Not exactly sure what you’re asking, but no, collective nouns aren’t generally pluralized in English, nor is the term appropriate outside of a porn context. Are you a native English speaker?
It’s far more acceptable than “blacks”. It also avoids the issue of associating general search terms for groups of people with sexualized contexts as has unfortunately been done to Asian women and others.
Blacks and whites. Indians and Asians. Look, it’s plural. Add an S, guess it’s dehumanizing? I think the term daddy is dehumanizing. Please, only use dad. Do not add another dy.
This is for the exact same reason you would not refer to a singular Black person as “a black”. If you still have trouble perceiving the issue, consider how jarring the term “a gay” would seem in print.
I didn’t say “a black”, context matters no? Everyone thought saying Indian was offensive and came up with native American, until realizing that is more offensive? Just because it’s plural doesn’t make it dehumanizing. Black people says blacks, I don’t hear them say a group of black people.
Are you under the impression that race and nationality are equivalent? If you’re asking whether the term is considered dehumanizing, that’s been answered for you, and if you’re asking why, that’s been answered as well. In English, racial and ethnic terms are generally used as adjectives, and we don’t use these adjectives as nouns when referring to groups of people.
Yeah because the majority of blacks use reddit and ebony porn sites. So do you call them ebonies?
Not exactly sure what you’re asking, but no, collective nouns aren’t generally pluralized in English, nor is the term appropriate outside of a porn context. Are you a native English speaker?
Why is the term acceptable to porn, do they not use English?
It’s far more acceptable than “blacks”. It also avoids the issue of associating general search terms for groups of people with sexualized contexts as has unfortunately been done to Asian women and others.
Pfffffft, sounds like a load of bs. What about Brazilians?
Brazilian isn’t a race, and Black isn’t a nationality. Incredibly, it’s even possible to be both. I hope your confusion has been cleared up.
You said Asians. So what about Persians?
Blacks and whites. Indians and Asians. Look, it’s plural. Add an S, guess it’s dehumanizing? I think the term daddy is dehumanizing. Please, only use dad. Do not add another dy.
Yes, generally referring to groups of people as pluralized adjectives is considered dehumanizing.
https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person
https://nabjonline.org/news-media-center/styleguide/#styleguidea
This is for the exact same reason you would not refer to a singular Black person as “a black”. If you still have trouble perceiving the issue, consider how jarring the term “a gay” would seem in print.
I didn’t say “a black”, context matters no? Everyone thought saying Indian was offensive and came up with native American, until realizing that is more offensive? Just because it’s plural doesn’t make it dehumanizing. Black people says blacks, I don’t hear them say a group of black people.
Are you under the impression that race and nationality are equivalent? If you’re asking whether the term is considered dehumanizing, that’s been answered for you, and if you’re asking why, that’s been answered as well. In English, racial and ethnic terms are generally used as adjectives, and we don’t use these adjectives as nouns when referring to groups of people.
I think what is dehumanizing is a matter of opinion
Exactly, and only one fucking opinion matters. That of the people affected. Glad we cleared that up, cheers.