Yeah, so I just had a nasty debate with someone on IRC. Basically, said someone said 'n-word', so I said 'What do you think happens if you just say "nigger" out full, you think people might get brain cancer? We all know what it means, just say it, doesn't make you racist.', well, apparently that makes me racist was the conclusion she came to. No, I'm sorry, I just think obfuscations like n**** or f*ck, or sh*t are stupid. Everyone knows what they mean alright, it's not like people suffer some kind of disease from being exposed to them.
So, this obviously brings us back to Orb and his "dumb nigger risk" debacle. Does anyone actually believe it was exemplary of 'racism' what he did? I mean come on, swear words that were once isolated to a specific group very often get generalized to a larger group. Words like 'bitch' are nowadays quite often applied to men even though they once only were to women. Hell, we all use words like 'lame' and 'dumb' as random insults, let's not forgot that these words are technically insults aimed at people who can't walk or speak respectively. Jesus healed the lame remember? Most people seem to completely forget what 'lame' actually means. Well, so did Orb forget it when he said 'dumb nigger risk', is he a pathetic whining piece of shit who can't control his emotions? Yeah. Does that make him racist? No, not really. You have to consider the context, the context is obvious here that Orb meant nothing to black people. If you say "Fucking niggers should get out of our country.", now that is racist. Likewise "Fucking African-Americans should get out of our country." is racist. Use, or lack thereof, of the word nigger does not magically transform something into racism or takes it away. Please, let us look at the context in which the words appear. It's pretty easy to infer it and let's assume good faith in cases of ambiguity.
Okay, so he got fired. Can't blame Garfield, EG is a business in the end. His entire story was absolutely sanctimonious bullshit though. Come on, he waited like what, 3 days? Obviously to see if the storm calms down, supposedly to 'confirm the rumours', are you shitting me? It takes 30 minutes to watch an average vod of Orb and you see he pumps that stuff out like it's punctuation when he's losing. Am I seriously to swallow they had this guy in their employ for so long and they didn't know he does this? Of course they knew, but they didn't care, they only start to care once the community stars to email sponsors. It all started with a random picture on reddit, suddenly people were made aware Orb does this, I knew he did it for a long time, many people don't I guess, can't really blame them for that they don't know. In fact, I can't even blame them that much for getting angry about that he's a pathetic whiner. The guy came close to death threats to his opponent.
What I do blame people for is that they actually swallow that sanctimonious story Garfield came up with. That this kind of 'damage control' actually works, that people don't see right through it and say 'Yo Garfield, your story doesn't add up and it's clear you don't mean a word of it, so I'm even more angry and I'm going to mail the sponsors even more.', maybe if damage control didn't work as well as it did people would actually check out what their casters are up to before they hire them instead of relying on damage control to fix it when it turns out they have the most immature behaviour in existence on their stream.
However, this brings us all to the sensitivity towards 'language'. Let's consider the 'n-word' for a moment, supposedly it has been used to oppress and control people, are you kidding me? Sticks, guns and chains were used to oppress and control people and enslave them, not words. You can't use words to oppress and control people, you can only use them to insult people which isn't actual physical damage. That's why freedom of speech exists but there's no such thing as freedom to beat people up. Freedom of speech, I can insult people, most importantly, I can insult political leaders and criticize them. The right to say things that may be insulting about any fellow citizen is key for a democracy to function. As soon as a government can legislate social appropriateness rather than letting it evolve naturally by community consensus they gain the ability to oppress their people. This is exactly what is happening in many states like say Iran. You say something that insults God or any of his Prophets? Boom, to jail you go! Perfect tool for a government who claims they sit with the approval of God to oppress its people, after all, insulting the government is insulting Islaam indirectly.
It goes even further than nigger, anyone knows the word niggard? It's older than nigger and shares no etymological ancestry with it. It means someone who's afraid to spend money. Well, people got fired for using the word niggard(ly) completely correctly. Because it superficially looks similar to nigger? Are you kidding me? What's next? Can't say fog because it looks like fag? I'm sorry but it's just the nature of language that words which look similar but have no connexion to each other otherwise exist. Okay, say someone says 'niggardly' and you don't know what the word means and take offence but then the person calmly explains 'Oh no, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, you see, niggard just means miser.', then that's fucking it. If you still take offence after that and don't say 'Oh, I'm sorry, I of course thought it meant something else.' then it's your own problem okay. That person didn't mean to offend you in any way, that person was not racist in any way. The reason you misunderstood it was your own ignorance of the English lexicon. You'd be thankful that person takes the time to calmly explain rather than call you a retard for getting angry about words you don't even know. And that's more or less what happened with a New York City staff member who got fired for calling the budget 'niggardly'. Come oooooon... how was this man in any way to blame? But hey, ultimately, decisions have to be made to soothe the angry masses, I don't blame New York City for that in the end, their hands are tied, I blame the angry mob who seriously demand that after an innocent misunderstanding like that.
How about 2GD's famous joke about Scarlett "The best of both worlds", Scarlett didn't like it, I can certainly get that. It's certainly not something she wants to be reminded of in a public setting. But this is not transphobia. 2GD jokes about everything and anything and off-colourly so. He called Alex Garfield a paedophile, he comments on iNcontroL's weight. This guy will poke fun at whatever can be poked fun at and yes, sometimes people get hurt. If you invite him over as a tournament organizer, what you get is on the tin. In personal space of course of Scarlett doesn't like it she doesn't have to hang out with him. She can ask him to stop, if he doesn't do it of course no one is going to ask her to still hang out with him. If he says 'Sorry, I didn't think you'd be so upset, I didn't mean to upset you, I just... you know... I sometimes forget the things I say can hurt people.' and she can live with that then more power to both of them. But in the end is it transphobia? Maybe if he singled transsexuals out but he doesn't.
And yeah, I mentioned that Scarlett is transsexual here. There are seemingly two big elephants in the room in this scene. A) The Elephant in the Room turned out to be vastly exaggerated. B) Scarlett is transsexual. Everyone knows it, everyone tries to find creative ways to not mention it. It is not transphobic to mention that someone is transsexual guys. Hell, it is transphobic to be so uncomfortable with the subject to not mention it. Scarlett is transsexual, saying that does not make her anything less of a human being, anything less of a woman. But this culture where everyone knows it but acts so awkward about it just creates the idea for transsexuals that they are less, that people think they are some freaks of nature or whatever. Talking about it like it is nothing special is what creates acceptance. Let's face it, transsexualism is not yet as accepted as homosexuality is. One day it will get there, sadly it isn't there yet. And back when homosexuality wasn't accepted, you kept it to yourself, people were afraid to mention it and talk about it. Because deep down inside they still viewed it as something unnatural and abnormal. Just talking about it like any other subject is what creates acceptance, awkwardly talking around it is what creates an impression that they are less of a person or unnatural.
And then we end up with Terry the Intern, poor, poor guy. Mentions someone was of a darker colour. I'm sorry, but what exactly? Mentioning someone's race touches upon our sensitivities? But hey, only if it's an ethnic minority, then it suddenly becomes 'sensitive'. We went from 'negro' to 'black' to 'African-American' to 'person of colour' (which is ridiculous, offensive and arguaby racist in itself because beige is a colour) just to find a continually less offensive term for it because it's seemingly offensive of itself to speak of the race of black people. Mean while the term 'white person' has endured. Because it's not a racial minority. Let's face it, in the end people feel awkward mentioning the race of black people because deep down inside, subconsciously, people perceive us as 'not normal', white is normal, all the other tones are variants in western society. I mean let's face it, if I describe someone like 'Yeah, he's a pretty handsome guy, good build, eloquent.', everyone thinks of a white dude in their mind, it's not even about the handsome, if I say 'he's such an awkward little nerd with buck teeth', again, everyone think so of a white guy. You have to add the word black somewhere in a description to make people think of a black guy. And that's how people describe people. If we talk about white people we never mention race, if we think about black people we do. Hell, wiki article about the Oracle from the Matrix:
"The Oracle appears as an African American woman in her late 60s. She frequently enjoys making cookies and likes the smell they make while they are cooking, she also has a penchant for candy."
Take a guess if the wiki ever mentions the race of white people. It doesn't. For some reason it's necessary to name the race of black people or Asian people but not white people. Which goes completely against the Wachowskis' vision of the matrix. The Matrix is one of the first films where people of all races exist who are just playing people, they aren't playing a specifically "black" or "asian role", they aren't that because the plot demands it, they just are because they are, for the same reason the white people are white. Because you have to have one race so why not roll a die? Did you know Will Smith was originally considered for Neo? That's right, the character of Neo is written irrespectively of his race. And Keanu Reeves ultimately symbolizes this because the man is clearly of multiracial ancestry.
The sensitivity towards all this language exists for one purpose, to compensate for the fact that we aren't capable of solving the actual racial injustices so we just focus on stupid irrelevant things we can "solve". Let's combat words rather than actions, my god. No one gives a damn about the fact that not a single black StarCraft progamer seems to exist, let's not focus our attention on that, no let's instead get angry because Terry mentioned the colour of someone's skin.
Well written. I agree but that is how things are. And it will be difficult, almost impossible to change the view of todays society to something where racial and sexual prejudice does not exist.
Anecdote i guess: rarely do i read the chat of streams when the number if people watching exceed 10k for i do not want to lose faith in humanity. Anyhow this is relevant because i saw random people calling scarlett a guy. Naturally being curiois i googled it and sure enough i found that in fact scarlett is a transgender. I dont really care about this fact but because of this i spent a good 30mins on wikipedia learning about the procedures and i found myself impressed by them. Quite impressove i must say what modern science can do. d^_^b
You don't understand what the "n word" means for African Americans. Their ancestors endured slavery, degradation, and immoral treatment. They continue to suffer from systematic and societal racism, prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry. Slavery does not exist as it once did in America, but its effects are clear and can be felt even today. Ever wonder why most African Americans are poor, often subjected to gang violence, disruptive family structures, and lack of opportunities? I won't attribute it all to slavery but surely the causal effect is there. Honestly there is no difference whether you say African American or Black, if they get offended by these words it's their problem. But saying the "n word" is completely different. There are loads of negative connotations attached to that word and it's a really sensitive topic to the African American community. You might wonder how come it's acceptable for black people to refer to each other using the "n word". I see it as a symbol of solidarity, much like "brother", when African Americans use it among themselves. But the word is strictly forbidden from being used by members outside their community and they have right to feel offended by this derogatory remark. Be careful what you say, your words have power and consequences
I'm confused on your worldview. You claim words are unimportant, but your writing espouses the necessity of them. Also, I believe you made broad generalizations in your assumptions concerning public ideals.
If we talk about white people we never mention race, if we think about black people we do.
Perhaps you don't, but does your view encompass all populations, or even most of them? Suppose I asked an Arab population to envision a "pretty handsome guy, good build, eloquent." Would they see a so-called white person? Probably not, because their culture and upbringing revolve around Arabs. If I asked an African population, would they see the Arab?
It's true in a blended society the ethnic majority will be seen more because, well, there's more of them. The more precise question would be "Are majorities statistically represented more in public viewpoint than demographically?" which would be a tricky question to ask because populations vary so greatly.
I'm also confused as to whether you want people to be identified specifically or to exist homogeneously. Should we call them "black progamers" or just "progamers?" For that matter, why do you consider the race of a progamer noteworthy? I've never seen an Indian progamer either, nor an Inuit progamer.
On December 27 2013 08:07 NeuroticPsychosis wrote: You don't understand what the "n word" means for African Americans. Their ancestors endured slavery, degradation, and immoral treatment. They continue to suffer from systematic and societal racism, prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry. Slavery does not exist as it once did in America, but its effects are clear and can be felt even today. Ever wonder why most African Americans are poor, often subjected to gang violence, disruptive family structures, and lack of opportunities? I won't attribute it all to slavery but surely the causal effect is there. Honestly there is no difference whether you say African American or Black, if they get offended by these words it's their problem. But saying the "n word" is completely different. There are loads of negative connotations attached to that word and it's a really sensitive topic to the African American community. You might wonder how come it's acceptable for black people to refer to each other using the "n word". I see it as a symbol of solidarity, much like "brother", when African Americans use it among themselves.
