comment: >
  
  POC is a political movement that’s used colloquially; but not all POC are politically aligned except against racism I suppose. Otherwise lots of immigrant communities are very fiscally & socially conservative. That’s what Republicans don’t get, if they adjusted their messaging away from “replacement theory”, “white fright”, etc., they have a WHOLE base they could draw on. They would essentially split the POC vote.
context: /u/padorUWU (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Maybe just a semantic point here, but generally, when a term has a suffix or prefix, it denotes that that variation is the special one.
  "Person of color" rather, would imply that "person" refers to a default, and if you're applying that to race, would be referring to a white person, would mean there is nothing remarkable or special about them.
  Adding either a prefix of colored- or a suffix of -of color to the word person, implies that there is something that distinguishes that person of a non-white race from a person who is white, who is considered mundane enough that no qualifiers are needed. >
  
  !delta
  Alright, I think you made a clear argument there. Now thinking from a different perspective it does hinted that calling someone a person of color signals someone who is white has none, and it is not necessarily something positive. Verbally, you make sense there and I can see that I may have worded poorly on my argument. >
  
  You have not worded your argument poorly. You just went off the common usage of grammar.
  Take for example the pretty internationally widespread concept that having the male grammatical gender as the unmarked default is sexist, as it implies that men are more important, since a group of 10 men and 1 women would be referred to with the male plural pronoun, or in the case of English as "guys", but a group of 10 women and 1 man would not be referred to as "gals" or with the female plural pronoun but rather the same as the male one.
  This is why you have German, for example, using the combined word form, e.g., SchauspielerIn (ActorTress), with Schauspieler (actor) being the male form and Schauspielerin (actress) the female form, so SchauspielerIn signifies that it could be either. Or in Slovenian, you have e.g. igralec/-ka or lately igralka_ec (actor/-tress or actress_tor).
  You can even take Asian languages such as Japanese or Chinese, where the kanji/hanzi for man is just a combination of power + field, while woman has its own special character.
  If the non-generic form were indeed considered the special one in real life, these arguments would neither exist nor be internationally problematized. And while I agree that non-generic forms SHOULD be treated as special ones, precisely because they are not the generic defaults, which by definition makes them special, that is not how things commonly work.
  Thus, we're right back at your white == normal, PoC == special. >
  
  I get the premise you are proposing here. Makes perfect sense. But if that were the premise then, shouldn’t that term be considered racist then? And I do mean that as a real question in the interest of calling for consistency. There are movements afloat and even universities putting out word lists for restructuring our speech in the name of reducing hate speech. And calling a group of people the generic term “guys” is being hailed as sexist because, as in the premise you stated, it declares the make form as “special”. So with that in mind, if Person of Color designated that those of color are special, while those that don’t fit that title would then be less special, then that separates and ousts a single race. Hence, a bit racist, no?
  This also goes completely against the arguments that race is a social construct while empowering said social construct. But that’s a whole other discussion. >
  
  Personally, I am completely and entirely against the idea that changing language achieves anything. Want to ban slurs with historical baggage, such as the n-word? Fine. But saying colored person is racist and person of color is not? This doesn't make any sense to me.
  What people that promote this seem to either not know, forget, or simply ignore is that words simply carry meaning, which is actually separate from the words themselves. This is why there's this continuous updating of words negro => colored => black => PoC (order probably messed up), because you can start calling the concept behind these words whatever you want, but if the concept itself is perceived negatively, the word will just take on that connotation as well.
  This is why calling someone "black" in e.g. Slovenian is perfectly fine. Because there's no negative connotation attached. 
  So, American English can change words for "someone with African/non-white ancestry" all it wants, as long as both white AND non-white Americans choose to separate each other by race, the words won't change anything, since racism isn't determined by the words used but rather by the intent and thoughts of the speaker. The entire concept of dogwhistles came about because someone (finally) realized that someone can be using perfectly acceptable language to send certain signals.
  Also, from the European perspective, the separation along racial lines, which often don't even make sense, seems weird. It's at best a heuristic for everyone to be able to exclude people as quickly as possible. Using the terminology of "white person" makes zero sense outside (and to some degree even inside) the American context, since there are historically enormous differences between Latin, Germanic, and Slavic peoples. Calling a random Slav "oppressor", when the English name for the group itself is, due to their sad history, related to the word "slave" (not to be confused with the Slavic self-identifiers, which are similar but related to slava/slovo (glory/word)) is just ridiculous, even though Slavs are considered white (by people of color) in the US, but were very much considered subhuman and not "white" in its underlying meaning at any time in history.
  So yeah, I'll always support the idea that words don't matter, the intent behind them does. And the modern obsession with politically correct speech has not and will not achieve anything beyond making its proponents look silly. >
  
