[Open Discussions] "Negro" and "Oriental" removed from (US) Federal Laws

As far as removing the terms from Federal Laws...It's thoughtful. But, a better progression would be to combine all terms with "Human" or "Person".

As far as what's considered offensive...I don't want another race deciding what is or isn't offensive towards me. If you really care you would just ask how i would like to be adressed. I'm mindful of what "term" I call other races or ethnicities. And if someone says they find it offensive...then it's wise for me to respect that point of view. If I go against their wishes, knowing that they are offended...then I put myself in a position to be an agitator. And when you agitate someone, they react. They may react with words or violence. It's very immature to expect someone to not attack you when they let you know that you are causing agitation. Whether it's under the banner of free speech or creative license, you open yourself up for confrontation.

People are protected under the law for having the Freedom to say whatever they feel. People have the option (not protected under the law) to respond any way that they want. What you choose to say is at your own discretion.

for some reason i can't see this post on the thread. sorry for reposting it.
please delete this post. sorry.
Computer error.

Codama wrote: As far as removing the terms from Federal Laws...It's thoughtful. But, a better progression would be to combine all terms with "Human" or "Person".

As far as what's considered offensive...I don't want another race deciding what is or isn't offensive towards me. If you really care you would just ask how i would like to be adressed. I'm mindful of what "term" I call other races or ethnicities. And if someone says they find it offensive...then it's wise for me to respect that point of view. If I go against their wishes, knowing that they are offended...then I put myself in a position to be an agitator. And when you agitate someone, they react. They may react with words or violence. It's very immature to expect someone to not attack you when they let you know that you are causing agitation. Whether it's under the banner of free speech or creative license, you open yourself up for confrontation.

People are protected under the law for having the Freedom to say whatever they feel. People have the option (not protected under the law) to respond any way that they want. What you choose to say is at your own discretion.

Thank you , i thought i was the only one seeing it like this, dont treat people how you want to be treated , treat people how THEY want to be treaded , thank you for finding the words to express this

America is dividing between itself. Soon enough, you will be a burning mass of land where the blacks fight the whites and the asians fight the whites and the blacks will win. It's only a matter of time before the white race gets, unfortunately, what is gave. You get what you give. We whites have destroyed the lives of many races. Now, gradually, they will take their revenge.

What makes you think "the blacks" are out for "revenge" against "the whites"?

Why do you perceive "we whites" as any more culpable for the actions of our forebears than, say (and forgive Godwin's Law, but I feel it's absolutely relevant in this case), modern day Germans are for the actions of the Nazi party? Are young German Jews now actively persecuting young German non-Jews?

Why see everything in such racial language? We have black Jedi here, are they also out to "fight" with "we whites"?

Are we not all just people? Is it impossible that the systematic oppression of a race has taught many members of that race how awful that kind of approach to the world is?

Why are we ignoring the people of all races who say "let's stop fighting because of the colour of our skin, and move forward together"? After all... people who don't take such a racially-minded view of things are in no small part responsible for the first black president of the United States... they are a powerful force for change in the country you describe as descending into "a burning mass of land "...

Genuinely flummoxed by how ironically black and white that view is. Are you sure you're not contributing to the problem by being so ready to fan the flames of division?

Silas Mercury wrote: America is dividing between itself. Soon enough, you will be a burning mass of land where the blacks fight the whites and the asians fight the whites and the blacks will win. It's only a matter of time before the white race gets, unfortunately, what is gave. You get what you give. We whites have destroyed the lives of many races. Now, gradually, they will take their revenge.

I think it's silly to replace one racial label with a new racial label. I'm curious what Caucasian was replaced with? At any rate, if the laws are to affect everyone equally there is no real reason for any racial labels. As others have suggested, why not just people? Citizens? Etc.?

Silas Mercury, your posts get more and more entertaining. You must be just crippled with "white guilt".... The USA, a burning mass of land where the Asians and blacks exterminate the "white race". LOL The notion is absurd, but even IF it came down to that, you obviously haven't researched gun-owner or population demographics.

TZB, +1

Funnily enough I believe I made a youtube video about this when it happened during my brief stint making videos :dry:

Renny wrote: Funnily enough I believe I made a youtube video about this when it happened during my brief stint making videos :dry:

I dug it up.
I dunno if video attachments work or not granted
I was generally of the persuasion it wasn't a good idea.

This was a late response to one of Rosalyn's comments. I've been called all those same things. But..

I've never minded handicapped as much as I've detested the word cripple. One implies lacking or slow in an ability, the other seems to imply broken.

I've never minded handicapped as much as I've detested the word cripple. One implies lacking or slow in an ability, the other seems to imply broken.

Disabled means lacking ability, handicapped does not. Handicap has the most honourable origins I think. The only negative meaning it carries is the one given to it by people who perceive the handicapped as inferior. In its original application, a handicap is applied to a superior horse/player to level out the playing field.