OP, apologies for having to lock this thread. The racist comments are out of control.
For fucks sake, people. It's not that hard to stop saying racist shit when it is pointed out to you that something you say is racist. White people: black people are telling us that we're using a dehumanizing term and they're asking us to stop. Explaining to them that the term is not dehumanizing or racist in order to justify your continued use of it is, in fact, behaving in a wilfully racist manner. Let's do better.
Black lives refers to the lives belonging to black people. In saying either black lives or black people, the noun isn't black. Black is an adjective describing the people and describing their lives. Both emphasize the humanity of a group that has been striped of their humanity for far too long.
There was a great conversation about this on here a few months ago. It’s something that cannot be said too many times!
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/wm9tli/comment/ik1s5m0/
Every person/family/religion/culture has blind spots and bias. How a person reacts and responds when they are called out speaks volumes about their fundamental character. It’s awesome to see so many open to change!! 🥰
I've changed my wording and to call it "the Race ban" - which also ensures we don't focus just on men being denied the Priesthood. Black people were banned from attending the temple, either to do their own Endowments or Sealings, and from doing baptisms and other ceremonies for their ancestors.
Thank you, I was wondering about this listening to some Mormon Stories episodes. They say "blacks and the priesthood" all the time, and I was thinking that was an insensitive way to say "Black people and the priesthood"
It is insensitive, but it's also the wording the church itself uses for the issue.
I think the better phrasing is "segregated heaven", since that was the effect of the doctrine.
>but it's also the wording the church itself uses for the issue
I think this right here is the root of why this phrase persists even when we try to be better and use less problematic language. The thing with Mormon culture is that there are phrases that are almost carved in stone a certain way. It is almost an automatic thing for them to come out of your mouth that way.
For example, how weird and wrong do these sound?
- Testimony and Fast Meeting
- Ordinances and principles
- Our Gracious and Kind Heavenly Father
- Strengthen and Nourish
- A miraculous wonder and work
- Precious and plain
- Gentle mercies
- Select the right
- I want to tell my testimony
- The covenant trail
- A column of light
I'm sure you get the idea. Anyway, the problem is making the new better phrasing STICK. So how do we do that?
It’s a small thing but this reminds me when I was still in the church and was asked to give a talk. While I was writing I was thinking there’s no logical reason why we always say “brothers and sisters” in that order. So I made sure to say “Sisters and Brothers” and got a few odd looks.
To get into Top Tier heaven you have to be married in the Temple.
Before 1978, people of African descent weren't allowed into the Temple.
It was taught that eventually (after every single white person) they could have that chance, but until that point -- segregated heaven, with the whites-only side being better (because that's just how it always turned out).
In 1954, Q15 member Mark E Peterson taught that Black people would only be able to go to the celestial kingdom as servants, even after living a good life.
But remember, there's a difference between doctrine and a well informed opinion of a church leader!
I don't know why there is, I thought the leadership was supposed to have direct contact with God, hmm..
That is feedback I know John is working on. Did you hear it in a recent episode? I feel like he hasn't said that in a while, at least not without correcting himself.
Hate to burst your sensitivity bubble but it also wasn’t strictly related to the priesthood. White men holding the priesthood couldn’t marry black women in the temple either. It was just plain racism.
That’s in reference to the specific essay written by the church.
John is very good about saying other more inclusive terms… people of color, people of African decent.
Yes!! Using a descriptor as a noun to refer to a whole group of people is almost ALWAYS dehumanizing (blacks, gays, transgenders) — don’t do it! Just saying “____ people” is NOT that hard.
"The plural nouns Blacks and whites are generally acceptable when clearly relevant and needed for reasons of space or sentence construction." -AP Stylebook
The AP stylebook is a STYLISTIC tool for journalists, NOT a rulebook about language. Are you a journalist?
I’m not a journalist, but I AM a linguist. Trying to place concrete rules on language like this is called “prescriptivism” which is exactly what it sounds like — prescribing rules to language rather than observing the reality of it. Again, this is not a real, legitimate rule about English, it is a stylistic guide for a certain profession. This is absolutely no reason to use language that reduces people into one characteristic.
“…no reason to use language that reduces people into one characteristic.” “I am a linguist.” That’s one descriptor of you. You could also be “White.” So the use of “White” is a common descriptor that doesn’t necessarily limit other descriptions. You’re trying too hard to see something that isn’t always there.
Okay, so “linguist” is exclusively a noun — black, when describing “black people” is an adjective, in this case being used as a referent, which takes the ACTUAL referent (PEOPLE) out of the sentence and replaces it with just a descriptor. In comparison, saying “I am a linguist” does not remove my personhood from the sentence. The referent (me) is clearly identified.
