To not know if describing a person as coloured is politically incorrect.

[WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid]

Was talking to a friend today and I mentioned I had met one of his colleagues (but I wasn't sure who). He said. Oh was she a coloured lady?

I said yes and we each knew who it was I had met. I was a bit taken aback as you don't really hear the word coloured used anymore. But it was probably the best way to describe her (kind of Mediterranean / Indian).

Was I being too politically correct for being at the way he described her?

I think you'll find in my previous post I also stated that terminology was important. I was trying to say we should also take into account the implied meaning behind seemingly inoffensive words and how we say things in every day life.

Obviously not that well

I was talking to whatserface.

Sorry - interpretation of words failed! Good example though!

What if learningtofly was in a wheelchair Peppy? Would you punch them even harder?

Offense is NOT always taken, sometimes it is in fact given. Some words just are insulting. Like if I call you a cunt, and then blame you for taking offense. Its a cop out pretending that there is no power in a word without intent. You're a fraud

I shall add Fraud to Moron, Idiot, Twat and Childish, shall I Peppy?

IMO anyone who can profess to believe that someone saying "Oh was she a coloured lady?" was being Racist, AND that if he had instead said "Oh,was she a lady of colour" would be Not Racist, is either a complete fool if they genuinely can't see the humbug, or a complete intellectual fraud if they can but can't admit it.

By the way, Peppy, I think the funniset thing about you is that you jump up and down about "coloured" being racist, while freely throwing the insults "moron" and "idiot" at me, which - and I can attest this from many a MN thread - other PC MNetters find highly unPC and disablist.

Which just IMO just shows the contradiction in PC,that it isnot coherent,not correct,and has in somecases "gorn mad"

" But your linking of Enid Blyton and Hitler was, indeed, shit "

I did not link them, hence the separate lines.

They are certainly opposite ends of a continuum but I hoped the contrast was obvious as was my specific' questions in response to a specific^ statement.

If you want to use words like "shit" in a debate then there is nothing I can do about that but it does rather jar.

You can't say 'jar' unless you explain the logic of using a word for a jam receptacle to describe your displeasure (not offence) at a swearword, Whatme.

Otherwise it's just irrational. Right?

www.naacp.org/

We already covered that, they keep in in the title for historical context. And you realise we're not in america (they talk differently there doncha know?)

Maybe i look at this too simplistically or perhaps it is a debate too far for my brain this late on a Thursday night.

Words are really just squiggles on a page or computer screen or the way we form noises to communicate with each other. But then when you add in the context, the history behind them, the way we say them and what we really mean when we say them (and how that is then conveyed to other people and interpreted by them) those words take on many meanings.

So ultimately you could use words that seemingly are inoffensive but make them offensive. You could words that are offensive but that are not interpreted that way. And you could use words that are offensive that are, frankly, offensive. To all intents and purposes that even could be the same word.

If you come back to the original OP and the use of the word coloured, as a word itself it can be applied in different contexts. It is the context and the alternative meanings behind it that make it inoffensive in some contexts and offensive in others - not the word itself.

So in the context of the OP then yes I think the word useage was wrong. If they were talking about paper or crayons or ink then it would have been ok.

Who the fuck would say "lady of colour"? Thats just the same as "coloured lady" only pompous and tortured! What a twattish turn of phrase. Both equally bad.

Keep digging babe.....

And most women prefer woman, rather than lady, btw. Not a shocker that its news to you though.

You never read the OP's original post...

In the early 90s when I was at university (considered itself very forward thinking), you were supposed to say "person of colour" not "coloured." I couldn't work out if this was really more precise, less offensive or simply...wordier.

Sod I've just seen this thread is 25 pages....

And yep, I managed to come in with my post after half a dozen people had already been talking about this...

Whatme- why won't you say "nigger"?

Becasue 'nigger' is a racist term seeker.

'Coloured' isnt.

They are not equivalent, and that is why no-one has been taking the bait on your constant droning question.

You can stop typing 'nigger' at every opportunity now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored