Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Identity names: who is right?

Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:10 pm

So...here's another topic of conversation since it's the year of political correctness. When a group of people collectively call themselves something, that's what we start calling them. As a stupid example: we call ourselves a.netters because this is where we all come together (no matter the politics or background, we share a common interest and this is where we do what we do). But let's say that someone not from a.net says the term is insulting because netter sounds like nutter which is "insensitive" to people with mental problems, and prefers that we call ourselves by another name. Or let's say that someone inside a.net isn't really fond of a.netter and prefers another name. Who is right?

Let me bring up the real world example.

A friend of mine was discussing the recent SCOTUS ruling that eastern OK is now considered tribal land. The shared post said that it's Indian land, but she crossed out Indian and overwrote "Native American". I asked why. While I also use "Native American", I have come to learn that it suffers from "overinclusivity", meaning that it groups people from various regions. People descending from Eskimos, Mayans, Incas, etc. would all be included under this term and while all are native to the Americas (hence, Native Americans), there's still the need to collectively refer to the tribes in the lower 48 by a name...and Indian seems to be the name we're told to use (American Indian is also seen as an option). To put it in perspective, African American is an example of overinclusivity: it groups many people of Africa who may not even resemble one another (compare an Egyptian with a Nigerian and a white South African; nonetheless, they're all Africans), while also excluding Black people from the Caribbean. So to refer to people with dark skin tones, we use "Black": it's short, concise, and we know who we refer to.

<sidenote>When I learned about the first peoples, when I was in school, I was taught that the reason they're called "Indians" was because the European powers were looking for ways to get to India without traveling over land. Columbus in particular thought that sailing west, he would eventually arrive in India and it could be a faster way to conduct trading than over land. At the time, they didn't know this was new land so that why the natives were initially called "Indians". In Puerto Rico, we have a loophole for this. The first peoples of the New World are called "indígenas" (indigenous) or "indios X" (where X is the tribe...indios taínos, indios mayas, indios aztecas, etc.), unless we're talking about just a particular tribe in which case we refer to the tribe name (taíno, caribe, mayas, etc.). The demonym for India is "hindú" (Hindi). Technically though, it IS OK to call them "indio" (Indian), and it's gaining acceptance in the Spanish world, but both are used interchangeably. <end sidenote>

Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it, that they do not believe that the tribes in the US should use "Indian". I countered that while that's an acceptable feeling for an Indian, what is truth here? Are Native Americans OK with the term "Indian" for themselves too? Do they prefer it? She said that in her experience her Native American friends did not like it, and also pointed me to a blog post written by a Lakota who despised it and pleaded to be called Native American instead. I said that because there's no consensus, I can't choose one way or another. I can't try to please all sides at once. I asked her what if another Lakota wrote an article saying that they prefer Indian rather than Native American. I also used myself an example: I HATE the term Latinx. I will not give anyone permission to call me as such and will correct them on the spot (and if they insist on gender neutral pronouns, then call me Latin American). But if someone else likes the term for themselves, then who is right? Who determines how she should call us?

Well, as it happens with these conversations, she accused me of having a racial overtone towards Native Americans and that I need to look deep within myself. I haven't replied to her messages yet, but I just can't understand why I need to pick a side in a discussion when there's no universal agreement. I don't feel strongly to either choice, but I'm not gonna pick a side just because I'm told by someone not affected by it. And before we get into that, there's a difference between knowing something is very wrong vs where people are still unsure. If a White person calls me out on having made a clearly racist remark (something like "Blacks are all lazy"), that's different from saying "my friend doesn't like it so you're wrong and you must stop".

There are a few questions we must ask, then.