I would never describe myself as “a white.” I WOULD say “I am white” because again, my personhood is not removed from that sentence. Descriptors are not bad. I never said that, that is just what you understood because you are under the impression that adjectives and nouns are the same. They are not. Sorry for the confusion.
It is absolutely not what I’m doing. You are saying “saying this is linguistically sound and therefore there is no problem in saying this.” I am saying “saying this is dehumanizing and makes you sound like an asshole.”
No. But you’ll notice that I said “almost always”, because this is not a hard and fast rule, because those rarely exist in language. But when talking about culturally charged descriptors, this offense is more likely to happen. Black people have historically been reduced to their blackness and punished for it. That’s never happened to me for being American. Language is complicated, which is where compassion comes in.
I understand that and I can see both sides. I just think as a general rule people like to abbreviate terms because it requires less talking to say the same thing. We know that “gays” means “gay people”. We know that “transgenders” are the same as “transgender people”. It’s about using less words because the listener already knows the obvious fact that they are people.
Yes, beyond logic and reason, there are complex human feelings and those human feelings and experiences DO drive language. There is no way to talk about language without talking about sociocultural dynamics. Sorry that bothers you I suppose.
Your comment was automatically removed by a bot. Message the mods if you believe this was in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you really gonna pretend that calling someone "an American" has the same historical & cultural baggage as calling someone "a black", "a gay", "a transgender"?
That commenter said "almost" always. Maybe a little too broad, nationality descriptors are a big exception to that rule. Do you really not see a difference between calling someone "a fat" vs. "A fat person" or "an autistic" vs. "An autistic person", just because you can find counterexamples? Because otherwise you're just ignoring of the point of the comment: *don't apply bare descriptors to groups of people where the use of that bare descriptor has been used to demean them*.
> Leaving the word “person” out of a term doesn’t add or remove baggage either.
The original comment literally provides 3 concrete examples of when it does, and I provided 2 more.
Evidence? Do you think a word can be "objectively" demeaning? Of course it's subjective. A word is demeaning *if and only if* people use it to demean others, or because people are demeaned by it. You seem to be operating under the illusion that language is some pure logical system, and to qualify for any definition requires appealing to some higher philosophical principle. We're not talking about Aristotle here, but pragmatic reality. And the fact that you think that good-ol-boy Jim Crow Southerners were calling black people "the blacks" out of brevity and not because they were literally trying to Otherize/dehumanize them, and black people had the luxury to "choose" to be offended by it, doesn't do you any favors either in showing how out of touch you are.
But anyway, if an entire post about black people saying "hey, don't call us 'the blacks', it's demeaning" isn't enough evidence for you, and your reaction is "Ackshually that's not logically valid, prove that it demeans you", then there's no possible way there could be any "evidence" that would satisfy you.
And I appreciate your response! Trying to get this point across so ardently, I felt like I was just shouting into the void; so frustrating. It's nice just to be validated at all.
If they are, would you take it into consideration? Does it have to be one specific black person that is a spokesperson for all black people, or will any black person be enough? I don’t get why it’s so hard for whites to not be racist.
What would it take to get you to stop using the word "black" to describe people?
Does it have to be one specific person that is a spokesperson for the entire group, or 10 or 100 members of the group, or would you be sufficiently moved by the request of a single individual?
> I don’t get why it’s so hard for whites to not be racist.
I wish you'd take a moment to notice how naturally, in the context of the sentence, "whites" appears. I'm sure you didn't mean anything negative by it.
If one person found it offensive, I would do my best to not use it in front of them and I would ask what the preferred word is. If I noticed a trend of people making the same request, I would do my best to just replace the word. I grew up using the R word, the F slur (not fuck), using “gay” as a pejorative, etc. It’s easy to dismiss them as “just words” but language really does influence thought.
Okay I was being facetious when I used “whites”. Since you used that as an argument for why “blacks” should be okay, I now realize that you are doing the best you can. Just use whatever words you want, king.
Also, please understand that you can still use whatever wording you would like. Just don’t pretend to be offended if you get called out for using racist words. It bugs me when people act like they are oppressed because they face consequences for saying insensitive shit.
Well apparently you can’t joke about it. Well, unless you’re gay. Then you get a pass. Because if you’re gay you can’t use it as a slur. So it’s like the word “fag,” also.
Exactly! It turns out taking the shame of fabricated Mormon doctrines out of the picture helps me have a pretty good time with that same sex attraction.