Again, context though. There's w hole different line between just mentioning the word and actually using it to insult people.
I'm afraid that if you can't make up context and perceive insult where none was intended then that's your own problem with context reading to work on.
American society is also as a whole paradoxally sensitive to words. I watched Star Trek Into Darkness a while back. Not a single time are words like 'fuck' uttered? Is that truly realistic language? You'd expect a cowboy like Kirk to utter it a couple of times when things go south, but hey, it offends the sensitivities of the American public. Instead, we get Khan crushing skulls, blowing up people, the Vengeance smashing into a city at the end killing hundreds of thousands of people, Pike murdered along with random people in the Starfleet staff.
Which is exactly what you often see in American films, people die left and right gratuitously. Man of Steel was particularly ridiculous, apparently the gratuitous descruction of half a city being leveled at the final battle between Zod and Kal-El does not offend the American public, in fact, the entire film seems to brush under the table that there are people located in all those buildings that blow up throughout the film (and at the end he kills him filled with grief to spare 3 people, he killed 50 000 i that battle alone, a skyscraper or 5 fell over, come on..).
But hey, no one in the entire film ever says 'Fuck', because language offends the American public, not gratuitous amounts of death, no, language.
Which as a European is always something that intrigues, perplexes, amuses and some-what offends me. Call it a prejudice, but in the end 99% of the time when people make a fuzz about language they're American. Europeans just don't seem to care that much about language. When Apollo is at MLG he never says 'fuck', he's told he can't say that. Not in America, at Dreamhack the word liberally gets out, Swedish people don't give a shit.
And that's the paradox, in the end the US so so extremely sensitive to 'racist language', but turns a blind eye to actual racism. Every news station will report if someone says 'nigger' no matter the context, but all the while the Supreme court rules that racial profiling is fine and doesn't violate the constitution. And everyone is is fine with that there. I've often been called 'racist' by Americans because of off colour humour. I'm a bit like 2GD, a bit too much maybe, I like to poke fun at things. One of my friends is Asian and I sarcastically always call her 'slit' and she calls me 'poohead', it's all in good fun of course, I wouldn't say that makes me 'racist'.
Hell, it isn't even about race, it's about language, the US is just so obsessed with speech control and language. The US often prides itself as a bastion of free speech but the amount of censorship that goes on in media in the US to enforce their own view of decency. That TV stations can actually be fined for what language they use in the US. Or that Comic Book Code thing that actually existed. Where I live, TV stations aren't regulated by the government. Some Christian party raised it about some low brow show and the response was basically 'Freedom of speech bro, the government does not control what private TV stations say and broadcast, if people are offended they will stop watching.', but the US is so obsessed with legislating decency in language. If you watch an American soap opera, people get angry all the time and never ever once utter the word 'fuck', the language just isn't realistic. Soaps here, if people get angry, they speak the way people actually speak in real life when they're angry, they swear. THis is a picture of a former leader of the biggest conservative party here:
No one here is going to organize an "angry mum" campaign because that guy had the word fuck on his shirt. People are like "hey, that's funny, the conservatives are starting to loosen up a bit!"
But the word is strictly forbidden from being used by members outside their community and they have right to feel offended by this derogatory remark. Be careful what you say, your words have power and consequences
One has to appreciate how close this comes to racism? That you get a carte blanche to use it based on the colour of your skin.
Rather, look at people's intentions, do they intend to insult you, do they actually have racist views? Then by all means, get angry.
I don't think one should be forced to hold back their words at all. 'Nigger' doesn't mean anything to me. It may mean something for other people, but that should never be a reason to not allow me, or anyone else, from saying it. People who say nigger, knowing it offends their audience, may be called dicks (which is a rather sexist name, if you catch my drift). Forcing someone to shut up (even for one word) seems to me a very uncivilised solution to the problem of people being dicks. Besides, if dicks want to offend someone, they will, with or without censorship. It's quite hypocritical, actually.
On racism, I agree with the blog, except on one point. First, i agree that the information that the oracle is an African-American woman shouldn't be mentioned. Not because of some moral judgement of that sentence, but because it's redundant, just like mentioning on George W. Bush's wiki that he has 2 arms is redundant. Similar to this line of thought, i disagree with the blog one the point that there are no black progamers. I don't care. Just like i don't care that there are no non-koreans at the absolute bw top, that obama isn't as white as bush and that I'm black. The point is, for racism to disappear, one shouldn't care. What people don't seem to realise is that these symbolic acts (like not saying nigger, not allowing black pete in the netherlands or w/e) won't change anything. It's like someone's lost their eye and you try to solve it by putting it back. I assure you, it won't help, how much you want it to.
@SiskosGoatee: Never knew Balkenende was politically active in albania too, lol..
Sorry to burst your bubble I am reading your typing and i can't stop myself from not replying without finishing the whole op (i'll finish right after this post) but i'm amazed at what you think (sorry, i feel what you type is what you think) I read context, mmmmm not everyone bothers with it or even understand it mmmm but ok I read garfield damage control, and although i sort of disagree i get what you mean and i'd even agree with the no stomaching an idiot like him and that he shouldnt ever get a free pass for his s hit .... But then i get to .. Words don't kill people bullets do (yeah im paraphrasing with a twist, agreed) and there i log in to post this response aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wtf aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa have you ever opened a book? What do you think about gandhi adolf h or lenny bruce sartre descartes freud openheimer cosby (sorry for the last two inserted for comedy relief in such a subject/assembly) Words have killed for milennias and will forever rule the world Guns ensue, but it all starts with stated uncontested opinions Lenny bruce said it best: the suppression of words is awefull, one should say nigger nigger nigger nigger till the word doesn't mean anything anymore so that a young black man couldnt be hurt by it But that means this word hurts demeans and ultimately kills in the first place Words are the most efficient smart bombs Putting a threshold to what is acceptable is not only our salvation, it is smart business sense (and yes i agree that is a f c ed up thing to realize, but true nontheless) I'm in your corner until i finish reading all of it, but you made me sad when i got that you are hurt and that you are wrong on this rationale you seem to think is sane, it is not Cya later when i'm done
People like to overreact to shit from people who are clearly not racist or people that don't care. Examples recently, The washington redskins name was debated and native americans didn't give a shit. Jimmy kimmel had that segment where the kid said 'kill the chinese people then' and jimmy said 'thats not very nice' and people went after him like crazy.
On December 27 2013 09:20 enord wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble I am reading your typing and i can't stop myself from not replying without finishing the whole op (i'll finish right after this post) but i'm amazed at what you think (sorry, i feel what you type is what you think) I read context, mmmmm not everyone bothers with it or even understand it mmmm but ok I read garfield damage control, and although i sort of disagree i get what you mean and i'd even agree with the no stomaching an idiot like hom shouldnt ever get a free pass for his s hit .... But then i get to .. Words don't kill people bullets do (yeah im paraphrasing with a twist, agreed) and there i log in to post this response aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wtf aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa you ever opened a book What do you think about gandhi adolf h or lenny bruce sartre descartes freud openheimer cosby ( sorry for the last two inserted for comedy relief in such a subject/assembly) Words have killed for milennias and will forever rule the world Guns ensue, but it all starts with stated uncontested opinions Lenny bruce said it best: the suppressio of words is awefull, one should say nigger igger nigger igger till the word doesn't mean anything anymore so that a youg black man couldnt e hurt by it But that means this word hurts demeans and ultimately kills Words are the most efficient smart bombs Putting a threshold to what is acceptable is not only our salvation it is smart business sense (and yes i agree that is a f c ed up thing to realize, but true nontheless) I'm in your corner until i finish reading all of it, but you made me sad when i got that you are hurt and that you are wrong on this rationale you seem to think is sane, it is not Cya later when i'm done
i just 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wtf aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'd' at your post.
On December 27 2013 09:20 enord wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble I am reading your typing and i can't stop myself from not replying without finishing the whole op (i'll finish right after this post) but i'm amazed at what you think (sorry, i feel what you type is what you think) I read context, mmmmm not everyone bothers with it or even understand it mmmm but ok I read garfield damage control, and although i sort of disagree i get what you mean and i'd even agree with the no stomaching an idiot like hom shouldnt ever get a free pass for his s hit .... But then i get to .. Words don't kill people bullets do (yeah im paraphrasing with a twist, agreed) and there i log in to post this response aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wtf aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa you ever opened a book What do you think about gandhi adolf h or lenny bruce sartre descartes freud openheimer cosby ( sorry for the last two inserted for comedy relief in such a subject/assembly) Words have killed for milennias and will forever rule the world Guns ensue, but it all starts with stated uncontested opinions Lenny bruce said it best: the suppressio of words is awefull, one should say nigger igger nigger igger till the word doesn't mean anything anymore so that a youg black man couldnt e hurt by it But that means this word hurts demeans and ultimately kills Words are the most efficient smart bombs Putting a threshold to what is acceptable is not only our salvation it is smart business sense (and yes i agree that is a f c ed up thing to realize, but true nontheless) I'm in your corner until i finish reading all of it, but you made me sad when i got that you are hurt and that you are wrong on this rationale you seem to think is sane, it is not Cya later when i'm done
Hmm, I respect your opinion but I disagree because aaa wtf aaaaaaaaaaaa ehh, hom shouldnt ever get a free pass his s hit putting a threshold to what is acceptable it is smart business but Lenny Bruce said it best the suppressio of words is awefull. aaaaaaaaaaaa wtf aaaaaaaaa.
But that that doesnt mean that i have to give up on you, even means that i have to try twice as hard
You see, if you reread what you carpeted bombed as facts.. These are only angry kids assumptions
You repeat again and again that if you dont see a problem with something, then it is fair game
You are in for a sore awakening and i would like you to avoid that
The world is full of people, and yes some are not cultured as you seem to see fit, some are not tolerant to your intolerance of their intolerance I could somewhat relate with you there , even though you dismiss everyone else
However, and listen carefully (just an advice), you join their ranks when you start declaring that you are right and since they are wrong then f ck their every waking minute
How is the fact that they are wrong on something (whoever doing whatever you feel inadequate, you pick, no i'll pick for you) allowing you to demean their plight? You lash out at northern american, why not them then They commited genocide, slavery and economical enslavement, so you bet that they are a good target Their movies are ridiculous and their politics are a sin at every turn Ok, we on the same page? So that gives you the power to ostracise scarlet by making her story something banal and fun worthy? That allows you to demean all women everywhere trying to get a fair shake while they still dont? That allows you to force black people (who want to reclaim their stance honoroubly by destroying the power that the word nigger once and still has over their community) to accept your own view of things? That allows you to disregard any other view than yours?
You talk about context and knowledge at every turn and forget to think of your own
You are the words you use, try to think of that while you comment on other people's mean and superior out of place demeanor, that you are doing exactly the same thing on these posts
A girl pissed you off and you went posting that you were angry That is all you accomplished, and more ...
You do get a prize for adding that using some words is your right and that people should see what you mean (that you mean no harm for instance) ... But you fail completely to showcase how it is a right or how these people should be informed of your intentions
Choice of words is intention, to everyone
Someone prefacing his post with "im not ....phobic, but ..." what does that sound to you? Someone honestly trying to not be hurtfull? Then you are admiting that said poster is going to hurt someone, even though his post warrants it! Because a higher motive is out there forcing the issue?
Not to mention it but, do you realize that this is a word world you are typing in? Posts are interpreted, words are always overflowing with meaning you can never control
Case in point: you You were hurt, and you need to lash out : nothing out of the ordinary, we all carry emotional weights till we die So you don't realize that that is the case? Should we care?
You feel the world is not perfect and want to type about it: we on the same wavelengh
You attack, wow, that is going to accomplish what?
Excluding people from conversations excludes them from life ? Yes you are right, how does that get you to "f ck em we will single them out and treat them as badly as we can" ..so they feel as bad as you do, so they feel part of the group?