1. What's the point of having discussions like these when there's no right answer but people want to pretend there IS one and if you do not accept it you're wrong? How are people supposed to argue why they think the way they do when they're immediately shot down? Calling someone a racist (or insinuating that they are) not only diminishes the impact of the word, it completely shuts down any reason for people to talk. It's acceptable to point out that a line of thought is not right, but to call someone who is opening up and may be having a moment of reckoning racist? What incentive is there to go down the path then?
2. What do we do when there is no truth accepted? Why should I immediately accept calling people from the tribes "Native Americans" without knowing if that's how they all feel collectively? The term "Indian" may have been pushed onto them and they may have accepted it without a choice...but if for every Native American that complains about calling them "Indian" I can find another that tells me it's OK to call them Indian, then who is right? What is truth here? If there are any members here officially linked to a tribe, please feel free to chime in and tell us your point of view. Individual cases are OK, but they become like passwords: eventually it's hard to keep track of all because everyone has unique situations (and with fragility how it is today, one wrong step and you can kiss your life goodbye).
3. What does this mean for identities? What does it mean when the people affected by it are not in agreement about any potential new names but it's still thrust onto them? Should they go away and just use a universal term that will suffer from overinclusivity as well? "Human" apparently is the only term I can think of that would be acceptable: no gender, no race, no sexual preference, no religion, no culture, no country, no background. It is truth (unless we now have to appease people who don't identify as humans) and no matter what you do or how you behave, you never stop being one.

For the record: I'm not deadset in my ways. And if someone affected feels strongly by this, I have no problem appeasing them. But I won't let someone who's not affected try to sway me into how I should address everyone else when I can find someone who IS affected and doesn't mind or even prefers it (again, refer to my post of a White person telling me, a Latino, to use Latinx). This is not to dissuade a Native American member from explaining why I'm wrong, but rather to avoid having non-Native Americans from speaking on behalf of Native Americans: your bubble may not be representative of the overall environment.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:29 pm

Generally, the widely accepted majority is what will be best here. All words get stretched to the point of being meaningless if we go far enough back. So, whatever the most of a group of people want to be called, that is it.


einsteinboricua wrote:
While I also use "Native American", I have come to learn that it suffers from "overinclusivity", meaning that it groups people from various regions. People descending from Eskimos, Mayans, Incas, etc. would all be included under this term and while all are native to the Americas (hence, Native Americans), there's still the need to collectively refer to the tribes in the lower 48 by a name...and Indian seems to be the name we're told to use (American Indian is also seen as an option).


Indeed. Experience has taught me that Indian is the best use when describing Native Americans, at least among the most of them. So, that is the one to go with.





einsteinboricua wrote:
Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it,


They need to deal. I am offended by the Caste System. We do not all get what we want.




einsteinboricua wrote:
I HATE the term Latinx. I will not give anyone permission to call me as such and will correct them on the spot (and if they insist on gender neutral pronouns, then call me Latin American).


Good. It has a terrible sound. I do not have a right answer in terms of what people should be called, or what the majority in this case wants —especially considering how varied that is when talking about Latin Americans. But I would not be bothered if something less childish sounding came up.


einsteinboricua wrote:
And before we get into that, there's a difference between knowing something is very wrong vs where people are still unsure. If a White person calls me out on having made a clearly racist remark (something like "Blacks are all lazy"), that's different from saying "my friend doesn't like it so you're wrong and you must stop".


True. These are somewhat early days, believe it or not, when it comes to standards and practices. Well intentioned people will make mistakes, and those are not the allies needing to be driven off by overstressing banalities.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:23 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
So...here's another topic of conversation since it's the year of political correctness. When a group of people collectively call themselves something, that's what we start calling them. As a stupid example: we call ourselves a.netters because this is where we all come together (no matter the politics or background, we share a common interest and this is where we do what we do). But let's say that someone not from a.net says the term is insulting because netter sounds like nutter which is "insensitive" to people with mental problems, and prefers that we call ourselves by another name. Or let's say that someone inside a.net isn't really fond of a.netter and prefers another name. Who is right?

Let me bring up the real world example.