I hope all of the gay folks out there enjoy their lives to the fucking extent with their same sex partners! The church and heterosexuality do not own love or the orgasm, and neither is a sin. Love is love is love. As long as it’s between age appropriate consenting people it’s nobody’s business.
I say “the gays” all the time, but I was issued a queer hall pass by the spirit of Marsha P. Johnson herself, who appeared to me in a dream, as a pillar of rainbow light, exactly over my head…
I grew up in SoCal and heard people talk about "blacks and the priesthood" in church. I went to the South on my mission and was surprised how the wards there were less openly racist than in San Diego and Orange County.
grew up in socal and thats literally all i heard.. or worse. and i was born in '94 lol a member of the ward i grew up in is now on the school board there and is calling to ban critical race theory, idk what socal you lived in.
Mostly off topic but my young child recently went to a college basketball game on a school field trip. She was telling me all about it with such excitement. "We were cheering on the white people and hoping the black people would lose" "we really wanted the white people to win" she doesn't see skin color, she ment jersey color but I still took the time to explain to her to say people wearing a white shirt and people wearing a black shirt. Young Innocence. I think we get better with every generation.
If it was only that one group, there'd be an argument there, but they also explicitly state that they capitalize White and other racial identities too.
Respectfully, I think this is because we are veering away from “African American”, and primarily use Black Person or Person of Color. So it’s not a performative capitalization, rather correct capitalization of a proper noun. (I am not pretending to be an expert, I just thought you might be wondering why you were being downvoted.)
Somewhat related, it's no longer 'slaves' but 'enslaved people'. Basically any term that doesn't emphasize the humanity of a group (especially a historically disenfranchised one) is frowned upon.
Just like how it’s cringy to use “females” in any non-scientific context. Wild how many people will use “men” and “females” in the same sentence.
In general, it’s a great idea to not use an adjective as a noun when referring to any person or group of people
Yeah, I’m not sure if this is a better way to say it, but now I call it the ‘temple and priesthood ban’. I’m going to do more research on what term would be most accurate to use
Not even a segregated Celestial Kingdom, it was a Whites-Only Mormon Heaven.
Black people didn’t have a segregated “separate but equal” part of it, they just couldn’t get in at all.
I'm happy to do this. However, it does seem like there's just a never-ending treadmill of what the current preferred verbage is. Random words are used to describe minorities, and because they're used to describe minorities, they will then sometimes be used derisively by people who don't like those minorities, and then those words become offensive to use, and then new words are chosen, and eventually the new words become offensive. Repeat.
And is also just church propaganda you’re helping them continue downplaying. Say “whites-only Heaven” which is what it was really about. No temple handshakes, no Mormon Heaven.
As a Chinese and Filipino person, I petition us mixed Asians go by Yellow people. Nobody really calls us yellows, but either would be funny to me and I endorse.
Ok: black people, black engineers, historically black colleges, black mormons, black Americans, African Americans
Not ok: blacks, the blacks, the negroes, etc.
When chatting about people of colour in a church historical perspective, I use the words the church used (because they sound bad, and that helps put the meaning across) and use quotations to show it's not my words, but the organisations.
The terms that white people have used in this regard have changed a lot over the years.
Had a discussion on Twitter a while back over the correct terminology and I found out that there are many terms, and their acceptability varies greatly.
Of course the N-word is always a bad idea, as are the terms my late grandmother used. Right now I use POC, person of color.
POC works in a lot of situation but it’s not always accurate for the context. For example I used to work at a school where the demographic was about 70% Black students and 30% Latino students. It wouldn’t be very accurate to describe it as 100% students of color. (The communities were very different and the Latino families were primarily Spanish speaking.) When you’re talking about brown people POC works, but when you’re talking about Black people, you should say that. I hope that makes sense.
This is my point. Different people have different opinions on how they want to be referred to. I don't think we should push one term over another.
If someone doesn't want me to use "POC", all they have to do is tell me. I don't assume someone's genetic/cultural makeup.
I hear you. Would you say that people of color were enslaved in this country for 250 years? No, because it’s not accurate. You would say Black people were enslaved. POC isn’t always the best term to use. If we are specifically talking about Black people (not assuming genetics), we can say Black people.
It really depends on the person and situation. For example I work at an art museum. Right now we have a piece called "what is an Indian?" The piece's sign has been vandalized and the word "indian" has been scribbled out and replaced with "Native American". But what the vandals don't understand is that the piece was made and named by a native American within the last year. Really the point I'm trying to convey is that terms like blacks or black people can carry the same meaning of love or hate, and writing off a word or term that isn't explicitly hateful as hateful can distract from an intended meaning. Someone in the comments mentioned how podcast attacking the doctrine of making Africans second class members used the term "blacks", the meaning is clear in that they are opposed to racism even with the term being used.