My only answer would have to be, if you need to chop off the head to cure the rest of the body, it ain't worth it Being outraged at hypocrisy does not equate to being a douche, to being demeaning to people you presumably know nothing about Words are not yours, they are ours, freedom of speech is not freedom to do whatever dumb s hit you feel like doing I wont go on, i'll just leave you on my fervent hope that some of it sinks in
The world is bigger and badder every day and using known slurs thoughtlessly or worse advocating that since some people are hypocrites you can be worse than they are, this will only comfort you in your sad secluded view of the world
Words kill people every day, being ignorant of it is no excuse
Just for the lols, and i'm sorry for the cheap shot But my pasionate quick ill spelling on a phone with no screen will get fixed in a minute or two How much time will it take you to be cured of your chip on your shoulder?
"Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
Explanation from an American comedian. This country has committed a lot of atrocities in its short history. It's deeply ingrained in our culture to sweep things under the rug with euphemism. Words like nigger are irreconcilable with this process. I'm reading a book right now about Japanese Americans, and it talks about how they were thrown in concentration camps during WW2. So while we're always reminded to never forget about how we defeated the ultimate evil that was Hitler, we're simultaneously not to acknowledge those internment camps, nor the horrors we inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would say overall, we're encouraged not to think period, being endlessly bombarded from birth with advertisement, shallow entertainment, and propaganda. Excessive political correctness in place of genuine respect for others is yet another tool to keep us obedient and in line.
On December 27 2013 12:51 Djzapz wrote: "Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
So you are saying that minorities can protect themselves when you make racist jokes to your friends. Ah ok.
On December 27 2013 09:21 MarlieChurphy wrote: People like to overreact to shit from people who are clearly not racist or people that don't care. Examples recently, The washington redskins name was debated and native americans didn't give a shit. Jimmy kimmel had that segment where the kid said 'kill the chinese people then' and jimmy said 'thats not very nice' and people went after him like crazy.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
On December 27 2013 12:51 Djzapz wrote: "Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
So you are saying that minorities can protect themselves when you make racist jokes to your friends. Ah ok.
No I'm saying it's harmless when I make jokes that pertain to people's skin color or religion with my friends. Those jokes are not racist because I don't believe any race of people is inferior or whatever. Minorities don't need to protect themselves from what happens on the 7th moon of Saturn and they don't need to protect themselves from my drunken banter. People make jokes.
Meanwhile some white folks spend time condemning the use of words like "nigger" while not giving the slightest amount of fuck about the despicable life conditions that exist in ghettos. Furthermore, they ignore some of the slang for other minorities, as well as the despicable life conditions of said minorities. Those are apparently not problems worth looking into because lazy mofos like to take the moral high ground with little effort.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
Yeah and I'm the Queen of England. Even if it were true, the point is people give a particular amount of fuck about the plea of certain groups of people.
The fact that you're seemingly unaware of this is part of the problem. You think you treat all people equally? Good on you. Look how natives are treated in your country, though. Look at those second class citizens. We have them too, in Canada. Many if not most of them are stuck with terrible living conditions and no way out of their "reserves" that we've given them out of the goodness of our hearts (lol). And yet tomahawk jokes will fly in a party while a mention of the word nigger will stop a party in its track.
And I don't care that you feel like somehow all people are given the same amount of respect from you. We're not talking about you and your little contest of who's more down with the minorities. I'm talking about reality. It's true that some of the people who go apeshit when they hear the word "nigger" are also the people who don't care about the other minorities because those haven't managed to institutionalize themselves to get our sympathy.
People don't know nor care about what we did to our natives. People don't know nor care who are the Roma people. We can shit on those folks and we do, while certain other groups of people have immunity
That said, congratulations about your denunciation of the word Redskins, I'm sure they'll live much better lives when we pick different words to call them instead of actually doing anything.
So people have no intention of solving anything. They'll scold people who use bad words but they're not going to pay taxes or discuss things that could improve equality in real life. All they want is the sympathetic and nice discourse.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
No I'm saying it's harmless when I make jokes that pertain to people's skin color or religion with my friends. Those jokes are not racist because I don't believe any race of people is inferior or whatever. Minorities don't need to protect themselves from what happens on the 7th moon of Saturn and they don't need to protect themselves from my drunken banter. People make jokes.
Meanwhile some white folks spend time condemning the use of words like "nigger" while not giving the slightest amount of fuck about the despicable life conditions that exist in ghettos. Furthermore, they ignore certain of the slang for other minorities, as well as the despicable life conditions of said minorities. Those are apparently not problems worth looking because lazy mofos like to take the moral high ground with little effort.
Your jokes influence yours and your friends subconscious perceptions of other people's race. Telling yourself, "I'm not a racist" does not make your jokes not racist. People make racist jokes.
Who said those aren't problems? Who are you talking to?
Yeah and I'm the Queen of England. Even if it were true, the point is people give a particular amount of fuck about the plea of certain groups of people.
The fact that you're seemingly unaware of this is part of the problem. You think you treat all people equally? Good on you. Look how natives are treated in your country, though. Look at those second class citizens. We have them too, in Canada. Many if not most of them are stuck with terrible living conditions and no way out of their "reserves" that we've given them out of the goodness of our hearts (lol). And yet tomahawk jokes will fly in a party while a mention of the word nigger will stop a party in its track.
And I don't care that you feel like somehow all people are given the same amount of respect from you. We're not talking about you and your little contest of who's more down with the minorities. I'm talking about reality. It's true that some of the people who go apeshit when they hear the word "nigger" are also the people who don't care about the other minorities because those haven't managed to institutionalize themselves to get our sympathy.
People don't know nor care about what we did to our natives. People don't know nor care who are the Roma people. We can shit on those folks and we do, while certain other groups of people have immunity
That said, congratulations about your denunciation of the word Redskins, I'm sure they'll live much better lives when we pick different words to call them instead of actually doing anything.
So people have no intention of solving anything. They'll scold people who use bad words but they're not going to pay taxes or discuss things that could improve equality in real life. All they want is the sympathetic and nice discourse.
I don't know what you are talking about? Are you making the argument that because some people are hypocrites that makes it ok for you to make racist jokes? Because maybe you really care about "equality in life" and are "actually doing" something?
I don't know people who make tomahawk jokes. What are you trying to accomplish by arguing that some people are quick to condemn use of one racial epithet while making jokes about another race? Those people are making racist jokes as well. Do you commonly make non-sequitur arguments and expect to be taken seriously? Redskins is a fine name because I, personally, am not out crusading for native american something? You sound like you are drunk.
On December 27 2013 14:19 Pierrot wrote: I wonder how white, cis-gendered, and male you are, OP...hmm.
I love how little pretend sociologist come up with those one-liner. Pearls of ignorance and misguided arrogance, truly.
I'm not a sociologist, pretend or otherwise. But I certainly feel like the OP is posting from a position of privilege. And I feel like that has an effect on his opinions regarding the use of language.
And your little one-liner was just as much of a one-liner as mine.
On December 27 2013 14:19 Pierrot wrote: I wonder how white, cis-gendered, and male you are, OP...hmm.
I love how little pretend sociologist come up with those one-liner. Pearls of ignorance and misguided arrogance, truly.
I'm not a sociologist, pretend or otherwise. But I certainly feel like the OP is posting from a position of privilege. And I feel like that has an effect on his opinions regarding the use of language.
And your little one-liner was just as much of a one-liner as mine.
The funny thing is that you would be wrong on all counts of your assumptions on race, biological sex, and gender identity.
The other part is that it's silly how desperate you are to believe that because you don't have an actual rational argument.
The third part is that you didn't read, I clearly referred to racial minorities as 'us', a couple of times in the text.
So you don't mind if there's a group of white people at a bar or something casually dropping n***** this and n***** that in conversation? Orb isn't racist for using n***** because he claims he isn't prejudiced against black people? He just uses extremely charged racial epithets to denigrate his opponents and describe play that he considers bad, inferior, or cowardly? Maybe we should just bring n***** back for casual use then, since you have put our fears to rest with actual rational arguments. Or do you have a more circumscribed usage in mind?
On December 27 2013 12:51 Djzapz wrote: "Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
So you are saying that minorities can protect themselves when you make racist jokes to your friends. Ah ok.
They can protect themselves, when there are words involved and only words. The problem with the US is that the state jumps in when there are only words involved.
For a country that claims it has so much freedom of speech, the US has this bizarre fetish with controlling language (all the while ignoring actual actions of people). How about we start solving actual racial inequalities before we start to worry about language? The use of the word 'nigger' seems to offend people in the US more than the sweeping racial inequality that exists there with entire poor neighbourhoods in harlem filled with black people and not a single white person the entire block.
I mean, let's consider some other things, how often do you see interracial unions on TV in the US? Every white person dates a white person, every black person a black person on every TV show almost, if it's interracial it's a big deal. I'm sorry but the repeated doing of that is far more offensive to me than someone who might say 'nigger' on TV in a non racial context. Let's talk about my nickname. Benjamin Sisko, dauntless no-nonsense captain of Starbase Deep Space Nine and the warship USS Defiant. The first black captain in Star Trek, yeah, cool and all, but they still made every single one of his girlfriends black as well. Okay, so Kirk shared the first interracial kiss in Star Trek 40 years before that, that's cool and all but they still afterwards made all of Kirk and Picard's girlfriend white, all of Sisko's girlfriends were black. Why? Do Americans seriously get offended by interracial unions? It took up to Star Trek Enterprise, for a minor character who was black to get a white girlfriend, not a one off episode kiss, no an actual girlfriend. Also, that guys character description was literally 'pilot, black, born in space', he had no qualities whatsoever beyond being black and he was concordantly not really used that much. They just added him because they felt they needed a racial minority beyond Sato who's character description can be summed up with 'Translator, Asian, linguistic genius capable of learning new languages in weeks fluently', at least she has something to her but she also wasn't used a lot.
Bashir was a lot better, yeah, he was Arabic, that wasn't his character description, he was a Doctor, upper class British Accent, brilliant, arrogant, juvinile, idealistic, sarcastic sense of humour, he was selfless, but all too proud and arrogant and in a way he was only selfless because he couldn't accept his own failures and he had an overinflated sense of self-importance and he was also genetically engineered. Oh yeah, he was Arabic which was basically indicated by his name, that he looks Arabic and that it was eventually revealed that one of his ancestors was an Arabic poet Singh el-Bashir. His first name was Julian and it was heavily implied he grew up in England. This guy actually was a character, not some token racial minority who was put in because they needed someone of another race. Which happens all too often. The casting directors realize 'oh my god, everyone is white, let's add a black guy' and that's what happens, you get a black guy who's character description starts and ends there.
But hey, as long as we don't say 'nigger' I guess that kind of treatment is all not offensive right? White protestant male politicians coming from rich families can continue to not give a shit about poor black people living in the ghetto as long as they don't say 'nigger', hell, I'd rather have a guy who just says 'Okay guys, we're going to help them niggers out a bit.' and actually does something all the while using racial slur than someone who doesn't use it but also doesn't give a shit.
On December 27 2013 09:21 MarlieChurphy wrote: People like to overreact to shit from people who are clearly not racist or people that don't care. Examples recently, The washington redskins name was debated and native americans didn't give a shit. Jimmy kimmel had that segment where the kid said 'kill the chinese people then' and jimmy said 'thats not very nice' and people went after him like crazy.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
Sports clubs tend to have idiotic names. Chicago Bulls, Seattle Sounders, come on.
On December 27 2013 19:29 IgnE wrote: So you don't mind if there's a group of white people at a bar or something casually dropping n***** this and n***** that in conversation? Orb isn't racist for using n***** because he claims he isn't prejudiced against black people? He just uses extremely charged racial epithets to denigrate his opponents and describe play that he considers bad, inferior, or cowardly? Maybe we should just bring n***** back for casual use then, since you have put our fears to rest with actual rational arguments. Or do you have a more circumscribed usage in mind?
Nigger is back in casual use in a lot of countries. 99% someone complains about that word they're from the US.
