Sure we do. They just closed down one of the threads about **Smapti **because we were talking about one person too much.
On the other hand, it’s going to take a long time to help improve the lives of people across the world if it can only be done at an individual level.
Possibly it was more about the fact that they zombified him to do it 
“One drop raises the sea”
“We”? What’s this “we” bullshit? Are you seriously going to lump everyone together instead of saying the name of each person who doesn’t have the time?
Until “we” engineer a virus that kills off 99.999% of the earth’s population (give or take a couple of 9s), “we” will never have the time to talk about each person individually. It’s not efficient, it’s not productive, and it’s not necessary. Sometimes it’s fine to talk about folks according to their perceived social groups.
Two views:
#1 is not the same as #2.
It is perfectly fine and Asians, in general, are perfectly fine with it. They use the term Aisan all the time in professional settings. Just google “Asian Society” or “Asian Association”. Are you claiming that they are unwittingly using incorrect or offensive terminology to refer to themselves? Your goal may be noble but I think you are a bit out of step with reality.
I’ll hijack my own thread to recommend a 15-minute excerpt from a diversity training class. Among insights offered: blacks in U.S. need and want their ethnic identity to be acknowledged.
(In the training session, blue-eyed students are “oppressed.”)
Which is obviously not true of every single dark-skinned person in the US, to forestall a possible objection by Mr. Dibble. But we know that already. And when people make statements like this, virtually all speakers and all listeners understand that it’s a shorthand for “the majority of…” which is why it’s not said every time.
Cute :rolleyes:
I think you misunderstand me - what I’m saying was when you are talking about an individual, don’t refer to them by an ethnic grouping unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Sometimes yes. I’ve already acknowledged this. But only if the possibility of referring to them as individuals doesn’t exist at all, IMO.
#1 buys into #2 by according it any respect at all. It’s like arguing with religionists and pretending their ideas have any coherence at all when they don’t. Just playing along with them is a fail.
And blacks used to call themselves “Nigger” unironically all the time, too.
There’s a Southern African Development Forum but I’d be silly to suggest this makes Southern African an ethnicity.
I’m saying they could do better.
Reality is out of step with morality. And reality can be changed.
And that’s fine. At no point have I claimed ethnicity doesn’t exist. Particular ethnic groupings are nonsensical, but that doesn’t negate ethnicity.
And my point is, that most of the time this is done, there’s no consideration of the minority at all.
Stop refusing to admit what? I totally admitted that I didn’t read it. What have I stopped refusing to admit?
Also, I didn’t hijack the thread. People asked me questions, or reacted to me, and I responded. Should I have just sat back and not said anything and go cry in the corner or something? This post of yours directed to me, do you think the proper response for me is to just say nothing to it? Seriously? You don’t have to like me and you could wish I would just disappear, but that doesn’t mean that the proper response to someone criticizing you is to just disappear and never respond. I think that’s much more egregious a violation of this board’s ignorance fighting theme than laziness. If someone says something to me, I reserve the right to respond
If you don’t like it, don’t reply to this post