A friend of mine was discussing the recent SCOTUS ruling that eastern OK is now considered tribal land. The shared post said that it's Indian land, but she crossed out Indian and overwrote "Native American". I asked why. While I also use "Native American", I have come to learn that it suffers from "overinclusivity", meaning that it groups people from various regions. People descending from Eskimos, Mayans, Incas, etc. would all be included under this term and while all are native to the Americas (hence, Native Americans), there's still the need to collectively refer to the tribes in the lower 48 by a name...and Indian seems to be the name we're told to use (American Indian is also seen as an option). To put it in perspective, African American is an example of overinclusivity: it groups many people of Africa who may not even resemble one another (compare an Egyptian with a Nigerian and a white South African; nonetheless, they're all Africans), while also excluding Black people from the Caribbean. So to refer to people with dark skin tones, we use "Black": it's short, concise, and we know who we refer to.

<sidenote>When I learned about the first peoples, when I was in school, I was taught that the reason they're called "Indians" was because the European powers were looking for ways to get to India without traveling over land. Columbus in particular thought that sailing west, he would eventually arrive in India and it could be a faster way to conduct trading than over land. At the time, they didn't know this was new land so that why the natives were initially called "Indians". In Puerto Rico, we have a loophole for this. The first peoples of the New World are called "indígenas" (indigenous) or "indios X" (where X is the tribe...indios taínos, indios mayas, indios aztecas, etc.), unless we're talking about just a particular tribe in which case we refer to the tribe name (taíno, caribe, mayas, etc.). The demonym for India is "hindú" (Hindi). Technically though, it IS OK to call them "indio" (Indian), and it's gaining acceptance in the Spanish world, but both are used interchangeably. <end sidenote>

Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it, that they do not believe that the tribes in the US should use "Indian". I countered that while that's an acceptable feeling for an Indian, what is truth here? Are Native Americans OK with the term "Indian" for themselves too? Do they prefer it? She said that in her experience her Native American friends did not like it, and also pointed me to a blog post written by a Lakota who despised it and pleaded to be called Native American instead. I said that because there's no consensus, I can't choose one way or another. I can't try to please all sides at once. I asked her what if another Lakota wrote an article saying that they prefer Indian rather than Native American. I also used myself an example: I HATE the term Latinx. I will not give anyone permission to call me as such and will correct them on the spot (and if they insist on gender neutral pronouns, then call me Latin American). But if someone else likes the term for themselves, then who is right? Who determines how she should call us?

Well, as it happens with these conversations, she accused me of having a racial overtone towards Native Americans and that I need to look deep within myself. I haven't replied to her messages yet, but I just can't understand why I need to pick a side in a discussion when there's no universal agreement. I don't feel strongly to either choice, but I'm not gonna pick a side just because I'm told by someone not affected by it. And before we get into that, there's a difference between knowing something is very wrong vs where people are still unsure. If a White person calls me out on having made a clearly racist remark (something like "Blacks are all lazy"), that's different from saying "my friend doesn't like it so you're wrong and you must stop".

There are a few questions we must ask, then.

1. What's the point of having discussions like these when there's no right answer but people want to pretend there IS one and if you do not accept it you're wrong? How are people supposed to argue why they think the way they do when they're immediately shot down? Calling someone a racist (or insinuating that they are) not only diminishes the impact of the word, it completely shuts down any reason for people to talk. It's acceptable to point out that a line of thought is not right, but to call someone who is opening up and may be having a moment of reckoning racist? What incentive is there to go down the path then?
2. What do we do when there is no truth accepted? Why should I immediately accept calling people from the tribes "Native Americans" without knowing if that's how they all feel collectively? The term "Indian" may have been pushed onto them and they may have accepted it without a choice...but if for every Native American that complains about calling them "Indian" I can find another that tells me it's OK to call them Indian, then who is right? What is truth here? If there are any members here officially linked to a tribe, please feel free to chime in and tell us your point of view. Individual cases are OK, but they become like passwords: eventually it's hard to keep track of all because everyone has unique situations (and with fragility how it is today, one wrong step and you can kiss your life goodbye).
3. What does this mean for identities? What does it mean when the people affected by it are not in agreement about any potential new names but it's still thrust onto them? Should they go away and just use a universal term that will suffer from overinclusivity as well? "Human" apparently is the only term I can think of that would be acceptable: no gender, no race, no sexual preference, no religion, no culture, no country, no background. It is truth (unless we now have to appease people who don't identify as humans) and no matter what you do or how you behave, you never stop being one.