Now, I'm not black, I'm Caribbean. I mind when people call me black to some extend because I'm not and I feel all they see is 'oh, a slightly darker skin colour, that's black', I'm not from Africa and there is more to race than skin colour, my skin isn't nearly as dark, being Caribbean I have a lot of native-American blood in me which shows in my body structure, my fingers are very long and I have a very slender build and a slender face like most native Americans. I'm still part of a racial minority, but I'm also part of Caribbean culture, in Caribbean culture, we aren't that sensitive about language. So like, I'm from a former Dutch colony, I live in the Netherlands, I wasn't born there, my native language is Sranan but I speak it poorly and the only person I speak it with is my grandmother and she laments my poor grammar. I speak Dutch. But Caribbeans, we can joke about all that stuff. I once had a discussion with some racist pig who said I was probably stealing because I was a foriegner or whatever and a friend of mine jumped in and said 'Caribbeans don't steal, only Turks, Caribbeans are too lazy to steal, Turks still no how to work.', I can laugh about that. It's kind of funny and true in a way. Turks statistically commit more crime than Caribbeans in this country but they are also a very undertaking people. 1/3 of the companies owned in this country are actually owned by Turks. The majority of Turks who come here feel they need to start their own company. Which is suuuuper fine with me because it usually ends up being a food business and I love Turkish food.
But in the end, the word nigger gets used on TV here, and not in a racial context, this isn't the US. Dutch culture is not as unsensitive as Caribbean or Finnish culture to words, but still a lot less than US culture. Here's some Dutch culture for you:
Intro of a Dutch kids cartoon meant at like 10 year old kids. Imagine the amount of American mums that would get angry over this? The intro alone features nudity, drugs. The show itself goes further, there's this episode of the 'homo museum' which is about gay stuff or something. And it like displays the primitive ancestor of the gay man the 'homo erectus' who obviously has a huge fucking boner. In the US, people wouldn't be able to say 'It's just a joke, it's not really homophobic'. and there's the issue, even though Dutch culture tolerates these jokes about gay people, we are renowned for our acceptance of gay people. And that's something that doesn't seem to mix in US culture, the realization that a joke need not equate to actual biggotry. NL simultaneously is one of the most accepting cultures to racial and sexual minorities, but also one of the cultures that tolerates joking about it and having racial and sexual humour the most.
This sensitivity to language, is really isolated to the US for the most part, most countries care less about it, NL cares about the least and it's a very multicultural society. And like I said, I'm Caribbean and there it's even more multicultural and there people care even less about this stuff. Yeah, there is mad racial inequality in Surinam. Let's face it, the descendants of the original white families who owned slaves are still the richest. White people are richer there, the country has problems, Desi Bouterse ehh... but in the end, all those races can come together, they live in the same neighbourhoods, there is no china town or ghetto slums filled with poor black people there. They live together in one neighbourhood and blend their culture and the overwhelming philosophy is to just chill out and get along and don't take life that seriously. Hell, if we Caribbeans took life as seriously as that, then we would have never invented Malibu.
No this is isolated to kids like you who feel that if they are ok with something, then everyone should follow suit
You are racist and making the world a worse place
The only reason why people are not flocking to tell you stems from the "ignore the troll and he will leave" syndrom that is destroying the world slowly but surely
glhf telling rosa parks or mike tyson that it is ok to make nigger jokes
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
No I'm saying it's harmless when I make jokes that pertain to people's skin color or religion with my friends. Those jokes are not racist because I don't believe any race of people is inferior or whatever. Minorities don't need to protect themselves from what happens on the 7th moon of Saturn and they don't need to protect themselves from my drunken banter. People make jokes.
Meanwhile some white folks spend time condemning the use of words like "nigger" while not giving the slightest amount of fuck about the despicable life conditions that exist in ghettos. Furthermore, they ignore certain of the slang for other minorities, as well as the despicable life conditions of said minorities. Those are apparently not problems worth looking because lazy mofos like to take the moral high ground with little effort.
Your jokes influence yours and your friends subconscious perceptions of other people's race. Telling yourself, "I'm not a racist" does not make your jokes not racist. People make racist jokes.
Who said those aren't problems? Who are you talking to?
I don't think so, nor do I crack jokes that pertain to race to anybody who I believe to be racist. I also rail on white being asshats all the time. I generalize horribly when I'm semi-serious about white people being massive douchebags. And when I joke about how asians can't drive, I'm messing around (I never actually joke about that particular thing btw, that stereotype doesn't amuse me). As for influencing people's subconscious perceptions, we're not children. Fine, everything influences everything. Let us deal with that and stop judging us mr. Holier Than Thou.
Yeah and I'm the Queen of England. Even if it were true, the point is people give a particular amount of fuck about the plea of certain groups of people.
The fact that you're seemingly unaware of this is part of the problem. You think you treat all people equally? Good on you. Look how natives are treated in your country, though. Look at those second class citizens. We have them too, in Canada. Many if not most of them are stuck with terrible living conditions and no way out of their "reserves" that we've given them out of the goodness of our hearts (lol). And yet tomahawk jokes will fly in a party while a mention of the word nigger will stop a party in its track.
And I don't care that you feel like somehow all people are given the same amount of respect from you. We're not talking about you and your little contest of who's more down with the minorities. I'm talking about reality. It's true that some of the people who go apeshit when they hear the word "nigger" are also the people who don't care about the other minorities because those haven't managed to institutionalize themselves to get our sympathy.
People don't know nor care about what we did to our natives. People don't know nor care who are the Roma people. We can shit on those folks and we do, while certain other groups of people have immunity
That said, congratulations about your denunciation of the word Redskins, I'm sure they'll live much better lives when we pick different words to call them instead of actually doing anything.
So people have no intention of solving anything. They'll scold people who use bad words but they're not going to pay taxes or discuss things that could improve equality in real life. All they want is the sympathetic and nice discourse.
I don't know what you are talking about? Are you making the argument that because some people are hypocrites that makes it ok for you to make racist jokes? Because maybe you really care about "equality in life" and are "actually doing" something?
I don't know people who make tomahawk jokes. What are you trying to accomplish by arguing that some people are quick to condemn use of one racial epithet while making jokes about another race? Those people are making racist jokes as well. Do you commonly make non-sequitur arguments and expect to be taken seriously? Redskins is a fine name because I, personally, am not out crusading for native american something? You sound like you are drunk.
I don't make racist jokes as per my standards. I have no ill intentions. I strongly believe that we're all equals. My point is that I think I and my friends are a whole lot less racist than the people who are anally retentive about some words which seem to have a racial connotation but only protect the interests of some minorities which according to them are more deserving of respect. When I see actual racism, I'll stand up and I'll defend my position because those are the times people need to act. My drunken banter shouldn't be censored on the basis that it can affect someone's subconscious. Let us fucking deal with our own brains "IgnE" while you clumsily try to deal with your own.
As for your shitload of links, you're still missing the point which doesn't surprise me of you... It doesn't matter that people are in favor of changing a name... You think a name change is what it takes to deal with the gross amount of racism that actually affects the natives? You're giving me fucking polls about a name change after I've spoken very clearly about how they're living in shit.
If anything, the name change thing goes to show how systemically unimportant they are to our countries. We ignore them and now they live in slums. We're unwilling to give them any kind of respect and your argument is, we're not that bad, we want to abolish the racist name we have for us. And yet whenever they ask for stuff we turn them down.
Since your brain is probably clouded with your bullshit beliefs, let's go overseas and talk about Europe. In many european countries, there are Roma people, also referred to as Gypsies as well as other terms. In many cases, they are doing just fine, but in many countries, they're essentially viewed as scum by many, for various reasons. They're accused of doing human trafficking, they steal a lot, etc. The Roma people are discriminated against a lot, even in some countries that are viewed as progressive. The racism against those people is rampant, and it's disgusting. Many of my colleagues where I teach have been to Eastern Europe and they said it's incredible. Oftentimes, the intellectual circles tend to be more on the left and understand that the reason why Roma people commit crimes and live in poverty is circumstantial. And yet even some university professors who are otherwise really smart and thoughtful are racist toward the Roma people.
And they too would argue that they frown upon racism, much like yourself. And yet they're blind.
So my point has nothing to do with fucking names. My point is that the natives are more discriminated against than black people but a lot less people give a crap. And your polls are about changing a name. I'd argue that you're less sensitive to actual racism and actual inequalities than I am because of the bullshit argument you've pulled.
And no I'm not perfect, I undoubtedly have prejudice that I carry with me, but for fuck's sake, I don't spend my time reacting poorly to hearing words even when I know that there are no ill intentions behind them. I've got better shit to do with my time.
On December 27 2013 14:19 Pierrot wrote: I wonder how white, cis-gendered, and male you are, OP...hmm.
I love how little pretend sociologist come up with those one-liner. Pearls of ignorance and misguided arrogance, truly.
I'm not a sociologist, pretend or otherwise. But I certainly feel like the OP is posting from a position of privilege. And I feel like that has an effect on his opinions regarding the use of language.
And your little one-liner was just as much of a one-liner as mine.
Sure but my opinion is available in other posts. I don't limit myself to passing judgement on someone's opinion based on their sex, race and sexual identity. That just seems like a bad thing to do. Hopefully it's not rendered irrelevant by my status as a white cis-gendered male.
... Saying words have no power, sigh. Idk maybe you're just desensitized, but I'm too lazy to argue with idiocy. Let me quote authors at you instead. Also, it's about context, but also audience. If you say words which offend your audience, it is not their fault for being offended (they just react), but your fault for communicating poorly when there are other options available. Anyway, onto quotes:
“It doesn't matter if you and everyone else in the room are thinking it. You don't say the words. Words are weapons. They blast big bloody holes in the world. And words are bricks. Say something out loud and it starts turning solid. Say it loud enough and it becomes a wall you can't get through.” - Richard Kadrey
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” - George Orwell
“Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know more.” - Confuscius
“of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.” - Paul Coelho
“There is indeed power in words. Most of the lasting change that has been forged in the history of this world came not from a wielding of the swift and bloody sword of battle but from the shaping scalpel of ideas, and what are ideas without the words to deliver them?” - Mark Dunn
And perhaps the most horrifying thought: “To see evil and call it good, mocks God. Worse, it makes goodness meaningless. A word without meaning is an abomination, for when the word passes beyond understanding the very thing the word stands for passes out of the world and cannot be recalled.” - Stephen Lawhead.
Should we desensitize ourselves to the meaning of the n-word, and in the very process, forget the pain and suffering caused by the atrocities committed? No, I say, that the very fact the n-word is taboo is a form of historical and cultural memory for the American people. The fact that the word carries so much weight is good, not bad, for it jostles American memory when its people become complacent. To take the power of such a word away would mean breaking a word from its etymology, and in the process, becoming desensitized to the history which created a word in the first place.
On December 28 2013 01:17 ghrur wrote: ... Saying words have no power, sigh. Idk maybe you're just desensitized, but I'm too lazy to argue with idiocy. Let me quote authors at you instead. Also, it's about context, but also audience. If you say words which offend your audience, it is not their fault for being offended (they just react), but your fault for communicating poorly when there are other options available.
Words only have the power the listener gives them. You can walk away from words, you can choose to not let them affect you, you can't walk away from lethal force. You can't walk away from chains or they're pretty bad chains. Words have never been used to oppress anyone, physical force has. Slavery didn't exist because of words. Slavery existed by means of force and chains.
“It doesn't matter if you and everyone else in the room are thinking it. You don't say the words. Words are weapons. They blast big bloody holes in the world. And words are bricks. Say something out loud and it starts turning solid. Say it loud enough and it becomes a wall you can't get through.” - Richard Kadrey
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” - George Orwell
“Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know more.” - Confuscius
“of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.” - Paul Coelho
“There is indeed power in words. Most of the lasting change that has been forged in the history of this world came not from a wielding of the swift and bloody sword of battle but from the shaping scalpel of ideas, and what are ideas without the words to deliver them?” - Mark Dunn
And perhaps the most horrifying thought: “To see evil and call it good, mocks God. Worse, it makes goodness meaningless. A word without meaning is an abomination, for when the word passes beyond understanding the very thing the word stands for passes out of the world and cannot be recalled.” - Stephen Lawhead.
And this is supposed to contribute anything tot the discussion? I can cite just as many authors that disagree, doesn't prove anything.
