Appropriateness of posts

[Nick Sabalausky]

On 3/18/2014 10:24 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> However, I am upset about the widespread US term "caucasian", not
> because it is a bad word, but because of the Aryan connotations that has
> some seriously bad vibes to it after 2WW and the nazi worship of
> "scandinavian genes".
>
> The term "caucasian" is incredibly bad taste, and I find it offensive. I
> cringe when I cross off "caucasian" on US papers. It is if I am forced
> to declare myself Aryan.
>

I find that interesting. This is the first I've ever heard of 
"caucasian" being even potentially offensive.

In the US, referring to an ethnicity by the name of a color is somewhat 
borderline on the offensive/inoffensive scale. And by that I mean, 
nobody really knows whether or not they should avoid saying it.

Two specific colors, "yellow" and "red", are pretty much accepted as 
"you just don't say it" because they (apparently - it was well before my 
time) had a history of being used as derogatory.

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.

So americans never know whether it's ok to say "black". And they know 
it's not ok to say "red" or "yellow" (unless you simply mean "yellow" as 
"afraid", but you better make darn sure nobody's going to misunderstand 
you, which is probably why even though "green" and "blue" are still 
occasionally used to mean "jealous" and "sad", "yellow" is no longer 
used as "afraid" unless pronounced in a clearly "Wild West" accent like 
"yelluh"). So all that question and taboo about colors leads to 
uncertainty about whether it's still ok to say "white", even though 
"white" is still used all the time anyway and I've never seen anyone get 
offended.

So that uncertainty leads americans to use "caucasion" (apparently 
derived from the extremely academic term "caucasoid", or so I've been 
told) just out of paranoia, since it's seen as far too pedantic and 
technical to possibly be offensive.

But then, the African-descendent counterparts of "caucasion" and 
"caucasoid", ie "negro" and "negroid", are taboo because they sound too 
much like the word we're expected to refer to as "the N word" (even 
though rappers of that ethnicity have famously tossed it around like 
it's nothing - which I always assumed was partly done to dispel the 
negative connotations, but I guess some people would rather keep it as 
offensive - personally I don't give a crap, I just wish people would 
make up their minds). But of course, in many languages, "negro" is 
literally the word for the color "black", so go figure.

It's all a rediculous mess, really. I say we just refer to ALL groups as 
"jackass", because I think really we all deserve it :)


>> the world: "Uhh, what's the big deal?" Personally, I think it's
>> positively bonkers to worry about kids being scarred by seeing
>> something they themselves used to suck on, but whatever.
>
> Actually kids are more scarred by being told that such things are taboo.
> Being relaxed about the human body of others is a good path to feeling
> good about your own body.
>

Yea, but according to some, we're supposed to feel ashamed of our bodies. ;)

>
> (Again, just about all american I've met has expressed that they have no
> problems with nudity themselves, and I believe them.

Heh, There was one time I was in the locker room for some swimming pool, 
and an elderly gent was right in the middle of changing. He was in no 
hurry to finish, either. There were similar situations with my first 
college roommate too, an [american-]football player who wasn't exactly 
shy before/after showering. I actually found both of those cases 
slightly disturbing and the mental images still haunt me ;)

But that said, I still find both examples as completely insufficient 
justification for bans on nudity. Fact of the matter is, I like to use 
both as shining examples of "Just because you don't want to see 
something doesn't mean it should be banned".

 > But I've been told
> that I cannot go swimming in my boxer shorts that look like swimming
> trunks because they are underwear and I could get into trouble over
> that… i.e. someone MIGHT be offended. Which is kinds of odd, cause in my
> own country I can go swimming naked and basically nobody would be
> offended, if spotted they might be amused, but not offended.)
>

Yea, I find your stance on that much more sensible. I guess one could 
make an argument about questions of sanitation, but in a pool, if 
someone isn't clean I'm not sure swimming apparel is really going to 
make a huge difference.

Admittedly, certain parts of the US are moving around to a more 
european-like attitude, albiet slowly (Particularly on the west coast 
which has always been known for being the most liberal part of the 
country.) I've heard of a court case (IANAL, of course) in San Fransisco 
where non-disruptive, non-sexualized public nudity was ruled legal. And 
it's either there or maybe Portland that has an annual non-clothed 
bicycling event. And I've heard that some court case in New York City 
ruled non-disruptive toplessness legal. Something similar in Canada too, 
IIRC. It's still nothing like certain other parts of the world, but 
still, baby steps.

'Course, that said, there's other matters I care much more about. After 
all, I'm in Cleveland, even if it were permitted here (I'm not aware of 
it being allowed), it'd be too damn cold half the time anyway ;)