WHAT kind of "PHOBE" are you?

[righteousdude2]

Just today, CTB used a term I had never heard before .... NegroPHOBE!

Of course, we all know what a homoPHOBE is.

Does that mean if we are agin all the fence jumping illegals, we are illegaPHOBES?

Maybe the dems will coin this next one for the upcoming elections? ObamaPHOBE?

And for those who think, white cops are all shoot first, ask questions later types, this one is right up the alley .... cop-a-PHOBE?

Or for those that think, the white race is elitist, .... there is honkiPHOBE or crackaPHOBE?

And here on the BAPTIST Board, we should have forums specifically designed for, let's say, calvinPHOBES, or freewillPHOBES, or even primaPHOBES?

As you can see, from my cynicism, there is a great many terms waiting to be born when it comes to "PHOBIAS!"

So, I ask this in jest, of course .... what kind of PHOBE are, or do you see yourself as being?

 

[Zaac]

 

[carpro]

Just today, CTB used a term I had never heard before .... NegroPHOBE!

Absolutely not allowed. :BangHead: The use of the word negro is racist. CTB should know better.

It has to be blackphobe or african-american phobe.

 

[righteousdude2]

Absolutely not allowed. :BangHead: The use of the word negro is racist. CTB should know better.

It has to be blackphobe or african-american phobe.

I thought that too, and then I looked the term up, and there it was in black and white, and as much as I agree with you, and understood those who jumped on me and why they jumped, CTB was well within his rights!

 

[JonC]

I suppose I'm an idiot-phobe. I'm afraid of their "contributions" to society and the infectious nature of their ideologies.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I think I'm a phoby-phobe.......for now......

 

[righteousdude2]

Fair's fair ...

I guess I'm a phonyPHOBE ....tired of the phonies pretending to be believers. Maybe that is more a cynicPHOBE:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose I'm an idiot-phobe. I'm afraid of their "contributions" to society and the infectious nature of their ideologies.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[InTheLight]

I'm a StupidPoll-Phobe.

 

[poncho]

Donutphobe. Yep definitely a donutphobe.

 

[Alcott]

Absolutely not allowed. :BangHead: The use of the word negro is racist.

Martin Luther King was a racist? He used that word plenty.

 

[carpro]

Martin Luther King was a racist? He used that word plenty.

Yep. But political correctness wasn't in vogue back then.


Other examples of not being politically correct:

(1950s)“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this – we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Lyndon Johnson

(1965) President Johnson … informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them n___ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

 

[Zaac]

Yep. But political correctness wasn't in vogue back then.


Other examples of not being politically correct:




Lyndon Johnson

I don't think this is an issue of political correctness. It's more about common decency and a modicum of respect considering the past wrongs associated with a term some believe was coined to marginalize black people.

 

[JonC]

I don't think this is an issue of political correctness. It's more about common decency and a modicum of respect considering the past wrongs associated with a term some believe was coined to marginalize black people.

The problem is not the word (which is a legitimate descriptive word of a physical characteristic). The problem is its association in the past (and, of course, the word is dated due to racial sensitivities). Caucasian (or Caucasoid) is also not a “racist” word…although it is descriptive.

The racism comes in when one determines that another has racist tendencies for the mere use of such words (they ascribe a motive behind the use of a word which may or may not exist). I suppose that sensitivity towards “Negro,” “Caucasoid,” etc. is also a form of racism as well (automatically assigning a racial motive to another person). Of course, some do use these physically descriptive words to denote characteristics beyond what is implied merely by the word itself. But the words, while outdated, are not “racist” apart from any other context. Given our past and present racial environment, however, a context is often assumed. BTW, many in my area consider "black" a racial slur and prefer "African American" while others consider "African-American" offensive (less than American). I doubt you had racist motives by using the term "black people." In my son's school they will say "brown skinned" or light colored (for "white people") in order to describe skin tone without being offensive....people are too easily offended.

 

[righteousdude2]

The problem is not the word (which is a legitimate descriptive word of a physical characteristic). The problem is its association in the past (and, of course, the word is dated due to racial sensitivities). Caucasian (or Caucasoid) is also not a “racist” word…although it is descriptive.

The racism comes in when one determines that another has racist tendencies for the mere use of such words (they ascribe a motive behind the use of a word which may or may not exist). I suppose that sensitivity towards “Negro,” “Caucasoid,” etc. is also a form of racism as well (automatically assigning a racial motive to another person). Of course, some do use these physically descriptive words to denote characteristics beyond what is implied merely by the word itself. But the words, while outdated, are not “racist” apart from any other context. Given our past and present racial environment, however, a context is often assumed. BTW, many in my area consider "black" a racial slur and prefer "African American" while others consider "African-American" offensive (less than American). I doubt you had racist motives by using the term "black people." In my son's school they will say "brown skinned" or light colored (for "white people") in order to describe skin tone without being offensive....people are too easily offended.

I agree. I have a hard time referring to a black as a "black!" It is determined, the term we use, according to age, culture, upbringing and even geography. The only racist term I see as bad is the "N" word. Great point brother. You hit it out of the park ... a walk off homer for sure :wavey:

 

[church mouse guy]

Did you mention Liberalphobia? I have a fear of liberals and seek to be far away from them.

 

[Zaac]

The problem is not the word (which is a legitimate descriptive word of a physical characteristic). The problem is its association in the past (and, of course, the word is dated due to racial sensitivities). Caucasian (or Caucasoid) is also not a “racist” word…although it is descriptive.

I would have to partially disagree. There is indeed a problem with the word. You've got generations of people who may not know the full history behind how the words came to be popularized, but they still object to being called the word.

If a white person calls a black person the "N" word, neither one of them is responding to what's associated with the word. The white person is using it as an insult and the black person takes it as an insult.

The term Negro, today, carries a lot of the same connotations of being insulting and disrespectful.

The racism comes in when one determines that another has racist tendencies for the mere use of such words (they ascribe a motive behind the use of a word which may or may not exist). I suppose that sensitivity towards “Negro,” “Caucasoid,” etc. is also a form of racism as well (automatically assigning a racial motive to another person). Of course, some do use these physically descriptive words to denote characteristics beyond what is implied merely by the word itself. But the words, while outdated, are not “racist” apart from any other context. Given our past and present racial environment, however, a context is often assumed. BTW, many in my area consider "black" a racial slur and prefer "African American" while others consider "African-American" offensive (less than American). I doubt you had racist motives by using the term "black people." In my son's school they will say "brown skinned" or light colored (for "white people") in order to describe skin tone without being offensive....people are too easily offended.

Nobody said the term was an identifier of racism or that the term itself is racist.

 

[JonC]

I would have to partially disagree. There is indeed a problem with the word. You've got generations of people who may not know the full history behind how the words came to be popularized, but they still object to being called the word.

If a white person calls a black person the "N" word, neither one of them is responding to what's associated with the word. The white person is using it as an insult and the black person takes it as an insult.

If you are referring to the "N" word I am assuming you to indicate, then it does carry a personal connotation that relates to the person's character (even when used in terms of its proper definition). So I can see how it would be offensive.

But you are right that there is a history behind the popularization of words (although not all uses are in terms of that popularization). It is offensive to some on the same level that "homo$exual" is offensive to another group. It's a perceived context.

 

[church mouse guy]

What about UNCF?

 

[Zaac]

What about UNCF?

Or perhaps the NAACP?

There is a marked difference between the use of an historical name and the use of a term to insult or belittle.

Calling someone the "N" word or a Negro in 2014 in the United States is as insulting as George Jefferson referring to Tom Willis as a "honkey" or Archie Bunker calling someone a "spic" or a "spade".