Should we desensitize ourselves to the meaning of the n-word, and in the very process, forget the pain and suffering caused by the atrocities committed?
Of for crying out loud, see this is the problem. People focus on words and not on the actual issues because focussing on words means they can act like they care when they actually don't give a shit. If you want to stop racial injustice, how about actually doing something about the ridiculous class society that exists in the US, doing something about the fact that people born poor tend to say poor. How about universal health care for a start or state financed education rather than people being smart enough for Yale not being able to go there because their parents can't afford it. That's how you combat racial injustice, not getting offended over words.
No, I say, that the very fact the n-word is taboo is a form of historical and cultural memory for the American people. The fact that the word carries so much weight is good, not bad, for it jostles American memory when its people become complacent. To take the power of such a word away would mean breaking a word from its etymology, and in the process, becoming desensitized to the history which created a word in the first place.
They are already desensitized, the political leaders don't do a flying fucking crap to help the poor, getting wound up about nigger is the perfect way to act like you care because everyone can afford to care about words, but once it comes down to actually act, to say "Yes, I am willing to give some of my money to help the poor, I am willing to discuss this in the news, I am wiling to be your champion and campaign your plight.", then no, then they don't rise up, instead of that, let's discuss in the senate just how offended we all should be because South Park made another off colour joke.
you keep saying words can never harm anyone you keep saying people can choose to ignore those words on both accounts you are wrong, on both you take your ill contructed fantasy as fact
facts: you advocate to make fun of the fat kid because it will make him grow up thinner, you juvenily just ignore that he is overweight from a genetic disposition and will have to forego all the pleasure that you take for granted each time you eat or he will die from this predisposition
you advocate that a guy of another etnicity (that you feel deserves to be mocked) can defend himself of this... presumably by retorking with a verbal response? then what? you all go your seperate ways and have a dandy evening not thinking about it or not changing anything at all? who's kidding who?
you advocate that "things more important" should be done instead of punishing people for using words that offend "some weak minded" people ... how do you propose they go about doing it? start by forgeting about any related history because you have decided it is the best course of action to take, then what? you decide what else for all of us?
you are so much part of the problem that you are causing the world you reject
political corectness is your doing, racism is your doing
respect is earned through conscious efforts not from lazyness professed as a credo, you have earned nothing but contempt apparently in your life (if your aggressive posts are any proof of your lack of character), that does not mean this is something everyone thinks acceptable practices;;; demeaning people is wrong
you deserve the bleak world we live in, you can't respect others even when you contemplate having fun, .. you will fail miserably at any attempt at solving more serious difficult issues (not that you will do any of that it seems)
.. but then again it is painfully obvious that you have been hurt and that you feel it is propper to repay others in kind
some days, alone in your head, you realize this and you immediately find things to cover it up, this is not even lazyness it is despair
On December 27 2013 12:51 Djzapz wrote: "Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
So you are saying that minorities can protect themselves when you make racist jokes to your friends. Ah ok.
They can protect themselves, when there are words involved and only words. The problem with the US is that the state jumps in when there are only words involved.
For a country that claims it has so much freedom of speech, the US has this bizarre fetish with controlling language (all the while ignoring actual actions of people). How about we start solving actual racial inequalities before we start to worry about language? The use of the word 'nigger' seems to offend people in the US more than the sweeping racial inequality that exists there with entire poor neighbourhoods in harlem filled with black people and not a single white person the entire block.
I mean, let's consider some other things, how often do you see interracial unions on TV in the US? Every white person dates a white person, every black person a black person on every TV show almost, if it's interracial it's a big deal. I'm sorry but the repeated doing of that is far more offensive to me than someone who might say 'nigger' on TV in a non racial context. Let's talk about my nickname. Benjamin Sisko, dauntless no-nonsense captain of Starbase Deep Space Nine and the warship USS Defiant. The first black captain in Star Trek, yeah, cool and all, but they still made every single one of his girlfriends black as well. Okay, so Kirk shared the first interracial kiss in Star Trek 40 years before that, that's cool and all but they still afterwards made all of Kirk and Picard's girlfriend white, all of Sisko's girlfriends were black. Why? Do Americans seriously get offended by interracial unions? It took up to Star Trek Enterprise, for a minor character who was black to get a white girlfriend, not a one off episode kiss, no an actual girlfriend. Also, that guys character description was literally 'pilot, black, born in space', he had no qualities whatsoever beyond being black and he was concordantly not really used that much. They just added him because they felt they needed a racial minority beyond Sato who's character description can be summed up with 'Translator, Asian, linguistic genius capable of learning new languages in weeks fluently', at least she has something to her but she also wasn't used a lot.
Bashir was a lot better, yeah, he was Arabic, that wasn't his character description, he was a Doctor, upper class British Accent, brilliant, arrogant, juvinile, idealistic, sarcastic sense of humour, he was selfless, but all too proud and arrogant and in a way he was only selfless because he couldn't accept his own failures and he had an overinflated sense of self-importance and he was also genetically engineered. Oh yeah, he was Arabic which was basically indicated by his name, that he looks Arabic and that it was eventually revealed that one of his ancestors was an Arabic poet Singh el-Bashir. His first name was Julian and it was heavily implied he grew up in England. This guy actually was a character, not some token racial minority who was put in because they needed someone of another race. Which happens all too often. The casting directors realize 'oh my god, everyone is white, let's add a black guy' and that's what happens, you get a black guy who's character description starts and ends there.
But hey, as long as we don't say 'nigger' I guess that kind of treatment is all not offensive right? White protestant male politicians coming from rich families can continue to not give a shit about poor black people living in the ghetto as long as they don't say 'nigger', hell, I'd rather have a guy who just says 'Okay guys, we're going to help them niggers out a bit.' and actually does something all the while using racial slur than someone who doesn't use it but also doesn't give a shit.
On December 27 2013 09:21 MarlieChurphy wrote: People like to overreact to shit from people who are clearly not racist or people that don't care. Examples recently, The washington redskins name was debated and native americans didn't give a shit. Jimmy kimmel had that segment where the kid said 'kill the chinese people then' and jimmy said 'thats not very nice' and people went after him like crazy.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
Sports clubs tend to have idiotic names. Chicago Bulls, Seattle Sounders, come on.
There are actually multiple tv shows and movies now with interracial "relationships."
Please tell me how the state gets involved. You can say n***** all you want. It doesn't make you not a racist, but at least you are free to be racist.
On December 27 2013 19:29 IgnE wrote: So you don't mind if there's a group of white people at a bar or something casually dropping n***** this and n***** that in conversation? Orb isn't racist for using n***** because he claims he isn't prejudiced against black people? He just uses extremely charged racial epithets to denigrate his opponents and describe play that he considers bad, inferior, or cowardly? Maybe we should just bring n***** back for casual use then, since you have put our fears to rest with actual rational arguments. Or do you have a more circumscribed usage in mind?
Nigger is back in casual use in a lot of countries. 99% someone complains about that word they're from the US.
Now, I'm not black, I'm Caribbean. I mind when people call me black to some extend because I'm not and I feel all they see is 'oh, a slightly darker skin colour, that's black', I'm not from Africa and there is more to race than skin colour, my skin isn't nearly as dark, being Caribbean I have a lot of native-American blood in me which shows in my body structure, my fingers are very long and I have a very slender build and a slender face like most native Americans. I'm still part of a racial minority, but I'm also part of Caribbean culture, in Caribbean culture, we aren't that sensitive about language. So like, I'm from a former Dutch colony, I live in the Netherlands, I wasn't born there, my native language is Sranan but I speak it poorly and the only person I speak it with is my grandmother and she laments my poor grammar. I speak Dutch. But Caribbeans, we can joke about all that stuff. I once had a discussion with some racist pig who said I was probably stealing because I was a foriegner or whatever and a friend of mine jumped in and said 'Caribbeans don't steal, only Turks, Caribbeans are too lazy to steal, Turks still no how to work.', I can laugh about that. It's kind of funny and true in a way. Turks statistically commit more crime than Caribbeans in this country but they are also a very undertaking people. 1/3 of the companies owned in this country are actually owned by Turks. The majority of Turks who come here feel they need to start their own company. Which is suuuuper fine with me because it usually ends up being a food business and I love Turkish food.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
No I'm saying it's harmless when I make jokes that pertain to people's skin color or religion with my friends. Those jokes are not racist because I don't believe any race of people is inferior or whatever. Minorities don't need to protect themselves from what happens on the 7th moon of Saturn and they don't need to protect themselves from my drunken banter. People make jokes.
Meanwhile some white folks spend time condemning the use of words like "nigger" while not giving the slightest amount of fuck about the despicable life conditions that exist in ghettos. Furthermore, they ignore certain of the slang for other minorities, as well as the despicable life conditions of said minorities. Those are apparently not problems worth looking because lazy mofos like to take the moral high ground with little effort.
Your jokes influence yours and your friends subconscious perceptions of other people's race. Telling yourself, "I'm not a racist" does not make your jokes not racist. People make racist jokes.
Who said those aren't problems? Who are you talking to?
I don't think so, nor do I crack jokes that pertain to race to anybody who I believe to be racist. I also rail on white being asshats all the time. I generalize horribly when I'm semi-serious about white people being massive douchebags. And when I joke about how asians can't drive, I'm messing around (I never actually joke about that particular thing btw, that stereotype doesn't amuse me). As for influencing people's subconscious perceptions, we're not children. Fine, everything influences everything. Let us deal with that and stop judging us mr. Holier Than Thou.
Yeah and I'm the Queen of England. Even if it were true, the point is people give a particular amount of fuck about the plea of certain groups of people.
The fact that you're seemingly unaware of this is part of the problem. You think you treat all people equally? Good on you. Look how natives are treated in your country, though. Look at those second class citizens. We have them too, in Canada. Many if not most of them are stuck with terrible living conditions and no way out of their "reserves" that we've given them out of the goodness of our hearts (lol). And yet tomahawk jokes will fly in a party while a mention of the word nigger will stop a party in its track.
And I don't care that you feel like somehow all people are given the same amount of respect from you. We're not talking about you and your little contest of who's more down with the minorities. I'm talking about reality. It's true that some of the people who go apeshit when they hear the word "nigger" are also the people who don't care about the other minorities because those haven't managed to institutionalize themselves to get our sympathy.
People don't know nor care about what we did to our natives. People don't know nor care who are the Roma people. We can shit on those folks and we do, while certain other groups of people have immunity
That said, congratulations about your denunciation of the word Redskins, I'm sure they'll live much better lives when we pick different words to call them instead of actually doing anything.
So people have no intention of solving anything. They'll scold people who use bad words but they're not going to pay taxes or discuss things that could improve equality in real life. All they want is the sympathetic and nice discourse.
I don't know what you are talking about? Are you making the argument that because some people are hypocrites that makes it ok for you to make racist jokes? Because maybe you really care about "equality in life" and are "actually doing" something?
I don't know people who make tomahawk jokes. What are you trying to accomplish by arguing that some people are quick to condemn use of one racial epithet while making jokes about another race? Those people are making racist jokes as well. Do you commonly make non-sequitur arguments and expect to be taken seriously? Redskins is a fine name because I, personally, am not out crusading for native american something? You sound like you are drunk.
I don't make racist jokes as per my standards. I have no ill intentions. I strongly believe that we're all equals. My point is that I think I and my friends are a whole lot less racist than the people who are anally retentive about some words which seem to have a racial connotation but only protect the interests of some minorities which according to them are more deserving of respect. When I see actual racism, I'll stand up and I'll defend my position because those are the times people need to act. My drunken banter shouldn't be censored on the basis that it can affect someone's subconscious. Let us fucking deal with our own brains "IgnE" while you clumsily try to deal with your own.
Since your brain is probably clouded with your bullshit beliefs, let's go overseas and talk about Europe. In many european countries, there are Roma people, also referred to as Gypsies as well as other terms. In many cases, they are doing just fine, but in many countries, they're essentially viewed as scum by many, for various reasons. They're accused of doing human trafficking, they steal a lot, etc. The Roma people are discriminated against a lot, even in some countries that are viewed as progressive. The racism against those people is rampant, and it's disgusting. Many of my colleagues where I teach have been to Eastern Europe and they said it's incredible. Oftentimes, the intellectual circles tend to be more on the left and understand that the reason why Roma people commit crimes and live in poverty is circumstantial. And yet even some university professors who are otherwise really smart and thoughtful are racist toward the Roma people.