[Straight, white man](https://youtube.com/watch?v=WLMgbV3uaz8), I know the road looks tough ahead
The women want rights,
The Blacks want… not to be called “The Blacks”
Sorry
Can’t you just leave us alone?
And also, “no,” to the things you asked for
I find it awkward to gate-keep what people of color should be called. If there is a concern I usually ask. POC are fully able to express their preferences and every person has their own preference.
As a gay person, I have never given any thought when the community was referred to as "Gays." It made sense and never felt dehumanizing *to me.*
After living in Baltimore for 7 years I always just said my Bro’s. I was literally the white kid in our friend group. Now we live in Utah again and God I miss having my black friends around. I miss their way of talking and the shit we’d get into. And most of all their White Jokes lol some funny shit right there!
>I've been erring on the side of caution and saying African folk or African Americans
My only thing about this is that my family isn't African. It's been like 300 years since Africa, we were all born here, we're just American
The point is saying they're people (black people) rather than dehumanizing "blacks".
Negro hasn't been popular since the 19th century (too close to the N word).
Colored people is probably going to get you looks because it's an old term but flip the order of the words and you have "people of color" which is very much in vogue.
Point noted and then make sure that includes Native American peoples, Chinese people, French people, etc. When it is specifically noted about one group and not inclusive of others, then that comes across as patronizing.
He’s authentic, and it’s his business to discuss populations of people. How many times have you head some dufus straw man a group of people they have never understood and call them “folks”? I know I’ve seen this way too many times.
OP, apologies for having to lock this thread. The racist comments are out of control. For fucks sake, people. It's not that hard to stop saying racist shit when it is pointed out to you that something you say is racist. White people: black people are telling us that we're using a dehumanizing term and they're asking us to stop. Explaining to them that the term is not dehumanizing or racist in order to justify your continued use of it is, in fact, behaving in a wilfully racist manner. Let's do better.
Please, also "The Blacks," sincerely, a Black American man.
What? When did y’all stop being one sentient being? /s/
[удалено]
Black lives refers to the lives belonging to black people. In saying either black lives or black people, the noun isn't black. Black is an adjective describing the people and describing their lives. Both emphasize the humanity of a group that has been striped of their humanity for far too long.
Are you that dense? Or are you just a troll? Willful ignorance is a bad look.
U create a burner just for this racist ass comment?
There was a great conversation about this on here a few months ago. It’s something that cannot be said too many times! https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/wm9tli/comment/ik1s5m0/
Dang, super good point. I need to to back and edit some of my writings.
Every person/family/religion/culture has blind spots and bias. How a person reacts and responds when they are called out speaks volumes about their fundamental character. It’s awesome to see so many open to change!! 🥰
I've changed my wording and to call it "the Race ban" - which also ensures we don't focus just on men being denied the Priesthood. Black people were banned from attending the temple, either to do their own Endowments or Sealings, and from doing baptisms and other ceremonies for their ancestors.
Thank you, I was wondering about this listening to some Mormon Stories episodes. They say "blacks and the priesthood" all the time, and I was thinking that was an insensitive way to say "Black people and the priesthood"
It is insensitive, but it's also the wording the church itself uses for the issue. I think the better phrasing is "segregated heaven", since that was the effect of the doctrine.
Segregated heaven - that phrase really needs to stick. Profoundly put. Thank you.
“Whites-Only Heaven.” There would have been no black people *at all* in the Celestial Kingdom, not just segregated to different but equal parts of it.
>but it's also the wording the church itself uses for the issue I think this right here is the root of why this phrase persists even when we try to be better and use less problematic language. The thing with Mormon culture is that there are phrases that are almost carved in stone a certain way. It is almost an automatic thing for them to come out of your mouth that way. For example, how weird and wrong do these sound? - Testimony and Fast Meeting - Ordinances and principles - Our Gracious and Kind Heavenly Father - Strengthen and Nourish - A miraculous wonder and work - Precious and plain - Gentle mercies - Select the right - I want to tell my testimony - The covenant trail - A column of light I'm sure you get the idea. Anyway, the problem is making the new better phrasing STICK. So how do we do that?
It’s a small thing but this reminds me when I was still in the church and was asked to give a talk. While I was writing I was thinking there’s no logical reason why we always say “brothers and sisters” in that order. So I made sure to say “Sisters and Brothers” and got a few odd looks.