For the record: I'm not deadset in my ways. And if someone affected feels strongly by this, I have no problem appeasing them. But I won't let someone who's not affected try to sway me into how I should address everyone else when I can find someone who IS affected and doesn't mind or even prefers it (again, refer to my post of a White person telling me, a Latino, to use Latinx). This is not to dissuade a Native American member from explaining why I'm wrong, but rather to avoid having non-Native Americans from speaking on behalf of Native Americans: your bubble may not be representative of the overall environment.


Working in HR, I’m sick of these discussions because they go nowhere. People can call themselves whatever they want - at the end of the day, people are just people. It really doesn’t matter.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8024
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:37 am

Aaron747 wrote:
Working in HR, I’m sick of these discussions because they go nowhere. People can call themselves whatever they want - at the end of the day, people are just people. It really doesn’t matter.


Exactly.

Unfortunately, the folks that take on these arguments usually have some agenda of divisiveness, not exclusivity.

I was born in Greece, and am a citizen of the United States of America. So, am I Greek? Am I a Greek-American? Am I an American of Greek descent? Am I an American? Which is the SJW approved, politically correct term to describe my heritage? Which cubby-hole am I to be placed into? Does that change after we add that I'm an agnostic, white, middle-aged, straight male? A new, smaller cubby-hole?

Where does it end?
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:50 am

fr8mech wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Working in HR, I’m sick of these discussions because they go nowhere. People can call themselves whatever they want - at the end of the day, people are just people. It really doesn’t matter.


Exactly.

Unfortunately, the folks that take on these arguments usually have some agenda of divisiveness, not exclusivity.

I was born in Greece, and am a citizen of the United States of America. So, am I Greek? Am I a Greek-American? Am I an American of Greek descent? Am I an American? Which is the SJW approved, politically correct term to describe my heritage? Which cubby-hole am I to be placed into? Does that change after we add that I'm an agnostic, white, middle-aged, straight male? A new, smaller cubby-hole?

Where does it end?

See, and this is what I'm trying to get to.

If others in your situation cannot agree on whether they are just Greeks or Greek Americans or Americans, how can someone come up and tell me that I'm wrong if I choose to refer to them as Greek Americans, especially a non-Greek American?

I think the intent is a good one, but there's like a scorched earth policy where the world is binary and if you're not for one option (the SJW option), then you're in the other, evil option.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8024
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:00 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
I think the intent is a good one, but there's like a scorched earth policy where the world is binary and if you're not for one option (the SJW option), then you're in the other, evil option.


My opinion: we ignore, or at least set aside, these distinctions and look more towards actions. If I'm an asshole, then I'm an asshole...not an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX asshole.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22324
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:39 am

Many years ago, I worked at a restaurant. One of our co-workers was from the Sioux nation and would work with us over the winters and go to her nation during the summer to learn her history. Us White guys called each other "chief" all the time. She was really upset about this and asked us to stop. In my mind, I was thinking of a police or fire chief. But, I got it and stopped.

There are much more terrifying and community oriented mascots. Bears, lions, pirates, jets, artichokes, banana slugs.... Seattle is even considering kracken for their NHL team. The brosband and I still giggle over "Roughriders" in the CFL. Part of me thinks "these groups are telling another group they are fierce and will not back down" but part of me thinks "these groups are telling another group they are less than human". I lean more towards this is the 21st century and we can do better.