And they too would argue that they frown upon racism, much like yourself. And yet they're blind.
So my point has nothing to do with fucking names. My point is that the natives are more discriminated against than black people but a lot less people give a crap. And your polls are about changing a name. I'd argue that you're less sensitive to actual racism and actual inequalities than I am because of the bullshit argument you've pulled.
And no I'm not perfect, I undoubtedly have prejudice that I carry with me, but for fuck's sake, I don't spend my time reacting poorly to hearing words even when I know that there are no ill intentions behind them. I've got better shit to do with my time.
On December 27 2013 14:19 Pierrot wrote: I wonder how white, cis-gendered, and male you are, OP...hmm.
I love how little pretend sociologist come up with those one-liner. Pearls of ignorance and misguided arrogance, truly.
I'm not a sociologist, pretend or otherwise. But I certainly feel like the OP is posting from a position of privilege. And I feel like that has an effect on his opinions regarding the use of language.
And your little one-liner was just as much of a one-liner as mine.
Sure but my opinion is available in other posts. I don't limit myself to passing judgement on someone's opinion based on their sex, race and sexual identity. That just seems like a bad thing to do. Hopefully it's not rendered irrelevant by my status as a white cis-gendered male.
You are an uncivilized boor who makes tasteless, racist jokes. I don't really care whether you continue to do it or not.
So your argument is the same non-sequitur. Some people ignore institutional violence, especially against your favorite mistreated people, the Roma, so therefore you have license to make racist jokes without becoming an uncivilized boor. Sorry that argument doesn't work. Please try a new one.
As for your shitload of links, you're still missing the point which doesn't surprise me of you... It doesn't matter that people are in favor of changing a name... You think a name change is what it takes to deal with the gross amount of racism that actually affects the natives? You're giving me fucking polls about a name change after I've spoken very clearly about how they're living in shit.
If anything, the name change thing goes to show how systemically unimportant they are to our countries. We ignore them and now they live in slums. We're unwilling to give them any kind of respect and your argument is, we're not that bad, we want to abolish the racist name we have for us. And yet whenever they ask for stuff we turn them down.
No, sorry that's not my argument. You are making shit up again. I don't see the point in waiting to change the name Redskins until some hazy future date in which Native Americans have full equality, however you want to define it. If you want to argue that it's not enough, I agree with you. If you want to argue that it would be disgusting for people to pride themselves on their tolerance and respect based solely on a name change, I agree with you. That does not mean the name shouldn't be changed.
On December 27 2013 12:51 Djzapz wrote: "Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
So you are saying that minorities can protect themselves when you make racist jokes to your friends. Ah ok.
They can protect themselves, when there are words involved and only words. The problem with the US is that the state jumps in when there are only words involved.
For a country that claims it has so much freedom of speech, the US has this bizarre fetish with controlling language (all the while ignoring actual actions of people). How about we start solving actual racial inequalities before we start to worry about language? The use of the word 'nigger' seems to offend people in the US more than the sweeping racial inequality that exists there with entire poor neighbourhoods in harlem filled with black people and not a single white person the entire block.
I mean, let's consider some other things, how often do you see interracial unions on TV in the US? Every white person dates a white person, every black person a black person on every TV show almost, if it's interracial it's a big deal. I'm sorry but the repeated doing of that is far more offensive to me than someone who might say 'nigger' on TV in a non racial context. Let's talk about my nickname. Benjamin Sisko, dauntless no-nonsense captain of Starbase Deep Space Nine and the warship USS Defiant. The first black captain in Star Trek, yeah, cool and all, but they still made every single one of his girlfriends black as well. Okay, so Kirk shared the first interracial kiss in Star Trek 40 years before that, that's cool and all but they still afterwards made all of Kirk and Picard's girlfriend white, all of Sisko's girlfriends were black. Why? Do Americans seriously get offended by interracial unions? It took up to Star Trek Enterprise, for a minor character who was black to get a white girlfriend, not a one off episode kiss, no an actual girlfriend. Also, that guys character description was literally 'pilot, black, born in space', he had no qualities whatsoever beyond being black and he was concordantly not really used that much. They just added him because they felt they needed a racial minority beyond Sato who's character description can be summed up with 'Translator, Asian, linguistic genius capable of learning new languages in weeks fluently', at least she has something to her but she also wasn't used a lot.
Bashir was a lot better, yeah, he was Arabic, that wasn't his character description, he was a Doctor, upper class British Accent, brilliant, arrogant, juvinile, idealistic, sarcastic sense of humour, he was selfless, but all too proud and arrogant and in a way he was only selfless because he couldn't accept his own failures and he had an overinflated sense of self-importance and he was also genetically engineered. Oh yeah, he was Arabic which was basically indicated by his name, that he looks Arabic and that it was eventually revealed that one of his ancestors was an Arabic poet Singh el-Bashir. His first name was Julian and it was heavily implied he grew up in England. This guy actually was a character, not some token racial minority who was put in because they needed someone of another race. Which happens all too often. The casting directors realize 'oh my god, everyone is white, let's add a black guy' and that's what happens, you get a black guy who's character description starts and ends there.
But hey, as long as we don't say 'nigger' I guess that kind of treatment is all not offensive right? White protestant male politicians coming from rich families can continue to not give a shit about poor black people living in the ghetto as long as they don't say 'nigger', hell, I'd rather have a guy who just says 'Okay guys, we're going to help them niggers out a bit.' and actually does something all the while using racial slur than someone who doesn't use it but also doesn't give a shit.
On December 27 2013 09:21 MarlieChurphy wrote: People like to overreact to shit from people who are clearly not racist or people that don't care. Examples recently, The washington redskins name was debated and native americans didn't give a shit. Jimmy kimmel had that segment where the kid said 'kill the chinese people then' and jimmy said 'thats not very nice' and people went after him like crazy.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
Sports clubs tend to have idiotic names. Chicago Bulls, Seattle Sounders, come on.
There are actually multiple tv shows and movies now with interracial "relationships."
Yes, in 2013 there are some, but 1990's wasn't ripe for that. The Star Trek actors and writers fought to have a gay character included but the executives stopped it.
There are some right now, but the overwhelming majority of the time, if you see a black man, he will hav ea black wife, white man, will have a white wife.
Please tell me how the state gets involved. You can say n***** all you want. It doesn't make you not a racist, but at least you are free to be racist.
The state fires people for saying niggard, the state fines TV stations for language. The state forced the Comic Book Code on comic book publishers. The state fines record stores for selling things with 'parental advisory' to children. There are organizations like the 'Federal Communications Commission" which actually regulate what public TV networks can and cannot say. They can get fined for 'indecency', I'm sorry, but that is a huge blow in the face of democracy that the state can regulate what broadcasting can and cannot say. If they can fine people for swear words, you enter a slippery slope of fining people for being critical of leaders.
Oh I see now. Racism is "true" in a way.
What?
No, sorry that's not my argument. You are making shit up again. I don't see the point in waiting to change the name Redskins until some hazy future date in which Native Americans have full equality, however you want to define it. If you want to argue that it's not enough, I agree with you. If you want to argue that it would be disgusting for people to pride themselves on their tolerance and respect based solely on a name change, I agree with you. That does not mean the name shouldn't be changed.
Why? It's a name..? Courations of skins have always been exaggerated, black people do not have black skin but rather dark brown, white people have biege skin, Asians do not have yellow skin either.
They named themselves in honour of the natives, they looked at the zeal with which they defended their homeland and said 'These are the qualities we which our players to embody', it was in no way meant as an insult for native Americans, it was meant as admiration. And this is exactly the context of which I keep speaking. The American audience can get so extremely phobic of the mere mention of any race that isn't white and overlook the context, it wasn't ever meant as an insult ever, quite the opposite.
On December 28 2013 03:47 IgnE wrote: You are an uncivilized boor who makes tasteless, racist jokes. I don't really care whether you continue to do it or not.
So your argument is the same non-sequitur. Some people ignore institutional violence, especially against your favorite mistreated people, the Roma, so therefore you have license to make racist jokes without becoming an uncivilized boor. Sorry that argument doesn't work. Please try a new one.
"Uncivilized boor". That's adorable. I'm perfectly presentable and public and never offend anybody, but you judge me because of what I do in private? Even if I may be "uncivilized" in private, you're the scum of the earth, telling people what they should and shouldn't do when they're with their folks.
You say my argument "doesn't work" because you personally don't like it.
No, sorry that's not my argument. You are making shit up again. I don't see the point in waiting to change the name Redskins until some hazy future date in which Native Americans have full equality, however you want to define it. If you want to argue that it's not enough, I agree with you. If you want to argue that it would be disgusting for people to pride themselves on their tolerance and respect based solely on a name change, I agree with you. That does not mean the name shouldn't be changed.
I don't disagree when you say that the name should be changed, but the problem is far deeper than that and pretending that wanting to change the name is somehow a testament to the American's great tolerance is ridiculous.
The point I've been trying to make is that people ought to think their shit through before they start judging others for making jokes which can be perceived as distasteful by soccer moms like yourself. Yes people are willing to change the "redskins" thing - that's free and convenient. People are willing to stop calling black people "niggers" because that's free and it makes them feel like they're better people. But SiskosGoatee is right when he says that this is all bullshit white people garbage. They wouldn't spend a penny to fix inequalities, they'll just deal with the language because if we don't hear it it's not there.
So you attack me, call me names all you want because I make tasteless (not racist) jokes in private, as if that somehow made me a bad person. I'll keep standing up for equality while not being uptight in my free time, while you fight against noises that people can make with their mouths because it's the only way you've found to make yourself feel good while not doing anything.
See, my occasional usage of racial slurs among friends, the most vile of which are targeted at white people, are incredibly mild in comparison to the shit that those minorities have to put up with due to actual racism. Now I'm not saying that my drunken banter is ok because worse things happen. I'm saying that my drunken banter is ok in the first place because it just is. And the fact that dumbshits would attack ME because I'm not politically correct in PRIVATE shows, as far as I'm concerned, that you're a joke.
I've probably done more than you ever have to deal with racism, not by stifling honest to god harmless jokes, but by coming in opposition to people's actual racist opinions. I think you're severely misguided, but more importantly, you're useless.
IMO the most tolerant people are those who make the distinction between actual racism (the belief that others are inferior in some way), and people who joke about sensitive world problems. I was talking to a colleague and a friend about the Roma problem in part of Europe and she called them "our very own dogs", not because she believed them to be dogs, far from it. It was kind of amusing and sad at the same because it's true that the Gypsies are treated like dogs in some parts of Europe. She didn't mean that they're dogs though, she wrote many articles about the disgusting conditions that those people live in and why it's not looking up for them because the political systems in Europe largely ignore them. This woman is not an "uncivilized boor". She's a suit-wearing, serious university professor who sometimes uses satire and humor to speak of very real problems.
Similarly, many of the "jokes" I make are not gratuitous (although admittedly some of them are). Much of the time, the things I say reflect sad realities and the fact that many of those minorities are left to themselves. And apparently the only people who defend them are dumbshits who'd rather talk about how the words "nigger" and "redskin" are bad to use even in private, instead of working on the issues that might give those minorities a better living.
Reading this thread reminds me of the Harry Potter series and how everybody is paranoid of saying Voldemort and how everybody tries to convince Harry Potter that you shouldn't use the name ever. It's treated with the same type of care that a racial slur is and everybody is so caught up on trying to control what people say that Voldemort basically takes over the wizard world. Meanwhile the only people that actually end up doing anything in the series are the ones that don't shit themselves every time somebody says something uncomfortable.
Maybe instead of trying to pretend racism doesn't exist by censoring the words we should put more of a focus on how to deal with the actual problem. I mean you don't eradicate racism in that way. It's treating a symptom not the illness.