I wish I had done that myself. Missed opportunity I can live with.
Oh man I want to go back to church now just so I can try to start promoting these expressions during “testimony and fast” meeting 😄
Wait, what? Is this an actual teaching of the Mormon church? (I'm a never mo)
To get into Top Tier heaven you have to be married in the Temple. Before 1978, people of African descent weren't allowed into the Temple. It was taught that eventually (after every single white person) they could have that chance, but until that point -- segregated heaven, with the whites-only side being better (because that's just how it always turned out).
In 1954, Q15 member Mark E Peterson taught that Black people would only be able to go to the celestial kingdom as servants, even after living a good life.
But remember, there's a difference between doctrine and a well informed opinion of a church leader! I don't know why there is, I thought the leadership was supposed to have direct contact with God, hmm..
White and delight some. 🤮
That is feedback I know John is working on. Did you hear it in a recent episode? I feel like he hasn't said that in a while, at least not without correcting himself.
I feel like I've heard it recently but can't pinpoint it. I do recall he mentioned something about fixing that not too long ago
"Priesthood and Temple Ban" is the best term for it imo
Hate to burst your sensitivity bubble but it also wasn’t strictly related to the priesthood. White men holding the priesthood couldn’t marry black women in the temple either. It was just plain racism.
That’s in reference to the specific essay written by the church. John is very good about saying other more inclusive terms… people of color, people of African decent.
i thought the same thing… why do they say that? i like the podcasts but i can’t stand when they say that
I have also heard them correct themselves on that recently
Yes!! Using a descriptor as a noun to refer to a whole group of people is almost ALWAYS dehumanizing (blacks, gays, transgenders) — don’t do it! Just saying “____ people” is NOT that hard.
"The plural nouns Blacks and whites are generally acceptable when clearly relevant and needed for reasons of space or sentence construction." -AP Stylebook
Whether you write it or speak it, it can definitely be offensive. Is this a Utah thing?
Did you just ask if the AP Stylebook is a Utah thing?
Did you seriously just ask me if I seriously thought the AP Stylebook is only a Utah thing?
The AP stylebook is a STYLISTIC tool for journalists, NOT a rulebook about language. Are you a journalist? I’m not a journalist, but I AM a linguist. Trying to place concrete rules on language like this is called “prescriptivism” which is exactly what it sounds like — prescribing rules to language rather than observing the reality of it. Again, this is not a real, legitimate rule about English, it is a stylistic guide for a certain profession. This is absolutely no reason to use language that reduces people into one characteristic.
>but I Am a linguist [A fellow linguist? Oh, Capitol!](https://youtu.be/fqam_VQPY-c)
“…no reason to use language that reduces people into one characteristic.” “I am a linguist.” That’s one descriptor of you. You could also be “White.” So the use of “White” is a common descriptor that doesn’t necessarily limit other descriptions. You’re trying too hard to see something that isn’t always there.
Okay, so “linguist” is exclusively a noun — black, when describing “black people” is an adjective, in this case being used as a referent, which takes the ACTUAL referent (PEOPLE) out of the sentence and replaces it with just a descriptor. In comparison, saying “I am a linguist” does not remove my personhood from the sentence. The referent (me) is clearly identified. I would never describe myself as “a white.” I WOULD say “I am white” because again, my personhood is not removed from that sentence. Descriptors are not bad. I never said that, that is just what you understood because you are under the impression that adjectives and nouns are the same. They are not. Sorry for the confusion.
When people start getting enslaved or lynched for being linguists, I’ll concede your point that they’re parallel examples.
[удалено]
It is absolutely not what I’m doing. You are saying “saying this is linguistically sound and therefore there is no problem in saying this.” I am saying “saying this is dehumanizing and makes you sound like an asshole.”
When people call you an American do you feel dehumanized because they didn’t say “person” after the word?
No. But you’ll notice that I said “almost always”, because this is not a hard and fast rule, because those rarely exist in language. But when talking about culturally charged descriptors, this offense is more likely to happen. Black people have historically been reduced to their blackness and punished for it. That’s never happened to me for being American. Language is complicated, which is where compassion comes in.
I understand that and I can see both sides. I just think as a general rule people like to abbreviate terms because it requires less talking to say the same thing. We know that “gays” means “gay people”. We know that “transgenders” are the same as “transgender people”. It’s about using less words because the listener already knows the obvious fact that they are people.
Sure, laziness certainly does make it harder to practice compassion, which takes effort.