  I support everything you said. So I’m sure you’d share with me in the frustration that the definition of words (within context) are no longer defined by intent as they used to, and should be; but instead are defined by the perception of others. If you meant to say humpback whale in a joke but instead said wetback whale, then I get to make a full statement of your white privileged letting you think that you are allow to joke about Mexicans while using slurs. And even if I’m not Mexican I have the self-awarded right to be offended on their behalf. This leaves you on the defending end of an accusation. And we all know that in modern social structures, it us always the accusation that gets the headlines and formulated minds, while any defense or even justified clarification after the fact carries only a fraction of the impact that the initial accusation carries.
  In short, I agree with you that words should be defined by their intent. But in contemporary times, it is the perceptions of the listener rather than the intent of the speaker, that defines words. >
  
  Agreed. That's messed up. But as an AfroSlav, I at least get to shut down pretty much anyone, if they want to engage in such nonsense, since they're either going to be (by the modern "ruleset") racist against my Slavic or my black side. >
  
  All this bullshit about putting people into boxes is the issue. >
  
  Putting ppl into boxes is indeed racist. Biologically, there are no races. This is a fact. Human traits (hair color, skin color, nose type, etc.) are clined (not clustered) and discordant (not concordant). We sort races by some traits (skin color) but not others (eye color). A white girl with brown eyes and white girl with blue eyes are the same social race. 1 same and 1 different trait.
  A Fijian population and a Kenyan population are the most genetically distinct groups in the world, yet we would call them black by appearance. Sorting into races is not biologically sound >
  
  !delta
  I just saw your argument and I do agree with you and now I changed my opinion a little bit on racial identity in general as you mentioned we only sort races by traits selectively. 
  Making generalization and putting labels onto people just because of their identity(doesn't has to be racial, also base on gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even political identity etc.) can be unhealthy in many situations. Sometimes I see and hear how people make assumptions that people who are black are poorer simply because they are black, men are more abusive than women just because they are men etc. it makes me uncomfortable, despite that I know the intention of theirs, may be that they want to address equality or whatever. Feels like sometimes people correlate things base off stereotypes without diving deeper to understand the nature of them instead. >
  
  I’d also like to mention that collective society projects expectations to support certain causes and to behave a certain way solely due to shared traumatic history. Thereafter, people start behaving as they are expected so to be accepted into a community.
  As a first generation Mexican, I can vouch that it is tough not being “Mexican enough” for the Mexican community nor “American enough” for any other non-Mexican community. Luckily I met good individuals who support and accept me for my unconventionality but I can definitely picture a universe where I’d suppress my interests to fit more into a conventionally prescribed mold. Chronic loneliness and feelings of alienation are difficult to live with, especially as a kid. >
  
  i will not agree with your last statement.. regarding to a certain race hate another. 
  But I will agree with you on the first then affirmitive action does negatively impact asian americans despite they are a minority and considered poc as well by today's standard. >
  
  I mean the movement itself, isn't just about hate crimes. I do acknowledge many attackers who commited the violence are not white Trump supporters like the media said, but stop asian hate movement also is supposed to talk about general racism toward asians in the west, which more or less is an ongoing issue just that Covid-19 stimulated it and now its becoming more visible. Honestly, the movement is undermined because many people are only vocal selectively, sometimes when the narrative doesn't fit, the media will either downplay or ignore it due to bias. >
  
  it did start out as the stop saying kung-flu, and bat soup jokes...trying to paint conservatives as racists but when asian americans opened their mouth to talk about the hate they recieved it really had nothing to do with the jokes but about  real abuse they received. and your right, they did shut it down because it did not fit the narrative they wanted. >
  
  Oh who "shut it down"? 
  Also really funny you're saying that conservatives being racist towards Asian people is imaginary while also acknowledging the giant racist movement. >
  
  i would say white conservatives are more racist towards black than asians. maybe some 80 year old vietnam vet.... but imo i dont see serious hatred towards asians from whites as a whole >
  