On December 28 2013 03:47 IgnE wrote: You are an uncivilized boor who makes tasteless, racist jokes. I don't really care whether you continue to do it or not.
So your argument is the same non-sequitur. Some people ignore institutional violence, especially against your favorite mistreated people, the Roma, so therefore you have license to make racist jokes without becoming an uncivilized boor. Sorry that argument doesn't work. Please try a new one.
"Uncivilized boor". That's adorable. I'm perfectly presentable and public and never offend anybody, but you judge me because of what I do in private? Even if I may be "uncivilized" in private, you're the scum of the earth, telling people what they should and shouldn't do when they're with their folks.
You say my argument "doesn't work" because you personally don't like it.
No, sorry that's not my argument. You are making shit up again. I don't see the point in waiting to change the name Redskins until some hazy future date in which Native Americans have full equality, however you want to define it. If you want to argue that it's not enough, I agree with you. If you want to argue that it would be disgusting for people to pride themselves on their tolerance and respect based solely on a name change, I agree with you. That does not mean the name shouldn't be changed.
I don't disagree when you say that the name should be changed, but the problem is far deeper than that and pretending that wanting to change the name is somehow a testament to the American's great tolerance is ridiculous.
The point I've been trying to make is that people ought to think their shit through before they start judging others for making jokes which can be perceived as distasteful by soccer moms like yourself. Yes people are willing to change the "redskins" thing - that's free and convenient. People are willing to stop calling black people "niggers" because that's free and it makes them feel like they're better people. But SiskosGoatee is right when he says that this is all bullshit white people garbage. They wouldn't spend a penny to fix inequalities, they'll just deal with the language because if we don't hear it it's not there.
So you attack me, call me names all you want because I make tasteless (not racist) jokes in private, as if that somehow made me a bad person. I'll keep standing up for equality while not being uptight in my free time, while you fight against noises that people can make with their mouths because it's the only way you've found to make yourself feel good while not doing anything.
See, my occasional usage of racial slurs among friends, the most vile of which are targeted at white people, are incredibly mild in comparison to the shit that those minorities have to put up with due to actual racism. Now I'm not saying that my drunken banter is ok because worse things happen. I'm saying that my drunken banter is ok in the first place because it just is. And the fact that dumbshits would attack ME because I'm not politically correct in PRIVATE shows, as far as I'm concerned, that you're a joke.
I've probably done more than you ever have to deal with racism, not by stifling honest to god harmless jokes, but by coming in opposition to people's actual racist opinions. I think you're severely misguided, but more importantly, you're useless.
IMO the most tolerant people are those who make the distinction between actual racism (the belief that others are inferior in some way), and people who joke about sensitive world problems. I was talking to a colleague and a friend about the Roma problem in part of Europe and she called them "our very own dogs", not because she believed them to be dogs, far from it. It was kind of amusing and sad at the same because it's true that the Gypsies are treated like dogs in some parts of Europe. She didn't mean that they're dogs though, she wrote many articles about the disgusting conditions that those people live in and why it's not looking up for them because the political systems in Europe largely ignore them. This woman is not an "uncivilized boor". She's a suit-wearing, serious university professor who sometimes uses satire and humor to speak of very real problems.
Similarly, many of the "jokes" I make are not gratuitous (although admittedly some of them are). Much of the time, the things I say reflect sad realities and the fact that many of those minorities are left to themselves. And apparently the only people who defend them are dumbshits who'd rather talk about how the words "nigger" and "redskin" are bad to use even in private, instead of working on the issues that might give those minorities a better living.
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves. Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor. You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know, because you know it's racist and that there's a good chance you will be denounced/assaulted for it.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
On December 27 2013 12:51 Djzapz wrote: "Whining about being offended is like asking that other people deal with your emotions because you can't do it yourself".
If you condition yourself to react poorly to words that people can say with their mouths and this is what you choose to fight against rather than real discrimination, then perhaps you're a bit of a moron. And in my everyday life, I make sure to be "politically correct" and I censor myself and I don't use the particularly sensitive stereotypes that people have decided they don't like because they could rub some people the wrong way.
Funny enough, some of the people who are the most anal about these things, the people who jump on their high horse at the slightest hint of a "black guy" joke, they don't give a fuck when people crack jokes about drunk american natives.
So this whole debate is between the people who can tell that these social norms are bullshit and the hypocrites who go with the flow and agree with society about which groups of people are worthy of respects and which ones (the natives, the Roma people) haven't lobbied hard enough for the white man to take its plea seriously. I can say I got gypped and nobody raises an eyebrow but all those soccer moms would go apeshit if I said I got jewed. That ain't okay Carl. The Gypsies are fair game until they get their own Hitler though, go to fucking town.
Edit: The point that you should read between the lines is that even though I sometimes make jokes between friends that may sound racist, I'd argue that the white knights are the actual racists and they don't even know it. They operate according to this informal hierarchy of the classifications of people who need to be protected.
So you are saying that minorities can protect themselves when you make racist jokes to your friends. Ah ok.
They can protect themselves, when there are words involved and only words. The problem with the US is that the state jumps in when there are only words involved.
For a country that claims it has so much freedom of speech, the US has this bizarre fetish with controlling language (all the while ignoring actual actions of people). How about we start solving actual racial inequalities before we start to worry about language? The use of the word 'nigger' seems to offend people in the US more than the sweeping racial inequality that exists there with entire poor neighbourhoods in harlem filled with black people and not a single white person the entire block.
I mean, let's consider some other things, how often do you see interracial unions on TV in the US? Every white person dates a white person, every black person a black person on every TV show almost, if it's interracial it's a big deal. I'm sorry but the repeated doing of that is far more offensive to me than someone who might say 'nigger' on TV in a non racial context. Let's talk about my nickname. Benjamin Sisko, dauntless no-nonsense captain of Starbase Deep Space Nine and the warship USS Defiant. The first black captain in Star Trek, yeah, cool and all, but they still made every single one of his girlfriends black as well. Okay, so Kirk shared the first interracial kiss in Star Trek 40 years before that, that's cool and all but they still afterwards made all of Kirk and Picard's girlfriend white, all of Sisko's girlfriends were black. Why? Do Americans seriously get offended by interracial unions? It took up to Star Trek Enterprise, for a minor character who was black to get a white girlfriend, not a one off episode kiss, no an actual girlfriend. Also, that guys character description was literally 'pilot, black, born in space', he had no qualities whatsoever beyond being black and he was concordantly not really used that much. They just added him because they felt they needed a racial minority beyond Sato who's character description can be summed up with 'Translator, Asian, linguistic genius capable of learning new languages in weeks fluently', at least she has something to her but she also wasn't used a lot.
Bashir was a lot better, yeah, he was Arabic, that wasn't his character description, he was a Doctor, upper class British Accent, brilliant, arrogant, juvinile, idealistic, sarcastic sense of humour, he was selfless, but all too proud and arrogant and in a way he was only selfless because he couldn't accept his own failures and he had an overinflated sense of self-importance and he was also genetically engineered. Oh yeah, he was Arabic which was basically indicated by his name, that he looks Arabic and that it was eventually revealed that one of his ancestors was an Arabic poet Singh el-Bashir. His first name was Julian and it was heavily implied he grew up in England. This guy actually was a character, not some token racial minority who was put in because they needed someone of another race. Which happens all too often. The casting directors realize 'oh my god, everyone is white, let's add a black guy' and that's what happens, you get a black guy who's character description starts and ends there.
But hey, as long as we don't say 'nigger' I guess that kind of treatment is all not offensive right? White protestant male politicians coming from rich families can continue to not give a shit about poor black people living in the ghetto as long as they don't say 'nigger', hell, I'd rather have a guy who just says 'Okay guys, we're going to help them niggers out a bit.' and actually does something all the while using racial slur than someone who doesn't use it but also doesn't give a shit.
On December 27 2013 09:21 MarlieChurphy wrote: People like to overreact to shit from people who are clearly not racist or people that don't care. Examples recently, The washington redskins name was debated and native americans didn't give a shit. Jimmy kimmel had that segment where the kid said 'kill the chinese people then' and jimmy said 'thats not very nice' and people went after him like crazy.
I'm pretty sure a majority of people are in favor of changing the name Redskins. Beyond being racist, it should be changed because it's an idiotic name.
Sports clubs tend to have idiotic names. Chicago Bulls, Seattle Sounders, come on.
There are actually multiple tv shows and movies now with interracial "relationships."
Yes, in 2013 there are some, but 1990's wasn't ripe for that. The Star Trek actors and writers fought to have a gay character included but the executives stopped it.
There are some right now, but the overwhelming majority of the time, if you see a black man, he will hav ea black wife, white man, will have a white wife.
Please tell me how the state gets involved. You can say n***** all you want. It doesn't make you not a racist, but at least you are free to be racist.
The state fires people for saying niggard, the state fines TV stations for language. The state forced the Comic Book Code on comic book publishers. The state fines record stores for selling things with 'parental advisory' to children. There are organizations like the 'Federal Communications Commission" which actually regulate what public TV networks can and cannot say. They can get fined for 'indecency', I'm sorry, but that is a huge blow in the face of democracy that the state can regulate what broadcasting can and cannot say. If they can fine people for swear words, you enter a slippery slope of fining people for being critical of leaders.
No, sorry that's not my argument. You are making shit up again. I don't see the point in waiting to change the name Redskins until some hazy future date in which Native Americans have full equality, however you want to define it. If you want to argue that it's not enough, I agree with you. If you want to argue that it would be disgusting for people to pride themselves on their tolerance and respect based solely on a name change, I agree with you. That does not mean the name shouldn't be changed.
Why? It's a name..? Courations of skins have always been exaggerated, black people do not have black skin but rather dark brown, white people have biege skin, Asians do not have yellow skin either.
They named themselves in honour of the natives, they looked at the zeal with which they defended their homeland and said 'These are the qualities we which our players to embody', it was in no way meant as an insult for native Americans, it was meant as admiration. And this is exactly the context of which I keep speaking. The American audience can get so extremely phobic of the mere mention of any race that isn't white and overlook the context, it wasn't ever meant as an insult ever, quite the opposite.
You claim it was an "honour" and yet most Native Americans find the name offensive and most white people think they are right to be offended. You claim it was an "honour" but it was really a dehumanization of a racial group, a patronizing objectification of a people and culture. Although I contest your interpretation of the name it doesn't matter what it was intended as. It's an idiotic name and a racial epithet.
On December 28 2013 05:12 omnic wrote: Reading this thread reminds me of the Harry Potter series and how everybody is paranoid of saying Voldemort and how everybody tries to convince Harry Potter that you shouldn't use the name ever. It's treated with the same type of care that a racial slur is and everybody is so caught up on trying to control what people say that Voldemort basically takes over the wizard world. Meanwhile the only people that actually end up doing anything in the series are the ones that don't shit themselves every time somebody says something uncomfortable.
Maybe instead of trying to pretend racism doesn't exist by censoring the words we should put more of a focus on how to deal with the actual problem. I mean you don't eradicate racism in that way. It's treating a symptom not the illness.
Yes because n***** is just like the word Voldemort.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You claim it was an "honour" and yet most Native Americans find the name offensive and most white people think they are right to be offended. You claim it was an "honour" but it was really a dehumanization of a racial group, a patronizing objectification of a people and culture. Although I contest your interpretation of the name it doesn't matter what it was intended as. It's an idiotic name and a racial epithet.
It is pretty obvious that it wasn't meant insultingly, why would you name your own club after anything else than what you admire? Do you honestly think they were like 'Hey, those natives are total filthy slime, let's name ourselves after total filthy slime!', of course not.
I'm prtty sure some people got offended yeah, just like some people got offended over someone using the word niggard. In the end, all I can think is that they deserve their own emotions if they get offended over something which if you allow yourself a single ounce of pensivity leads one to conclude it's nothing to be offended about. "Redskin" is no more an insult than 'white' or 'black'. In the end the tone of ones skin is the first visible thing about one's race and most races get named in some way after the tone of their skin.