I designed a logo and colors for Anaheim's NHL team before Disney got their fingers all over them. It could work for any sport franchise. I have a couple of logo/name combinations on paper. hint hint.........
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13040
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:20 pm

In France we don't do ethnic statistics/census, as it's illegal. We dodged a few bullets that way.

About African American, I see a bigger problem with it than Caribbean immigrants : African immigrants. As in people who immigrated willfully, compared to people brought to the US as slaves (which is also what happened to Caribbean Blacks...).

Now if we played these games in France, I would be utterly screwed. My grandparents were born in what are today 4 countries, on 3 continents. My paternal grandmother was born in metropolitan France, my paternal grandfather was born in French Indochina (Vietnam), my maternal grandfather was born in Italy, and, wait for it, my maternal grandmother was born in Tunisia, in the Italian enclave of the French protectorate !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:08 pm

People can call me whatever they want. Person, clown, whatever.

The US norms are idiotic. In a lot of ways, we are yearning for a pre-1950s segregated society that is totally based on race. I have no respect for that. I have no expectation that people need to "recognize" my race or others. This is all a mental disease, and I don't suffer from it. It doesn't incapacitate me. It doesn't own me. I just get on with my work. I would date people of any race and to some extent I have done so (I have tried lol). Mainstream US culture means what, 90s romantic comedies? The TV show Friends?

I don't think there is a default US culture anymore. And I, for one, am glad there isn't. That's all over. It died years ago. And the cookie cutter response, meaning 1993-era diversity lectures, is utterly irrelevant now.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:28 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:

Indeed. Experience has taught me that Indian is the best use when describing Native Americans, at least among the most of them. So, that is the one to go with.


Yeah but Indian people from India pointed out to me that they need that word for their civilization. Consider their long history and their many people. Have they not earned ownership of that word? So I end up just saying Native American.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:30 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
...
Great topic, and I had quite an answer lined up, all nicely written out and checked for spelling and everything. And then I got invited to prove I wasn't a bot by clicking on pictures including traffic lights, boats, and on this occasion umbrellas.
After all that, I get this
Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.


And that was it. All my carefully chosen words were lost in cyberspace. :hissyfit:

It's late, and I'm drunk, and that's all you're getting for now. :wave:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2412
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:07 pm

Loudmouths only have power because people give it to them.
Stop pandering to the loudmouths, ignore them, and the issues will simply go away. And if the loudmouths become violent and criminal, charge them and lock them up. Problem solved.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:12 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
And that was it. All my carefully chosen words were lost in cyberspace. :hissyfit:

It's late, and I'm drunk, and that's all you're getting for now. :wave:

That's why when I post long replies, I copy everything, just in case there's a hiccup. I've been there many times.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12577
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:42 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it,



They need to deal.


Well, no, we don't just need to deal. Indian (country) and Indian-American people are allowed to have a voice too.

Long story short, I use Native American. I'm fine with changing that if need be. But being Indian-American myself, I probably won't change it to Indian. It doesn't offend me, but it does make my brain hurt. It just doesn't quite sit right with me.

I have always found it odd when Native Americans refer to themselves as Indians. I guess it surprises me that they would want to refer to themselves that way.

Aaron747 wrote:
Working in HR, I’m sick of these discussions because they go nowhere. People can call themselves whatever they want - at the end of the day, people are just people. It really doesn’t matter.


To an extent I agree, (and I know this might be going a bit off-subject) but consider that it probably matters a lot more to someone who is transitioning than it does to someone who is male or female and intends to stay that way.

When we had harassment training a few months ago, and trans people were discussed, a coworker turned to me and said, "remember when things used to be easy?" I didn't say anything at the time, but I should have said "yeah, easy for YOU".
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2368
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:31 am

Quite interestingly, most lower 48 natives prefer you use Indian, or more specifically, you say Sioux or Cherokee, not "native American".