  So you're basically just saying "believe me"? >
  
  idc if you believe me or not. who are you? >
  
  I don't believe you. >
  
  that doesnt make any sense. its just as logical, if not more, that POC makes "white" seem less special.  it obviously implies that they are without color. the term "color" is just dumb. >
  
  The reason I argue that it makes "white people" a special category because it groups all white people into one but it disregards the uniqueness of being asian/black etc. etc. but groups all the "non-white" races into one big pot because they are not white. It makes whiteness an unique quality in comparison, this is what I am implying here. And for your last statement I have similar opinions. I think it is irrational to say white people are "without" color, since white is a color too. It kind of gives off the energy that color is a burden and something that is negative/bad. >
  
  That doesnt really address the point though
  If you argue that the term POC makes being white a unique trait, isnt “having color” the exact same argument for uniqueness? I think this argument would make sense for the term non-white, but not POC
  I also think we divide people that way because, especially in USA, “whites”outnumber other ethnicities. So it does make some sense to categorize, on a big picture, whites and non-whites >
  
  But black people and East Asian people have nothing in common to be classified as 'of colour'. The only thing they have in common is not being white, which really isn't having something in common at all.  
  Technically, could you not include white people in the 'POC' category and for example exclude East Asian people? It would make just as much sense right? >
  
  
  The only thing they have in common is not being white, which really isn't having something in common at all. 
  
  Sure, but as I said that's why I think the terms work as big-picture dividers in the US, not necessarily as perfect identifiers.
  As the other comment points out, while each and every single minority might not have the exact same experiences, there is a very simplified and generic experience that POCs go through compared to White people (whatever that means today). Of course, cause sometimes it needs to be said, this doesn't mean that no white person has experienced racism, poverty, or any other hardship.
  
  Technically, could you not include white people in the 'POC' category and for example exclude East Asian people?
  
  I mean, technically you can group ethnicities however you want. But I think the reason we stick to using Whiteness as the dividing line in the US is because Whites are the majority (~60% of the population). Realistically, I think White/non-White does a better job of illustrating that, but I do see how POC/White does the same job without making one or the other, "normal" >
  
  So in essence it is a rather arbitrary and hazy term that is only suitable in the US, maybe in a few other western countries?  
  Generally, I would oppose using such terms, especially because it is such an emotionally loaded term which people actually bind their identity and self-worth to. >
  
  Don’t you think that white people DO have a fundamentally different experience than POC because of their whiteness? It does seem that, in Western society, that white people are the norm. Perhaps POC is the term that best demonstrates the disparity that reflects reality right now. >
  
  I will argue sometimes it is mostly a perception, than actual anecdotes.
  I do not believe that being white fundamentally makes your experience different just because of that. There are many other factors contributing to one's success, experience of getting there etc. However, I can see how it makes sense if people argue that being white is PERCEIVED as having more advantages since it is generally true the majority of people will see white people differently, by perceiving them, and associate them with more positive attributes. 
  And I have given examples in my argument, in many scenarios, person of color as a term is not applicable to describe someone who is not white but actually, is not impacted negatively simply because they are not white. For instance, in so many scenarios, asian americans are not seen as at disadvantage (representation in tech industry, high family income, low crime/jail rate etc.) so you see many times asian americans are not considered "poc" by many media when describing these kind of scenarios. >
  
  If it’s all run on perception, then being white still
  changes your experience. I don’t think anyone believes that white people are biologically different than anyone else. It’s just how white people are perceived in culture. That’s always been true. It’s  overwhelmingly evident than society treats being white as the default. How often do you hear white people talk about being white? I never think about it at all. Because I don’t have to. 
  In fact, tons of white people generally prefer to frame their identity in ethnic terms instead: Identifying as Italian or Irish or Jewish seems to come with a chance to take pride in some shared history.
  So I think our starting point is accepting that by and large, society has established that—advantages or no—that whiteness is the DEFAULT. Not that it’s necessarily good or bad, just the normal base template. >
  
  As someone that spent years around right wingers (of all different flavors from libertarian to evangelical) I can assure you, they do think we are biologically different. 
  They just need to feel safe enough to say it. >
  
