Why "colored people" is offensive, but "people of color" is the politically correct term?

Donald Polish

VIP Member
Nov 27, 2014
607
64
80
Kansas City
A serious question to you.
I always thought that the term "people of color" was offensive due to its usage and the fact that it treated being white as the default state, but the politically correct term for black people (and to a lesser degree Hispanic people and Asians and various other minorities.) is people of color, often shortened to PoC. To me, the term still carries the implication that white is the default and it's close enough to "colored people" that I don't see how it is that far of a disconnect from the usage. I understand the concept of "person first" language but it still seems like the difference between calling someone who has mental handicaps "a retarded person" and calling them "a person who is retarded."
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
 
"Colored people" is incorrect when describing "people of color". Whites are the only "colored people".
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Everything is about race to some people.

It justifies all their failures.
 
A serious question to you.
I always thought that the term "people of color" was offensive due to its usage and the fact that it treated being white as the default state, but the politically correct term for black people (and to a lesser degree Hispanic people and Asians and various other minorities.) is people of color, often shortened to PoC. To me, the term still carries the implication that white is the default and it's close enough to "colored people" that I don't see how it is that far of a disconnect from the usage. I understand the concept of "person first" language but it still seems like the difference between calling someone who has mental handicaps "a retarded person" and calling them "a person who is retarded."
Doesn't matter.

The PC Police make the rules, so they can control both the language and the conversation.

Say the wrong word(s), be ready for "the consequences".

Shhhh, watch what you say.

.
 
What's funny is white and black are neutrals, technically they're not colors. White is a reflection of light and represents the presence of all colors, black is the absorption of all light representing the absence of all color.
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
 
If you really think about what you just posted you would see that definition makes absolutely no sense. Its just another definition made up by whites so they feel good about being white.
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
 
Please........ :rolleyes: Try not to be so obtuse. It's the physics definition based on light wavelengths and has nothing to do with racial color.
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waste of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.
 
Dont blame your sheeple acceptance of the definition on me being obtuse. How can white reflect all colors yet still be the presence of all colors? How can Black be the absence of all colors yet absorb all light? You white boys are so stupid you cant even formulate a definition a 2nd grader would accept as valid.
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waist of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.
Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?
 
Ever the racist...... You can be an ignorant asshole at times making up his own definitions as you go through life, this is one of them. Oh and I'm a mix, not lilly white...... Have a nice life. Bye.
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waist of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.
Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?
Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.
 
of course I make up my own definitions in the face of bull shit. Why would I accept what some white guy said about the colors? Its obvious from the definition it was done to promote white supremacy. Your failure to address my questions lets me know you see it as well but choose to ignore it. Typical move of the brainwashed unable to think for themselves.
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waist of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.
Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?
Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.
What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.
 
Ya wanna see bull shit? Look at what you're shoveling out. Cant decide if you're being intentionally confrontational just to start a fight or are truly that stupid. :dunno:
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waist of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.
Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?
Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.
What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.
Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.
 
What is it I'm shoveling out? I simply said the definition given was bullshit and proved it. You can keep claiming I'm being confrontational but you forget you addressed me not the other way around. Now that you cant explain the inconsistencies in the definition you want to cry about it. Man up and explain to me how the definition can be true. Its ok if you cant do it but lets not pretend you didnt simply accept what you were told without applying critical thinking.
You proved nothing other than you're being an ignorant asshole trying to start a fight. You made a unsubstantiated racist claim concerning a simple accepted physics definition I posted. You demand critical thinking from me but refuse to utilize it yourself. Basically you don't want a discussion, you want a fight since you want to change definitions to suit your skewed world view and i'm not buying into it. Obviously attempting to discuss this with you is a waist of my time as you don't want a discussion, you demand affirmation.
Had nothing to do with being a racist. I simply said how can white be the presence of all colors if it reflects all light and how could Black be the absence of color when it absorbs all light? So far you havent addressed that question instead choosing to fling claims of racism as if I cant see your deflection. What do you have to say about the question I posed? Can you answer it or are you going to continue to deflect?
Go back and read your first response to me, maybe your short term memory is shot, if that response was not racist I don't know what is. Now you want to change your tune and pretend you're the "good guy", nah, ain't playing your fucked up game. You want a real discussion then okay, drop the whitey and "you're deflecting" crap and we can have a real discussion. If you don't want to then you can have fun looking in the mirror telling yourself how smugly superior you are in your own little made up world.
What was racist about that response? White people in fact made up the definition. If that bothers you and keeps you from addressing the question then thats your issue. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just giving you an chance to prove its not a race driven definition which you have failed to do so far. All the deflections in the world wont change that.
Okay, I'll put it in terms maybe even you can understand. The light wavelengths that creates white is purely reflective, the absence of light wavelengths creates black which absorbs all light, i.e. does not reflect light. "White" people are not truly white as "black" people are not truly black. Put a negroid arm up against a pure black background and what do you see? Put a caucasion arm up against a pure white background and what do you see? It's a scientific definition numb nuts, not a racial one.
Yeah we already know the definition. What I am saying is if white reflects all light then how is it the presence of all colors? If Black absorbs all colors (which would then possess them) how is it the absence of all colors? Of course the definition is racial. The clue is that it doesnt make sense. If it was scientific it would make sense.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top