocks.

    A birth certificate is a historical document and should not be altered. These documents and similar archives have helped my mam's cousin and me research my mam's side of the family back to 1790. Altering these so Adam and Steve can be "mammy and daddy".

    A child has two biological parents and only they should be on the birth certificate.

    Furthermore, it should be compulsory to name the father on the birth certificate, a paternity test should also be compulsory even for monogamous or married couples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,388 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Naming two women or two men on a child's birth certificate is bollocks.

    A child has two biological parents and only they should be on the birth certificate.

    Furthermore, it should be compulsory to name the father on the birth certificate, a paternity test should also be compulsory even for monogamous or married couples.

    Ah sure, make the mother take a lie detector test while your at it


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,388 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Pick disabled as it does not sound as silly as 'differently abled'. As I would call call a baldy fella 'differently hirsute'.

    Menopausal women are 'variably hormoned'...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    The problem with the colored vs people-of-colour thing is that there is no difference between the two.

    Coloured Jelly is the same as saying jelly of colour. So if people are going to come up with alternative terms you'd think they'd come up with an alternative that was actually an alternative instead of the same thing but just said grammatically differently.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    Ah sure, make the mother take a lie detector test while your at it

    ??? What's with the glib response?

    Regardless of whether the father wants to play a role it should be compulsory to have him on the cert. For records sake.

    For women with multiple sexual partners (not that there's anything wrong with it) it provides certainty who the father is.

    Making it compulsory for all removes discretion and will make it fairer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,388 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    ??? What's with the glib response?

    Regardless of whether the father wants to play a role it should be compulsory to have him on the cert. For records sake.

    For women with multiple sexual partners (not that there's anything wrong with it) it provides certainty who the father is.

    Making it compulsory for all removes discretion and will make it fairer.

    But what is the need to have a paternity test if she only had sexwith the father in the previous nine months, unless you assume she is lying.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,618 ✭✭✭StevenToast


    When you say coloured...isnt white a colour also?....or are we non coloureds?

    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Pick disabled as it does not sound as silly as 'differently abled'. As I would not call a baldy fella 'differently hirsute'.

    Ok. It wasn’t supposed to be a choice they were supposed to be alternative scenarios so I’ll clarify the scenario: you say “disabled” to a fella with a disability and he say he prefers the term “differently abled”. What term would you use when speaking to this guy in the future? (for the sake of argument, you’re going to be talking about the topic with the guy so you’ll need to use some term to denote people with disabilities and he’s told you how he prefers to be described)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    Pick disabled as it does not sound as silly as 'differently abled'. As I would not call a baldy fella 'differently hirsute'.

    I had a moron Sociology teacher a while back who didn’t use fat but “ultra nourished”. Told him that was ridiculous and I was fat!

    Late 80s this - woke before woke was a thing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    But what is the need to have a paternity test if she only had sexwith the father in the previous nine months, unless you assume she is lying.

    It's in the post that you quoted.
    Can't you read?

    Making it compulsory for all is fairer than giving exemptions to married or monogamous couples.

    It's either compulsory for all or no-one.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    Ok. It wasn’t supposed to be a choice they were supposed to be alternative scenarios so I’ll clarify the scenario: you say “disabled” to a fella with a disability and he say he prefers the term “differently abled”. What term would you use when speaking to this guy in the future? (for the sake of argument, you’re going to be talking about the topic with the guy so you’ll need to use some term to denote people with disabilities and he’s told you how he prefers to be described)

    Amazing how many aren’t in favour of “disabled” until it has “allowance” after it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    AllForIt wrote: »
    The problem with the colored vs people-of-colour thing is that there is no difference between the two.

    Coloured Jelly is the same as saying jelly of colour. So if people are going to come up with alternative terms you'd think they'd come up with an alternative that was actually an alternative instead of the same thing but just said grammatically differently.

    Yeah but that requires a child’s level of understanding of the meaning attached to words. Words are all arbitrary but they are assigned meanings, and then it takes just a small bit more understanding to know that meanings can drift over time. Some words like “nice” have had a dozen distinct meanings over time. The word nice started it’s journey through English meaning stupid or foolish. On its travels it dropped the meaning foolish and took on the meaning particularly or finicky. Then it dropped that meaning and took on its current meaning of agreeable.

    Words change meaning that’s not the problem. It’s only a problem for you if you dislike the meaning behind the change. And the meaning behind the change from coloured to POC is a demonstration that POC have influence over the language now. They have the power to change the meaning of a term.

    In other words the thing that annoys you about the term changing meaning is that POC have gained the power to do it. If that weren’t the case then you’d be equally opposed to the changes to the meaning of the word “nice”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,943 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    It's in the post that you quoted.
    Can't you read?

    Making it compulsory for all is fairer than giving exemptions to married or monogamous couples.

    It's either compulsory for all or no-one.


    As it’s only ever used when paternity is questioned, what would be the point?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What’s the objective of this conscious campaign? For what, are they consciously campaigning?