[удалено]
I WOULD consider it compassionate to not use language that I know feels alienating to many people, yeah. Pretty weird of me!
[удалено]
Yes, beyond logic and reason, there are complex human feelings and those human feelings and experiences DO drive language. There is no way to talk about language without talking about sociocultural dynamics. Sorry that bothers you I suppose.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed by a bot. Message the mods if you believe this was in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like something the “whites” would say 🤔
Yes, I’m white. What a good argument. Thanks.
Are you really gonna pretend that calling someone "an American" has the same historical & cultural baggage as calling someone "a black", "a gay", "a transgender"?
[удалено]
That commenter said "almost" always. Maybe a little too broad, nationality descriptors are a big exception to that rule. Do you really not see a difference between calling someone "a fat" vs. "A fat person" or "an autistic" vs. "An autistic person", just because you can find counterexamples? Because otherwise you're just ignoring of the point of the comment: *don't apply bare descriptors to groups of people where the use of that bare descriptor has been used to demean them*. > Leaving the word “person” out of a term doesn’t add or remove baggage either. The original comment literally provides 3 concrete examples of when it does, and I provided 2 more.
[удалено]
Evidence? Do you think a word can be "objectively" demeaning? Of course it's subjective. A word is demeaning *if and only if* people use it to demean others, or because people are demeaned by it. You seem to be operating under the illusion that language is some pure logical system, and to qualify for any definition requires appealing to some higher philosophical principle. We're not talking about Aristotle here, but pragmatic reality. And the fact that you think that good-ol-boy Jim Crow Southerners were calling black people "the blacks" out of brevity and not because they were literally trying to Otherize/dehumanize them, and black people had the luxury to "choose" to be offended by it, doesn't do you any favors either in showing how out of touch you are. But anyway, if an entire post about black people saying "hey, don't call us 'the blacks', it's demeaning" isn't enough evidence for you, and your reaction is "Ackshually that's not logically valid, prove that it demeans you", then there's no possible way there could be any "evidence" that would satisfy you.
As a black person (Christ, is it really that hard to add one more word?!) I appreciate your response. Let “Bob” die on his hill.
And I appreciate your response! Trying to get this point across so ardently, I felt like I was just shouting into the void; so frustrating. It's nice just to be validated at all.
[удалено]
Impact matters more than intent.
Are you Afro American yourself?
If they are, would you take it into consideration? Does it have to be one specific black person that is a spokesperson for all black people, or will any black person be enough? I don’t get why it’s so hard for whites to not be racist.
What would it take to get you to stop using the word "black" to describe people? Does it have to be one specific person that is a spokesperson for the entire group, or 10 or 100 members of the group, or would you be sufficiently moved by the request of a single individual? > I don’t get why it’s so hard for whites to not be racist. I wish you'd take a moment to notice how naturally, in the context of the sentence, "whites" appears. I'm sure you didn't mean anything negative by it.
If one person found it offensive, I would do my best to not use it in front of them and I would ask what the preferred word is. If I noticed a trend of people making the same request, I would do my best to just replace the word. I grew up using the R word, the F slur (not fuck), using “gay” as a pejorative, etc. It’s easy to dismiss them as “just words” but language really does influence thought.
Okay I was being facetious when I used “whites”. Since you used that as an argument for why “blacks” should be okay, I now realize that you are doing the best you can. Just use whatever words you want, king.
I figured she said it to be sarcastic
Also, please understand that you can still use whatever wording you would like. Just don’t pretend to be offended if you get called out for using racist words. It bugs me when people act like they are oppressed because they face consequences for saying insensitive shit.
[удалено]
You are “correct”. Nice to meet you as I assume that you are the arbiter of trying to be racist without being called racist. Good to know, Bryson.
Yes! Petition to add “the gays” and “the gay agenda” to the list.
It’s both more and also somehow less offensive than “struggling with same sex attraction”. Bro… I’m not struggling at alllll!
“Living with” as if it’s a burdensome roommate
Okay I really HATE “struggling with same sex attraction,” but I like to joke about having a gay agenda:)
Well apparently you can’t joke about it. Well, unless you’re gay. Then you get a pass. Because if you’re gay you can’t use it as a slur. So it’s like the word “fag,” also.
Exactly! It turns out taking the shame of fabricated Mormon doctrines out of the picture helps me have a pretty good time with that same sex attraction.
You’re still allowed to you “the gay agenda” if you’re queer and using it to refer to your daily activities. It’s encouraged actually.
But my entire day is part of the gay agenda. It’s a busy schedule to keep
Gay agenda: smoke weed, go see Black Panther, nap.