You have to remember that all Indians are not the same, and each reservation is a different nation. That's why when you drive around in OK, many license plates say "Cherokee Nation" not just "native American reservation."
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
LOT767301ER
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:41 am

stl07 wrote:
Quite interestingly, most lower 48 natives prefer you use Indian, or more specifically, you say Sioux or Cherokee, not "native American".

You have to remember that all Indians are not the same, and each reservation is a different nation. That's why when you drive around in OK, many license plates say "Cherokee Nation" not just "native American reservation."


We all know that there are different tribes/nations of Indians. However collectively they are Indians. I don't see what the issue is, no one is confusing the Navajo with the Seminoles.
 
bennett123
Posts: 9626
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:45 am

I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are 100 gender designations.

I got lost after Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

How complex do people want to make things.

Toilets being an obvious example, you have Male and Female, who goes into which?.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:04 am

Children have it right. They ask questions about other people when they look or act different out of pure curiosity with no malice or prejudice whatsoever. Because of an inherent lack of prejudice people answer with a complete honesty.

I think we can learn a lot from how children behave, be curious, ask honest questions, accept and expect ignorance from all sides, remember that ignorance isn’t such a bad thing.

Accept that people make mistakes and help them learn by being supportive, there is also no objective right and wrong.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:43 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Children have it right. They ask questions about other people when they look or act different out of pure curiosity with no malice or prejudice whatsoever. Because of an inherent lack of prejudice people answer with a complete honesty.

Except asking seems to be a thing encouraged for children to do but not grown ups. Whenever I ask questions that deal with race or gender to a person of the race/gender, I have to preface it with an explanation that it's pure curiosity and mean no ill-intent, because in today's society, pure curiosity is punished (or at the very least, discouraged). And I wouldn't be surprised if children also stop asking because their parents raise them saying that it's rude.

bennett123 wrote:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are 100 gender designations.

Call yourself whatever you want, as long as you don't cut my head off for assuming something. If I see what looks like a man, I'll address them with male pronouns; correct me with what you want me to call you if needed.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6724
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:49 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it

And here you have the nub of the problem. Nobody has the right to NOT be offended. Why should they? I actually enjoy being offended: it can fire me up and be the basis of an interesting, frank and sometimes boisterous argument. But I would never expect anyone to use words they wouldn't want to use in case they offended me. Why should I? And why should anyone else?

bennett123 wrote:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are 100 gender designations.

I got lost after Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

How complex do people want to make things.

One of the reasons I don't identify with the LGBTQI+ :roll: movement anymore. I think it's doing gay poeple more harm than good at this stage.
 
TSS
Posts: 3658
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:05 pm

Braybuddy wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are 100 gender designations.

I got lost after Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

How complex do people want to make things.


One of the reasons I don't identify with the LGBTQI+ :roll: movement anymore. I think it's doing gay poeple more harm than good at this stage.


Hear hear! Those of us who are genuinely gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and simply wish to live our lives are being made to look bad by lookie-lous, experimenters, and trans-trenders who demand special recognition and classifications for what are, at the end of the day, fleeting moods and general curiosity but not actual long-term life states. Questioning and attempting to over-define and pidgeonhole one's sexuality has been cheapened into being the new trendy way to rebel against the establishment. The kids who would have been Goths, then Emos are now claiming to be pan-demi-non-binary-asexual, which when translated from the BS means they'll take anything they can get but aren't receiving any offers from anyone... usually due to either bad hair and fashion choices, a strong aversion to exercise, a near-total lack of social skills, or a combination of two or more of the aforementioned.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:06 am

vikkyvik wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it,



They need to deal.


Well, no, we don't just need to deal. Indian (country) and Indian-American people are allowed to have a voice too.


To the extent of telling an entire other group what to call themselves?

