Appropriateness of posts

[Chris]

On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 at 07:51:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

> But "black" and "white" are less clear. Ever since the US civil 
> rights movement, "colored" has become accepted as a term that 
> "you just don't say" (despite still being used as the "C" in 
> the NAACP, confusingly enough). So "black" was used to replace 
> it. But then for some reason I'm completely ignorant of, many 
> people started considering "black" to be taboo too, and started 
> insisting people say "African American", which I find rather 
> goofy since not everyone of that apperently-unnameable 
> ethnicity is American at all.

Nor is everyone who is "African" "black" in the sense outlined 
above (cf. Northern Africa). The problem is that as long as a 
group is discriminated against (overtly or covertly), it doesn't 
matter what new name you make up in order to sound less 
offensive, it will soon be perceived as derogatory. That's why 
you have negro > colored > black > African American. It only 
shows that discrimination has never really stopped.

[...]
> even though "white" is still used all the time anyway and I've 
> never seen anyone get offended.

QED. "white" has no negative connotations simply because the 
majority of people are white. The thing is as long there is 
racism and discrimination against minorities (be it ethnicity or 
sexual orientation or religion), people will always feel uneasy 
about it and it will always result in twisted minds (political 
correctness is a symptom, and proof, of the madness of racism and 
discrimination). There is no way out _within_ this framework 
(that's why pc has failed), the only way out is to leave the 
framework. Yes, we are all jackasses!