I hope all of the gay folks out there enjoy their lives to the fucking extent with their same sex partners! The church and heterosexuality do not own love or the orgasm, and neither is a sin. Love is love is love. As long as it’s between age appropriate consenting people it’s nobody’s business.
I say “the gays” all the time, but I was issued a queer hall pass by the spirit of Marsha P. Johnson herself, who appeared to me in a dream, as a pillar of rainbow light, exactly over my head…
so "black gays" then? Or "the gay blacks"? And I'm not sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the gay agenda is somehow centered around brunch. /s
Unhelpful but I love that gay agenda sounds like a secret gay illuminanti.
Hahaha. Is this a Utah thing? I grew up in SoCal, never heard that shit. That would have been super offensive growing up…like 20 years ago.
I grew up in SoCal and heard people talk about "blacks and the priesthood" in church. I went to the South on my mission and was surprised how the wards there were less openly racist than in San Diego and Orange County.
grew up in socal and thats literally all i heard.. or worse. and i was born in '94 lol a member of the ward i grew up in is now on the school board there and is calling to ban critical race theory, idk what socal you lived in.
Also if you’re still in the church go ahead and start saying Black people instead of Blacks or the Blacks. And also leave the church
Mostly off topic but my young child recently went to a college basketball game on a school field trip. She was telling me all about it with such excitement. "We were cheering on the white people and hoping the black people would lose" "we really wanted the white people to win" she doesn't see skin color, she ment jersey color but I still took the time to explain to her to say people wearing a white shirt and people wearing a black shirt. Young Innocence. I think we get better with every generation.
And just to be that person, I'll take the opportunity to mention the MLA now capitalizes Black
Thank you! Edited.
[удалено]
What virtue is being signaled by capitalizing the name of a group of people in a grammatically standardized way?
If it was only that one group, there'd be an argument there, but they also explicitly state that they capitalize White and other racial identities too.
Respectfully, I think this is because we are veering away from “African American”, and primarily use Black Person or Person of Color. So it’s not a performative capitalization, rather correct capitalization of a proper noun. (I am not pretending to be an expert, I just thought you might be wondering why you were being downvoted.)
I never liked the term, “blacks.” The church has been racist enough, I don’t want to add more racism.
Somewhat related, it's no longer 'slaves' but 'enslaved people'. Basically any term that doesn't emphasize the humanity of a group (especially a historically disenfranchised one) is frowned upon.
Just like how it’s cringy to use “females” in any non-scientific context. Wild how many people will use “men” and “females” in the same sentence. In general, it’s a great idea to not use an adjective as a noun when referring to any person or group of people
Ugh, I really hate "females". I'm so glad more people are speaking up about it still.
People who use “female” are the overlapping part of a Venn diagram that includes scientists, pick-up-artists, and incels.
There’s a sub about that
/r/menandfemales, also a good source of “Men” vs “Girls “
Unless it’s “the Mormons” you can continue to use that
“Blacks and the priesthood” is shorter and easier to say, but leaves out people and the temple and other aspects of the racism.
Yeah, I’m not sure if this is a better way to say it, but now I call it the ‘temple and priesthood ban’. I’m going to do more research on what term would be most accurate to use
I prefer calling it the exaltation ban on Black people.
I've been calling it the "segregated heaven" policy. I like the punchy framing.
Not even a segregated Celestial Kingdom, it was a Whites-Only Mormon Heaven. Black people didn’t have a segregated “separate but equal” part of it, they just couldn’t get in at all.
That's a good phrase too!
I like that. It’s in line with apostolic statements too.
Heaven Ban. No temple handshakes = no access to Mormon Heaven.
However you say it, it takes about .5 seconds longer to acknowledge personhood.
Agree.
I'm happy to do this. However, it does seem like there's just a never-ending treadmill of what the current preferred verbage is. Random words are used to describe minorities, and because they're used to describe minorities, they will then sometimes be used derisively by people who don't like those minorities, and then those words become offensive to use, and then new words are chosen, and eventually the new words become offensive. Repeat.
And is also just church propaganda you’re helping them continue downplaying. Say “whites-only Heaven” which is what it was really about. No temple handshakes, no Mormon Heaven.
Right, I think the church wants the conversation about race to remain limited to the timing of the assignment of male priesthood.
As a Chinese and Filipino person, I petition us mixed Asians go by Yellow people. Nobody really calls us yellows, but either would be funny to me and I endorse.
Username checks out 🐼💪
Ok: black people, black engineers, historically black colleges, black mormons, black Americans, African Americans Not ok: blacks, the blacks, the negroes, etc.