    I think they are trying to seize power while pretending they want equality. There are some loonies lefties rioting nightly in America. The place there looks like a tinderbox


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭km991148


    AllForIt wrote: »
    The problem with the colored vs people-of-colour thing is that there is no difference between the two.

    Coloured Jelly is the same as saying jelly of colour. So if people are going to come up with alternative terms you'd think they'd come up with an alternative that was actually an alternative instead of the same thing but just said grammatically differently.

    I mean, it seems like logic was applied, and at face value it makes sense...

    But take that a little further - What would you prefer (for the thing that I assume has nothing to do with you, unless you have been recently died from the FA??)

    Some random made up word? hfthvdsrhvcsa? Something so obscurely neutral that it would require explanation at every turn (therefore defeating the point)? And then some other bunch if randomers would be on some other forum with all the mock outrage that some ignoramus got fired because he didn't understand what hfthvdsrhvcsa meant..


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,943 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Yeah but that requires a child’s level of understanding of the meaning attached to words. Words are all arbitrary but they are assigned meanings, and then it takes just a small bit more understanding to know that meanings can drift over time. Some words like “nice” have had a dozen distinct meanings over time. The word nice started it’s journey through English meaning stupid or foolish. On its travels it dropped the meaning foolish and took on the meaning particularly or finicky. Then it dropped that meaning and took on its current meaning of agreeable.

    Words change meaning that’s not the problem. It’s only a problem for you if you dislike the meaning behind the change. And the meaning behind the change from coloured to POC is a demonstration that POC have influence over the language now. They have the power to change the meaning of a term.

    In other words the thing that annoys you about the term changing meaning is that POC have gained the power to do it.
    If that weren’t the case then you’d be equally opposed to the changes to the meaning of the word “nice”.


    I agree with you about the terms having different connotations, hence the change from “coloured” to “people of colour”, but I don’t agree with the idea that it was because people who are not white had anything to do with the change in terminology. It has more to do with academia and advocacy groups which are, well... white!

    The idea of “people of colour” basically evolved from people-first language. One of the more interesting examples I came across lately was from another thread on here actually, which used the terms “ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people” in the tweet publicising the panel discussion, but if you actually go and watch the panel discussion here, it’s mainly concerned with comparing the outcomes for black women and white women, and those are the terms they use throughout their presentations, with only one of the presenters referring to “pregnant and birthing people” in her speech, but not in her slides.

    Can you guess which of the women below it was?


    https://twitter.com/harvardmed_cme/status/1325483984604831744


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Yeah but that requires a child’s level of understanding of the meaning attached to words. Words are all arbitrary but they are assigned meanings, and then it takes just a small bit more understanding to know that meanings can drift over time. Some words like “nice” have had a dozen distinct meanings over time. The word nice started it’s journey through English meaning stupid or foolish. On its travels it dropped the meaning foolish and took on the meaning particularly or finicky. Then it dropped that meaning and took on its current meaning of agreeable.

    Words change meaning that’s not the problem. It’s only a problem for you if you dislike the meaning behind the change. And the meaning behind the change from coloured to POC is a demonstration that POC have influence over the language now. They have the power to change the meaning of a term.

    In other words the thing that annoys you about the term changing meaning is that POC have gained the power to do it. If that weren’t the case then you’d be equally opposed to the changes to the meaning of the word “nice”.

    I dislike it because it doesn't sound right and it's a bit of a mouthful. It sounds like one is afflicted with something, and according to OEJ this people-first style of language was developed precisely to take the focus away from something negative. So the term is even more ill conceived than I though it was. Thanks for pointing that out OEJ.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭Eleven Benevolent Elephants


    As it’s only ever used when paternity is questioned, what would be the point?

    I just told you. It removes discretion.

    If a woman has two or more regular sexual partners and refuses to allow a paternity test, who will be named as the father?

    It's easier to make it mandatory for all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    I just told you. It removes discretion.

    If a woman has two or more regular sexual partners and refuses to allow a paternity test, who will be named as the father?

    It's easier to make it mandatory for all.

    In a weird way, I think even the prospect of mandatory paternity testing would scare a lot of women. A midwife once remarked to me that if a woman is 35 or older having her first child theres a massive chance that kid will be born in september , celebrating a bit too much over the christmas and newyears period....not always with the partner


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,943 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I dislike it because it doesn't sound right and it's a bit of a mouthful. It sounds like one is afflicted with something, and according to OEJ this people-first style of language was developed precisely to take the focus away from something negative. So the term is even more ill conceived than I though it was. Thanks for pointing that out OEJ.


    I wouldn’t ever use it myself because it’s straight-up the very definition of racism -


    Many critics, both whites and non-whites, of the term object to its lack of specificity and find the phrase racially offensive. It has been argued that the term lessens the focus on individual issues facing different racial and ethnic groups. Preserving "whiteness" as an in-tact category while lumping every other racial group into an indiscriminate category ("of color") can replicate the very marginalization the term was intended to counter. Several people, whites and non-whites alike, have compared it to the terms "colored" and "negro".


    Person of colour


    And as for “BAME” used in UK academic circles, well that’s just as bad -


    'Don't call me BAME': Why some people are rejecting the term


Advertisement