  Interesting. Can you give me some examples of their thoughts? >
  
  My former friend, in his 60s now, was a bit of a father figure to me in my 20s. He was a typical “I’m a liberal but the left has gone too far and made me vote for Trump” type. Also, he’s married to a black woman and adopted her two black children. 
  When his friend told me that black people had lower IQs because of “black genetics” my former friend agreed. When I pushed back and said he was saying black people were inferior, I was told no because black people are better at athletics and my former friend agreed again. 
  I had ignored the signs for a while because I didn’t want throw away 15 years of friendship. I thought surely I must be missing something and it can’t be all the way full blown racist bad. I wasn’t missing anything. >
  
  That’s wild. >
  
  My evangelical friend, in his 70s, believes they are mentally and morally inferior. He doesn't hate them, accourding to him, he just feels they need to recognize a place of subservience to whites and seperate as God intended. They are the biblical "mud people" made inferior and marked by God to serve God's chosen whites. 
  As far as if I think he hates them, well that sure is a lot nicer than anything he has to say about the jews. So I guess one has to sort of squint and take a certain relative view to determine what he likes and who he hates. >
  
  So the issue I have with offensive words is that they will be banned because they offend someone. Then a different word or phrase is used as the descriptor that then becomes offensive as it is being used to describe people. And it is a never ending cycle.
  We should not be treating people badly because of their ethnicity. Some people still will even if they shouldn’t. Changing the words that are used will not change the intended meaning of what the person is saying.
  Then you have people who will project intent to what someone says. So no matter what is said they will find a way to turn it into something offensive.
  I do not know a perfect solution to this other then encouraging people to treat others as people. >
  
  I think sometimes, being offended is a choice, an entitlement, rather than something that is of common sense. I do not think the term "person of color" is meant to be offensive nor is it being perceived as something that is offensive by most people in the west at least, but it feels awkward to use and sometimes the usage becomes illogical when you use it to describe someone just because they are not white. And I do know that there are people who get offended over this term since it can be perceived as. I think it is off topic now, but anyway, I think to treat each other equal you have to see each other as your equal first, meaning you need to see outside of just "identity", racial, gender etc. Just normally label someone who is not white as asian. black etc. is something I think is more appropriate and it seems more natural rather just labeling them as a person of color imo since it is counter-productive to group people base off just race, and it is a thing in the west. >
  
  My 2 cents, I think POC is applicable for socioeconomic conversations. It used to be minority but I think that has fallen out of favor due to demographics changing and its derogatory usage overtime. When it comes to treating everyone the same, while it is wishful thinking we are really not at a point in society where we can do that justly. If we started calling everyone just people tomorrow for example, there would still be disparities in incarceration, poverty, healthcare, etc based on the color of your skin. 
  So in the meantime it is useful to separate white people from non-white people in terms of socioeconomic conversations because the disparities are there and there is a clear dividing line. Of course you can break it down further than white people/non-white but it helps because white supremacy did (and still does imo) run through Americas core so white people do on average have a much different experience than someone who is a minority/poc. >
  
  I will hard disagree on this one. The statistics have shown that socioeconomic conversations do not only favor white americans but also asian americans, and hence this is why whenever people of color are being discussed in the context of socioeconomic ones, or just like you said (incarceration, poverty, healthcare etc.) they are not considered poc because poc are perceived as having less privilege. Yet asian americans as a group outperform white americans in many areas. >
  
  They may outperform whites in specific areas, but they are still largely underrepresented as a whole, we've only had 1 president who isn't white for example. ~80% of ceos are white, 98% of land owners are white. Then there was also the Asian exclusion act of 1924, Japanese internment camps, etc.
  My primary point is that even though they may outperform other groups in certain areas, Asians were and are still "othered" by the white majority hence why the POC status/label fits in my eyes. >
  
  I don’t think it makes being white special, but I do think it dilutes the unique features of ALL the POC out there. >
  
  I have wondered at this many times.  I keep being surprised that I never hear anyone who is not white complaining about the term "people of color."
  People's experiences, priorities, and needs differ so greatly within races, let alone across them.  Lumping so many races together and speaking about them as a monolithic entity seems as if it would immediately prompt most of the members of the entity to be like, "Actually, that's not quite right about my particular subset."