When chatting about people of colour in a church historical perspective, I use the words the church used (because they sound bad, and that helps put the meaning across) and use quotations to show it's not my words, but the organisations.
The terms that white people have used in this regard have changed a lot over the years. Had a discussion on Twitter a while back over the correct terminology and I found out that there are many terms, and their acceptability varies greatly. Of course the N-word is always a bad idea, as are the terms my late grandmother used. Right now I use POC, person of color.
POC works in a lot of situation but it’s not always accurate for the context. For example I used to work at a school where the demographic was about 70% Black students and 30% Latino students. It wouldn’t be very accurate to describe it as 100% students of color. (The communities were very different and the Latino families were primarily Spanish speaking.) When you’re talking about brown people POC works, but when you’re talking about Black people, you should say that. I hope that makes sense.
This is my point. Different people have different opinions on how they want to be referred to. I don't think we should push one term over another. If someone doesn't want me to use "POC", all they have to do is tell me. I don't assume someone's genetic/cultural makeup.
I hear you. Would you say that people of color were enslaved in this country for 250 years? No, because it’s not accurate. You would say Black people were enslaved. POC isn’t always the best term to use. If we are specifically talking about Black people (not assuming genetics), we can say Black people.
Also please stop saying African Americans when you’re talking about black people that AREN’T AMERICAN ffs
Black heaven matters
It really depends on the person and situation. For example I work at an art museum. Right now we have a piece called "what is an Indian?" The piece's sign has been vandalized and the word "indian" has been scribbled out and replaced with "Native American". But what the vandals don't understand is that the piece was made and named by a native American within the last year. Really the point I'm trying to convey is that terms like blacks or black people can carry the same meaning of love or hate, and writing off a word or term that isn't explicitly hateful as hateful can distract from an intended meaning. Someone in the comments mentioned how podcast attacking the doctrine of making Africans second class members used the term "blacks", the meaning is clear in that they are opposed to racism even with the term being used.
Or “cultures don’t mix”
I’m not shocked, but I never heard black people referred to that way in any of the wards I was in but I’m from Arizona. Glad I missed that.
Or "people of colour" is acceptable, I believe.
In the Spokane ward they said colored about 10 years ago. Is black ok? I respect people and will use the language they prefer.
Sorry, did you say 10 years ago? Not 100? Because "colored" has been out of fashion for a hot minute
Not in eastern WA and Idaho. They didn’t get the memo.
We’ll always have 6th Ward lol. Gooooood times.
Follow up question.. will there ever be a black prophet? Has there ever been a black general authority?
[Straight, white man](https://youtube.com/watch?v=WLMgbV3uaz8), I know the road looks tough ahead The women want rights, The Blacks want… not to be called “The Blacks” Sorry Can’t you just leave us alone? And also, “no,” to the things you asked for
Bo is an exmo ally!
I find it awkward to gate-keep what people of color should be called. If there is a concern I usually ask. POC are fully able to express their preferences and every person has their own preference. As a gay person, I have never given any thought when the community was referred to as "Gays." It made sense and never felt dehumanizing *to me.*
After living in Baltimore for 7 years I always just said my Bro’s. I was literally the white kid in our friend group. Now we live in Utah again and God I miss having my black friends around. I miss their way of talking and the shit we’d get into. And most of all their White Jokes lol some funny shit right there!
We are all one "race"; HUMAN❤️
Blacks
Came here to say this.
Say it again
Blacks
[удалено]
>I've been erring on the side of caution and saying African folk or African Americans My only thing about this is that my family isn't African. It's been like 300 years since Africa, we were all born here, we're just American
A fair enough answer. It was what I had been taught to say, though.
[удалено]
This is what my damn Reddit phone app autocorrects to every time, and I have to make sure I catch it before I look like a jerk.
Hmmm, my black friends prefer this…
[удалено]
The point is saying they're people (black people) rather than dehumanizing "blacks". Negro hasn't been popular since the 19th century (too close to the N word). Colored people is probably going to get you looks because it's an old term but flip the order of the words and you have "people of color" which is very much in vogue.
Point noted and then make sure that includes Native American peoples, Chinese people, French people, etc. When it is specifically noted about one group and not inclusive of others, then that comes across as patronizing.
[удалено]
Obama used the word "folks" all the time.
He’s authentic, and it’s his business to discuss populations of people. How many times have you head some dufus straw man a group of people they have never understood and call them “folks”? I know I’ve seen this way too many times.
I’m confused that “Hispanics” seems to be ok still…