Which is highly relevant to the topic of unionization. To get a union, you have to win a vote, and your chances are much better if you don't turn off voters unnecessarily. Why use a term like BIPOC in your unionization drive, which is a neologism strongly associated with progressives, when it's likely to turn off a lot of people you may be able to convince to join your side? It's stupid marketing.

I mean, literally this thread started with someone who's an example of that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29908024), which you had trouble understanding and I've been patiently trying to explain to you. There are many other examples in this post.

That's not to say that a union can't address issues that Black women have, but it's going to fail as a union if it can't accommodate a wider variety of people. Someone in another thread said something along the lines of "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." You're making a similar mistake, except you seem to think you can make up rules for voters to follow. Or maybe you don't think about voters at all because you're too busy sorting people into a reject bin. It's hard to say exactly.

> while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media

So? You know, a lot of people reject mass media culture to various degrees. You're kind of proving my point for me.

> I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further.

I feel the same about you.

> You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right.

Nope, wrong again. I'm just not so polarized that I'm repulsed by people who disagree with me and utterly reject them, so I can still think about how they think and believe some things can get done with their cooperation.