godesulloh
Region: US
Wednesday 08 October 2025 22:29:00 GMT
20941
2986
206
144
Music
Download
Comments
the_happiness_romantic :
people of the global majority
2025-10-08 22:38:22
89
nomzamo_madlamini :
I love your take! On the matter of Decentering men, it is more about centering yourself. The idea of decentering men is about reclaiming focus. It’s not anti-men, it’s pro-you. It’s about living, dressing, and expressing yourself for your own fulfillment, not male approval.
2025-10-08 22:51:36
37
Moh's Notes :
liking this just because you find Nietzsche's moustache interesting too.
2025-10-11 11:43:28
0
Raoul Wallenberg :
The problem is that White Supremacy in our world, chiefly the Anglosphere, is still the defining factor. We can attempt other defining identities, but until the overwhelming might of White Supremacy can be dismantled, the identities of "White" and "Colour" will still be defined off of White Supremacy. The identity of Anti-Racism only exists in a system where Racism is a defining trait. It is not the choice of the individual in the system as to whether the system exists, therefore the choice to identify as Anti-Racist or Anti-Fascist or "Colour"'d in opposition to Racism or Fascism or Whiteness is not a support of that system, merely a recognition of it. This does not require centering, as much as recognizing it as a landmark. That landmark could be centralized, but you could also have multiple defining traits of which none are central.
2025-10-09 16:29:19
66
Babylon Jasmine :
I know some people are using "global majority " now. Is that any better?
2025-10-13 15:11:12
0
realbatgirl2000 :
In my opinion it only applies when talking about people of color in America or white people in America or about a specific country . Outside a specific context there’s little to nothing share by “people of color” from different countries . People of color can’t be grouped together in an international context at that point referring to populations by specific continents or countries would be the only accurate way.
2025-10-08 22:44:27
63
t801267 :
I see where you are coming from and to me the only answer to your question is privilege. Only in conversations about privilege and discrimination is the term really meaningful as a broad description for the people that are discriminated against
2025-10-08 22:53:06
7
Sumy 🏳️⚧️✂️ :
The term poc is used to broadly describe racial minorities in America who suffer under racism and white supremacy imbedded into the system of this country
2025-10-08 23:16:00
182
jessicajooney :
I like your linking of all these ideas together, that hadn’t occurred to me independently but once you say it is clicked. Both the asceticism and the decemtring men one do stand out to me as having more in common with each other, as I see them both as being proposed models of self that are about reaching are more “true” self by first having to actively counter the pressure of society. They go “it is not enough to say that I will just be me, because all the forces upon me are pushing me one way. To find my true self I need to first balance out that pressure.”
2025-10-13 22:43:04
1
LUCKY🍀 :
i think my personal answers to these two questions of terminology are as follows 1: the action of de-centering: i think culturally the MOTION of moving things to center on men (or to perpetuate white supremacy) is being treated as stillness. right, like the value judgements being made are treated as mere fact and not judgement. the true neutral point of treating people equally is not in the window. i think the idea of speaking specifically of intentionally centering women or intentionally revaluing nonwhiteness is not to create something that constantly references existing culture and then corrects for it *permanently*. the goal to me is to achieve a state of different inaction, where the automatic and nonreferential actions one are making simply happen to treat people equally. as animals raised in a cultural mileu, you can't just do that from scratch! because of the placement of the window and the valuation of male-centering or white-centering action AS inaction, any attempt to behave equitably will *need* to feel wildly active and in-opposition-to until one's personal window has moved. you have to BEGIN with referential action because all action is referential, and then by building those new patterns of action they cease to be referential to the inequitable status quo and begin to be their own, self-referential status quo in your life. at which point i imagine you would begin to use different language. but the time for that language in my opinion has not occured yet, and we still need descriptive and referential terms to describe the action that people need to perform.
2025-10-08 23:58:31
5
Darth Komi Zen Kun :
I don't think decentering is the same as being anti. Anti requires a dedication to the opposite of, whereas decentering just mean the thing being decentered is not a priority.
2025-10-12 14:03:49
0
ME_Unhinged :
this is why I am for treating things as normal race, lgptq+, social norm ( performing or ds performing them) and simply treating any discrimination as a hate crime not "racism" "anti-feminism" and so on but you will compromise the ability to speak and connect about specific group problems but also the issue comes when you try to focus the light on the problems that seem to face a specific group of people : women - people of colour - queer people and so on. we are trying to give them their rights but also in expense we have to focus the light on the discrimination they receive so what a dilemma
2025-10-08 22:43:47
1
alex the witch 🇵🇸 :
I agree that the term people of colour is very general, but that's exactly why I find it useful. Systems of racism exist all over the world and I find there are a lot of broad similarities, so that's where I use the term. It's probably also because of the fact that my cultural identity is very specific and I sometimes feel like referring to it alone is counter to the points I'm trying to make.
2025-10-09 05:00:32
4
artemis :
I would like to note that the white category isnt inherently better. Just because theres a separation doesn't make one above the order (I know hes not saying thats what it is its just a thought i had)
2025-10-09 21:22:33
0
𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑦 :
I think the term is still useful when talking about race, specifically in the US and other western countries, because for so long these societies placed great importance on whether a person was white or not—not necessarily what exact non-white group they were. I know some other alternatives to “people of color” exist—I’ve heard “people of the global majority”—but I still think that centers white people. As long as we want to talk about race in a society that has historically separated people into “white” and “non-white” then we are going to need a word for the concept of “non-white”.
2025-10-09 04:22:27
22
Nbdy :
I don't think there's anything wrong with deconstructing things in society that we now recognize are harmful and actively making changes to dismantle those systems. Paradigm shifts take a long time to occur, and require consistent action. Until racism and yt supremacy are not systemic issues, it's important to be anti-racist. Until patriarchy is not a systemic issue and the majority of men are able to properly recognize misogyny and patriarchal structures, de-centering men is important. Etc. etc. etc. I do think "people of color" has issues and is a bit too general, but until more people are aware of race being a social construct and we are able to move on as one human race, it is currently the most useful description imo.
2025-10-08 22:51:06
19
:
i see white as an exclusionary term. Person of color is anyone who didn't make it into the gated community.
2025-10-09 16:53:38
17
SyrIsaac :
in all of your examples, I believe the common thread is that there is something that is initially an idea that we want to move away from, as the idea is so encompassing that there is no room for alternatives, ie patriarchy and racism. once we've sufficiently moved from that idea, we now have the "space" to generate new alternatives and then be for whatever said alternative is. so I think it is necessary to initially have POC as a term to have a banner of perspectives that go against white supremacy, but eventually it will have to evolve into something new once we've sufficiently moved away from that idea.
2025-10-09 13:53:31
7
lizaliz :
I love your musings. I appreciate your nuances on different topics.
2025-10-10 04:35:12
9
Ames :
I think it was Mother Theresa who said she would not attend an anti-war rally, but would be happy to go to a peace rally. The “thing” you’re looking for distinguishing POC is: being the target of white supremacy.
2025-10-10 04:29:52
6
CapybaraFan666 :
I love this discussion. First, I don't think defining yourself in opposition to something is necessarily a problem, especially if its something harmful. Doctors essentially define themselves and their purpose as being against disease, and they're rightfully held in high regard. Now, you could also say that theyre defined in the positive direction as being for health, and I think both are true because in general people see health and disease as opposites. But when we talk about racism its not clear to me that theres a word that means the opposite of racism, so anti-racist is a way of communicating that idea succinctly.
2025-10-11 00:15:54
4
Luna :
I am halfway through and I have a response to your first question! It is too long for a comment, I may make a video with my “answer.”
2025-10-11 03:10:47
1
StrixhavenDropout :
I think Nietzsche’s point was to describe the influence of oppression. Institutions and structure of power define our opposition because of the nature of this control. It is not necessary to contradict how centralizing these topics function in stopping them. They are monoliths than need more attention to change, thus their influence and centricity. This translated to the relationship between white and poc. They share oppression. Whiteness universally though not genetically holds the power and benefit of oppression. I think it all holds up imo
2025-10-09 15:15:05
5
drewtriggered :
I’d like to add that the term people of color was made to be person first as opposed to the term black people. It’s like the term people with disabilities, in the most literal sense it is person first (literally saying people with—.) because they are not defined by their disability, just as people should not be defined as their color. And I would also add that this term is most popular in America where this term would more sense to use because all racial minorities are more likely to experience discrimination.
2025-10-09 15:03:43
0
KipO_Ca :
The context it makes sense in is when discussing the power dynamics within the racial hierarchy created by whiteness.
2025-10-09 15:08:41
42
To see more videos from user @vibesestvida, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