It is ok to have an opinion about something, but the expectation that a people cannot call themselves a thing because another unrelated party does not like that is surplus to the issue.



vikkyvik wrote:
Long story short, I use Native American. I'm fine with changing that if need be. But being Indian-American myself, I probably won't change it to Indian. It doesn't offend me, but it does make my brain hurt. It just doesn't quite sit right with me.

...


I have always found it odd when Native Americans refer to themselves as Indians. I guess it surprises me that they would want to refer to themselves that way.



It is not the most sensical thing, no. I do not fully understand why this is prefered among the American Natives, but I do get that even the term Native American has its share of linguistic baggage...


vikkyvik wrote:
When we had harassment training a few months ago, and trans people were discussed, a coworker turned to me and said, "remember when things used to be easy?" I didn't say anything at the time, but I should have said "yeah, easy for YOU".


:checkmark:

'The Good Old Days' are almost never as simple —or good— as people want them to be. And where they are, it is not that way for most.


Braybuddy wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Back to the story, my friend said that she has Indian friends (as in, from India) who are offended by it

And here you have the nub of the problem. Nobody has the right to NOT be offended. Why should they? I actually enjoy being offended: it can fire me up and be the basis of an interesting, frank and sometimes boisterous argument. But I would never expect anyone to use words they wouldn't want to use in case they offended me. Why should I? And why should anyone else?


I think we all like to sharpen our talons more than we admit.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:45 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Children have it right. They ask questions about other people when they look or act different out of pure curiosity with no malice or prejudice whatsoever. Because of an inherent lack of prejudice people answer with a complete honesty.

Except asking seems to be a thing encouraged for children to do but not grown ups. Whenever I ask questions that deal with race or gender to a person of the race/gender, I have to preface it with an explanation that it's pure curiosity and mean no ill-intent, because in today's society, pure curiosity is punished (or at the very least, discouraged). And I wouldn't be surprised if children also stop asking because their parents raise them saying that it's rude.
Yes, that’s the issue nailed. It’s an issue on all sides, as the key is education but the act of learning is discouraged by people who are afraid to ask and people who vilify when a mistake is made. More woke = more division. If I slap Tommy’s wrists when he gets a sum wrong it might make Tommy get sums right but it’s far more likely to just make Tommy just not like maths.

When someone simply gets scolded for saying a racial slur or offending someone who added to the lgbtqwerty line of letters then they just added to the line of division.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12577
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:31 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
To the extent of telling an entire other group what to call themselves?It is ok to have an opinion about something, but the expectation that a people cannot call themselves a thing because another unrelated party does not like that is surplus to the issue.


I suppose that depends. I'm sure there would be a large reaction if a lot of us darker Indians decided to refer to ourselves as Black.

My point was that we don't just "need to deal". We can add our voices to the discussion. I wouldn't consider Indians "unrelated" to the issue, given that the name came from....India.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
It is not the most sensical thing, no. I do not fully understand why this is prefered among the American Natives, but I do get that even the term Native American has its share of linguistic baggage...


To me, using the individual tribe/nation names would make the most sense. But it's not my battle to fight one way or another.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:38 pm

Braybuddy wrote:
One of the reasons I don't identify with the LGBTQI+ :roll: movement anymore. I think it's doing gay poeple more harm than good at this stage.

That's not even counting all the different subgroups within the movement. You have the zoo (bear, otter, wolf, panda, etc.), the "ethical" decisions ("ethically polyamorous"...dafuq is that?), and the keyboard (gay trans queer non-binary Class 4 vegan).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
T18
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:28 am

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:55 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
and the keyboard (gay trans queer non-binary Class 4 vegan).


Don't you need a special license endorsement for a Class 4 Vegan?

But seriously,

I think some of these super specific classings come down to a combo of gate-keeping and the everyone is special idea that has been peddled to kids the last 30 years or so. There is a point where you however are just creating such insular groups or tribes that you exclude any voices or thoughts that don't tow your exact line, which leads to the dreaded echo chambers we see all over the web these days. And of course we love to find ways to exclude others call them less of an X or a Y for Z and cancel or ostracize them for failing to meet our arbitrary standards of what a 'Real' this or that is.
“Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.” ― Steve McQueen (Le Mans) 1971
 
TSS
Posts: 3658
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:18 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
One of the reasons I don't identify with the LGBTQI+ :roll: movement anymore. I think it's doing gay people more harm than good at this stage.


That's not even counting all the different subgroups within the movement. You have the zoo (bear, otter, wolf, panda, etc.),


Ehhh... The "zoo" I'm okay with because that's mostly about physical appearance and sight unseen if someone tells you they're an "otter" then you at least have an idea of what you're dealing with and can proceed accordingly.

einsteinboricua wrote:
the "ethical" decisions ("ethically polyamorous"...dafuq is that?),


Dafuq "ethically polyamorous" is is keeping their options open because they think they can do better than you but they're not 100% sure about it. It is also known as "hedging one's bets". What's really fun is seeing just how committed to the concept someone is when, instead of getting angry or hurt at their announcement of being "ethically polyamorous", you heave a heavy sigh of relief and say "That's great because I'm pretty sure that I can do better than you, too, but I just haven't had the chance to get out there and try, but you'll do for right now".

einsteinboricua wrote:
and the keyboard (gay trans queer non-binary Class 4 vegan).


Ugh... Let me try to break that one down:

Gay= Dudes who like dudes, chicks who like chicks. :checkmark:

Trans= May not have the naughty bits you're expecting based on outward appearance. Surprises can be fun, but no-one wants to be surprised when they're about to "get down to business". Yellow Flag/Warning.

Queer= Same as "Gay", but in this context usually means extremely politically and theoretically gay but frequently with little or no practical experience of the most basic distinction of being gay. Expect the ones with decorator-colored hair who protest EVERYTHING and insist that everyone within a one mile radius of them know that they're super-duper gay at all times but who, paradoxically, often have never even kissed let alone fooled around with a guy before. Red Flag/Avoid.

Non-Binary= Not only will you not be able to tell at a glance what type of naughty bits they have, they apparently can't tell either. Red Flag/Avoid.

Vegan (Class 4 or otherwise)= They don't eat meat or even allow meat to enter their bodies. If you're a guy, what more do you need to know than that? Red Flag/Avoid.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:35 pm

TSS wrote:
Ehhh... The "zoo" I'm okay with because that's mostly about physical appearance and sight unseen if someone tells you they're an "otter" then you at least have an idea of what you're dealing with and can proceed accordingly.

The problem with the zoo is that it's based on appearance but it's also a group.

Bear for example is usually a man with lots of body hair (usually beefy too, but the term is also being applied to slimmer guys). If they're young, they're bear cubs. But there's also a group for bears (and even Bear Pride). Because I'm a hairy guy and I am not slimmed, I'm immediately grouped as a bear, despite not identifying with the Bear Culture. But alas, the need for the LGBT community to not be grouped but be grouped.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6724
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

Re: Identity names: who is right?

Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:52 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
One of the reasons I don't identify with the LGBTQI+ :roll: movement anymore. I think it's doing gay poeple more harm than good at this stage.

That's not even counting all the different subgroups within the movement. You have the zoo (bear, otter, wolf, panda, etc.), the "ethical" decisions ("ethically polyamorous"...dafuq is that?), and the keyboard (gay trans queer non-binary Class 4 vegan).

I gave up counting years ago. Though thinking about it, surely the LGBTQI+ sequence is offensive to the OCD community, given that it's not in alphabetical order? :D

TSS wrote:
Non-Binary= Not only will you not be able to tell at a glance what type of naughty bits they have, they apparently can't tell either. Red Flag/Avoid.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, seb146, TheF15Ace, tommy1808 and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos