2020 US Presidential election

[jamescfm]

.

[Augustus Germanus]

Thank you for the response. As I said I won't be taking sides on this, mainly because I do not know the full extent of the two sides, and this is since I am a non-american. What bugs me is to accuse the other side of being delusional just because they have a differing opinion, and this might be because many are not as well researched as others and therefore the extent of their knowledge concerning the issue around white supremacy and Trump are not enough for them to understand or come to the same conclusion as the other, that's why each side should bring arguments they can support with facts instead of calling names. Calling someone a white supremacist and expecting everyone to simply agree will generate opposition to the accusation. Therefore both sides must ALWAYS explain their arguments and accusations so to try to enlighten eachother, no matter the what content you are arguing about.

I simply want an end to name calling and to preserve civil debate, not to argue for one side or another because frankly this debate does not concern me.

Thank you.

[jamescfm]

.

[Augustus Germanus]

Your appeal for "civil debate" falls on deaf ears for me, it reminds me of the familiar comparison of playing chess with a pigeon. If you are genuine in your appeal though then I would suggest a starting point might be for you to apologise for using an offensive racial slur.

I had to actually look up a list of ethnic slurs to understand what you meant, and you mean that I used the term "colored" right? As someone who does not fully master the English language, I do apologize for using this word and I have changed it in my previous post. As a man who exhibits so-called "colored" (that is sand brown) skin myself amid most of my fellow countrymen I actually did not realize that using this term was offensive as I have had no problem with it myself. Anyways I deeply apologize for using it and I will be more careful next time.

[John Cracker]

Your appeal for "civil debate" falls on deaf ears for me, it reminds me of the familiar comparison of playing chess with a pigeon. If you are genuine in your appeal though then I would suggest a starting point might be for you to apologise for using an offensive racial slur.

I had to actually look up a list of ethnic slurs to understand what you meant, and you mean that I used the term "colored" right? As someone who does not fully master the English language, I do apologize for using this word and I have changed it in my previous post. As a man who exhibits so-called "colored" (that is sand brown) skin myself amid most of my fellow countrymen I actually did not realize that using this term was offensive as I have had no problem with it myself. Anyways I deeply apologize for using it and I will be more careful next time.

Don't apologies, using the term colored is not offensive, both sides use it all the time to refer to minorities, its just a descriptive word, just like the term black, white, asian, indian ect, honestly its hard to not offend someone these days, so I just say what I am going to say, I don't try to offend people, but I don't go out of my way to use "correct" terms.

[DueWizard70]

Your appeal for "civil debate" falls on deaf ears for me, it reminds me of the familiar comparison of playing chess with a pigeon. If you are genuine in your appeal though then I would suggest a starting point might be for you to apologise for using an offensive racial slur.

I had to actually look up a list of ethnic slurs to understand what you meant, and you mean that I used the term "colored" right? As someone who does not fully master the English language, I do apologize for using this word and I have changed it in my previous post. As a man who exhibits so-called "colored" (that is sand brown) skin myself amid most of my fellow countrymen I actually did not realize that using this term was offensive as I have had no problem with it myself. Anyways I deeply apologize for using it and I will be more careful next time.

Don't apologies, using the term colored is not offensive, both sides use it all the time to refer to minorities, its just a descriptive word, just like the term black, white, asian, indian ect, honestly its hard to not offend someone these days, so I just say what I am going to say, I don't try to offend people, but I don't go out of my way to use "correct" terms.

I would say that the term "colored" IS offensive. This is because back in the say when segregation was still a thing (in a way it still is but I'm not getting into that) "colored" was used to refer to places that only African-Americans could use. That's why it is offensive. The fact that both sides use it does not mean that it is a good thing to say.

I don't try to offend people, but I don't go out of my way to use "correct" terms.

Not going out of your way to use "correct" terms is, in fact, offensive.

[ChitinKal]

I never really understood the difference between "colored person" and "person of color." They both sound similar and no doubt have the same origin, but apparently one is offensive and the other isn't? tbh I personally try to avoid both, as to my knowledge they both have roots in Jim Crow (non-white works just fine as a descriptor if you have to refer to people not of European descent), but you really can't fault people for not knowing the difference, especially if they're not familiar with American politics and history, or if English isn't they're native language (Like our friend here Augustus, who iirc is Swedish). James with respect, I really think you're being a bit zealous in this case and you're assuming the worst of Augustus, who if I understand correctly isn't even trying to take sides in this debate.

Don't apologies, using the term colored is not offensive, both sides use it all the time to refer to minorities, its just a descriptive word, just like the term black, white, asian, indian ect, honestly its hard to not offend someone these days, so I just say what I am going to say, I don't try to offend people, but I don't go out of my way to use "correct" terms.

There's nothing wrong with apologizing is something you say means offense to someone, even if you didn't know what you said would be offensive or don't believe in its offensive nature. It's just being polite and decent to apologize if you've mistakenly offended someone.

Not going out of your way to use "correct" terms is, in fact, offensive.

I'm a bit on the fence with this comment. I do believe (as I stated earlier in this post) that it is decent to refer to people using the descriptors they prefer (like using preferred pronouns), but who decides what terms are "correct," and what does "correct" even mean? Are we just referring to the people themselves choosing how they are to be referred to, or is there some higher power that decides what is and isn't "correct?" I'm honestly just irked by the prospect of being compelled to use terms that are arbitrarily deemed "correct" by people that are not me.

An after thought I've had after finishing this: If we are to refer to people with only with terms they deem to be inoffensive or correct, than to what extent? For example, if a Nazi who is open about his anti-semitism and wish for an omni-present German ethnostate, are we to refer to him as a "center-right nationalist" because that's what he deems correct and avoid the term "fascist" because he claims it to be offensive? I know I've been throwing out rhetorical questions like Sir Arthur Harris throws incendiary bombs at Germany, but this convo and my thoughts while writing this post put this question in my head: Are we to allow the thoughts and beliefs of others and wider society control our speech, or is our speech to be controlled by our own thoughts and beliefs and run the risk of offending others?

Sorry for this getting pretty nonsensical near the end, just felt like sharing my thinking. And please, if someone who uses the term "person of color" would like to clarify the difference between in and "colored person," I'd love to hear.

[jamescfm]

.

[DueWizard70]

I'm a bit on the fence with this comment. I do believe (as I stated earlier in this post) that it is decent to refer to people using the descriptors they prefer (like using preferred pronouns), but who decides what terms are "correct," and what does "correct" even mean? Are we just referring to the people themselves choosing how they are to be referred to, or is there some higher power that decides what is and isn't "correct?" I'm honestly just irked by the prospect of being compelled to use terms that are arbitrarily deemed "correct" by people that are not me.

The way I think about it has 2 parts.
The first one is that the person, or group of people, should tell you what is correct. After all, they are the ones who are affected by it, and so they know what is appropriate. And we have to respect that.
The second is does it harm anyone. Denying that someone is a Nazi or a white supremacist is clearly hurting large groups of people. But using the appropriate terms when referring to people of colour or people's pronouns or whatever is not only not hurting anyone, but helping them feel better.

Idk that's just the way I see it.

[John Cracker]

I would say that the term "colored" IS offensive. This is because back in the say when segregation was still a thing (in a way it still is but I'm not getting into that) "colored" was used to refer to places that only African-Americans could use. That's why it is offensive. The fact that both sides use it does not mean that it is a good thing to say.

To my recollection Kamala Harris said she was the only person of color on the debate stage (primary), I do understand why some people could be offended by it, but when people use it now-days they almost never using it to refer to segregation. Personally I don't generally use the term colored or people of color, I just say black, white, asian ect.

Not going out of your way to use "correct" terms is, in fact, offensive.

Well i'm an offensive deplorable then.