Pretty much any sports club if they name themselves something like that it's because they want their players to embody those virtues. It's also important to respect historical context. Words change meaning over time. The redskins were founded in the 1930's, was it considered racially offensive back then the term 'red skin', the term African American wasn't even invented then? People used the word 'negro'.
Again, if you are offended where someone clearly means no ill will towards you then you have your own daemons to fight. It's pretty obvious that when the club was founded and the name was chosen the founders meant no disrespect to Native-Americans, nay, the inverse, it was clearly a sign of admiration.
On December 28 2013 05:12 omnic wrote: Reading this thread reminds me of the Harry Potter series and how everybody is paranoid of saying Voldemort and how everybody tries to convince Harry Potter that you shouldn't use the name ever. It's treated with the same type of care that a racial slur is and everybody is so caught up on trying to control what people say that Voldemort basically takes over the wizard world. Meanwhile the only people that actually end up doing anything in the series are the ones that don't shit themselves every time somebody says something uncomfortable.
Maybe instead of trying to pretend racism doesn't exist by censoring the words we should put more of a focus on how to deal with the actual problem. I mean you don't eradicate racism in that way. It's treating a symptom not the illness.
Yes because n***** is just like the word Voldemort.
It isn't, but it shows that just being paranoid of using certain words doesn't change anything and doesn't get stuff done. I mean, censorring it in this very topic? We are discussing the word here, it's called context okay, if you're discussing the nature of a word you can spell it out in full, what do you think is going to happen if you write nigger in full? Do you honestly feel that you're insulting people just by writing a word in full, we all know what the asteriskes stand for, just say it.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
On December 28 2013 05:12 omnic wrote: Reading this thread reminds me of the Harry Potter series and how everybody is paranoid of saying Voldemort and how everybody tries to convince Harry Potter that you shouldn't use the name ever. It's treated with the same type of care that a racial slur is and everybody is so caught up on trying to control what people say that Voldemort basically takes over the wizard world. Meanwhile the only people that actually end up doing anything in the series are the ones that don't shit themselves every time somebody says something uncomfortable.
Maybe instead of trying to pretend racism doesn't exist by censoring the words we should put more of a focus on how to deal with the actual problem. I mean you don't eradicate racism in that way. It's treating a symptom not the illness.
Yes because n***** is just like the word Voldemort.
I'm about to say something that I know to you is going to seem very very silly because you're completely missing the point.
In the wizard world Voldemort is worse than the word nigger.
On December 28 2013 05:12 omnic wrote: Reading this thread reminds me of the Harry Potter series and how everybody is paranoid of saying Voldemort and how everybody tries to convince Harry Potter that you shouldn't use the name ever. It's treated with the same type of care that a racial slur is and everybody is so caught up on trying to control what people say that Voldemort basically takes over the wizard world. Meanwhile the only people that actually end up doing anything in the series are the ones that don't shit themselves every time somebody says something uncomfortable.
Maybe instead of trying to pretend racism doesn't exist by censoring the words we should put more of a focus on how to deal with the actual problem. I mean you don't eradicate racism in that way. It's treating a symptom not the illness.
Yes because n***** is just like the word Voldemort.
I'm about to say something that I know to you is going to seem very very silly because you're completely missing the point.
In the wizard world Voldemort is worse than the word nigger.
Well, truth be told, V******** is not an insult in the Wizzard world, it's more like people are afraid to say 'mudblood' even in a non insulting context which is I suppose their form a racial slur.
Not saying V********* is like people being afraid to name Hitler by name or something which is also silly.
On December 28 2013 05:12 omnic wrote: Reading this thread reminds me of the Harry Potter series and how everybody is paranoid of saying Voldemort and how everybody tries to convince Harry Potter that you shouldn't use the name ever. It's treated with the same type of care that a racial slur is and everybody is so caught up on trying to control what people say that Voldemort basically takes over the wizard world. Meanwhile the only people that actually end up doing anything in the series are the ones that don't shit themselves every time somebody says something uncomfortable.
Maybe instead of trying to pretend racism doesn't exist by censoring the words we should put more of a focus on how to deal with the actual problem. I mean you don't eradicate racism in that way. It's treating a symptom not the illness.
Yes because n***** is just like the word Voldemort.
I'm about to say something that I know to you is going to seem very very silly because you're completely missing the point.
In the wizard world Voldemort is worse than the word nigger.
Well, truth be told, Voldemort is not an insult in the Wizzard world, it's more like people are afraid to say 'mudblood' even in a non insulting context which is I suppose their form a racial slur.
Not saying Voldemort is like people being afraid to name Hitler by name or something which is also silly.
The point I was making had more to do with the fact that trying to silence a specific word because you don't want to admit that what the word symbolizes is something that is still out there doesn't do anything to actually stop it.
Silencing the word nigger won't do anything to stop racism all it'll do is better mask racism which shouldn't be your end goal. That's the connection I was making and anyways mud blood isn't nearly as powerful as the word voldemort in the series. People are paralyzed in fear when somebody says Voldemort in any context in the series. Mud blood doesn't come anywhere near that.
Very good read OP, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I grew up in a pretty sheltered family, and didn't realize that racism is still a big deal in the world until I was older. Therefor I would make innocent race jokes all the time and I wouldn't get offended at all when people made asian jokes directed at me because, discriminating people for the color of their skin is such a stupid thing to do that I though "who would be stupid enough to actually mean that ?".
Growing up I realized that real racists exist and sadly there are much more of them than I thought... Therefor people who don't know you are likely to assume that you are racist when you make race jokes.
In public, it's just a matter of politeness not to say n**** or other racial terms because it might offend someone. It's really not our call to judge whether or not they are justified in being offended. I personally think it's not a very rational thing to do, but if people are offended, then just don't say the word.
In private, when you're with friends/family I can say whatever I want.
On December 27 2013 15:30 Djzapz wrote: Meanwhile some white folks spend time condemning the use of words like "nigger" while not giving the slightest amount of fuck about the despicable life conditions that exist in ghettos. Furthermore, they ignore certain of the slang for other minorities, as well as the despicable life conditions of said minorities. Those are apparently not problems worth looking because lazy mofos like to take the moral high ground with little effort.
You had me laughing at "lazy mofos like to take the moral high ground with little effort" because that's exactly what it is. Many people, IRL and in this thread, seem like they're getting offended because it's the easy thing to. Taking the moral high ground, looking down at people and answering with quotes instead of reasoning is so much easier...
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
If you think racist jokes constitute 'violence', you need a dictionary.
Violence per definition is physical and if you don't get that you need to learn better English.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
It's not because I don't want to try to understand it. It's a gross usage of the word "violence" for one, and calling it an institution is loosely okay, but not very convincing. Calling jokes between friends "institutional and cultural violence", IgnE, is an attempt to manipulate people's emotions and to demonize something in order to make it easier to argue against.
I'm done IgnE. I think it's really sad though, your heart is in the right place but you don't know how the world works, you don't know how to tackle problems like this one. And in your defense, the problems of racism, discrimination and intolerance are complex ones. This explains why people like yourself, instead of thinking and reading, prefer to flail your little arms around, attacking every part of racism, symbols, and roots alike, with no understanding of what's going on. That's like how my grandma used to panic every time she saw an ad for an antivirus on her computer. The word virus scared her and she thought it was better to close every browser page which displayed the word "virus". It's not a very effective way to combat viruses, IgnE, as I'm sure you'll understand.
In life, you don't deal with problems by flailing your arms, though. And I don't have solutions either, nor is there an easy way to deal with the problem of racism. But I'm keeping calm, because if I started flailing my arms around, people would stop thinking about racism and they'd start wondering what the fuck this crazy guy is doing slapping everybody in the face.
So you say I'm acting like a child. You think like one.
What I'm saying here is that by attacking the wrong "parts" of racism, you're muddying the water and you're reducing racism to its words and symbols. This is not only useless functionally, it's counter productive because it detracts from the real problem and the actual people who are guilty of being racist.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
It's not because I don't want to try to understand it. It's a gross usage of the word "violence" for one, and calling it an institution is loosely okay, but not very convincing. Calling jokes between friends "institutional and cultural violence", IgnE, is an attempt to manipulate people's emotions and to demonize something in order to make it easier to argue against.
I'm done IgnE. I think it's really sad though, your heart is in the right place but you don't know how the world works, you don't know how to tackle problems like this one. And in your defense, the problems of racism, discrimination and intolerance are complex ones. This explains why people like yourself, instead of thinking and reading, prefer to flail your little arms around, attacking every part of racism, symbols, and roots alike, with no understanding of what's going on. That's like how my grandma used to panic every time she saw an ad for an antivirus on her computer. The word virus scared her and she thought it was better to close every browser page which displayed the word "virus". It's not a very effective way to combat viruses, IgnE, as I'm sure you'll understand.
In life, you don't deal with problems by flailing your arms, though. And I don't have solutions either, nor is there an easy way to deal with the problem of racism. But I'm keeping calm, because if I started flailing my arms around, people would stop thinking about racism and they'd start wondering what the fuck this crazy guy is doing slapping everybody in the face.
So you say I'm acting like a child. You think like one.
What I'm saying here is that by attacking the wrong "parts" of racism, you're muddying the water and you're reducing racism to its words and symbols. This is not only useless functionally, it's counter productive because it detracts from the real problem and the actual people who are guilty of being racist.
It's interesting to be told about the "real" world of racism from a guy whose guilty pleasure is telling his white privileged friends racist jokes in private. Why don't you come into the inner cities of the American eastern seaboard and talk to some black folks about how you think n***** is just a word that you use sometimes but you aren't racist because you only use it in private company?
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
It's not because I don't want to try to understand it. It's a gross usage of the word "violence" for one, and calling it an institution is loosely okay, but not very convincing. Calling jokes between friends "institutional and cultural violence", IgnE, is an attempt to manipulate people's emotions and to demonize something in order to make it easier to argue against.
I'm done IgnE. I think it's really sad though, your heart is in the right place but you don't know how the world works, you don't know how to tackle problems like this one. And in your defense, the problems of racism, discrimination and intolerance are complex ones. This explains why people like yourself, instead of thinking and reading, prefer to flail your little arms around, attacking every part of racism, symbols, and roots alike, with no understanding of what's going on. That's like how my grandma used to panic every time she saw an ad for an antivirus on her computer. The word virus scared her and she thought it was better to close every browser page which displayed the word "virus". It's not a very effective way to combat viruses, IgnE, as I'm sure you'll understand.
In life, you don't deal with problems by flailing your arms, though. And I don't have solutions either, nor is there an easy way to deal with the problem of racism. But I'm keeping calm, because if I started flailing my arms around, people would stop thinking about racism and they'd start wondering what the fuck this crazy guy is doing slapping everybody in the face.
So you say I'm acting like a child. You think like one.
What I'm saying here is that by attacking the wrong "parts" of racism, you're muddying the water and you're reducing racism to its words and symbols. This is not only useless functionally, it's counter productive because it detracts from the real problem and the actual people who are guilty of being racist.
It's interesting to be told about the "real" world of racism from a guy whose guilty pleasure is telling his white privileged friends racist jokes in private. Why don't you come into the inner cities of the American eastern seaboard and talk to some black folks about how you think n***** is just a word that you use sometimes but you aren't racist because you only use it in private company?
You're hopeless, truly hopeless.
And about the part in bold, I've explained MULTIPLE TIMES that it has nothing to with that. Your refusal to understand what racism really is, that's the root of our disagreement. You misunderstand the word at the very core of this discussion. We've been unable to have a good discussion because of this. And despite my many explanations, you continue to distort my position. You censor the word "nigger" in your own posts as if the words used for the purpose of conversation was an offense. And that's a testament to your incompetence in this rational conversation. Your arguments are irrational and continuously appeal to emotion. So again, you think like a child.
Like I said, I believe that you have a good heart, can't fault you there. But you don't know what you're doing when you accuse me of racism, when every fiber of my being is disgusted by racism. I actively discourage and fight it. I'm absolutely disgusted by my brother's actual racist jokes because I know he means to degrade those people.
My making light of social issues through humor, may the issues be about racism, social inequalities, poverty, the environment, etc... It has no negative intentions. Satire and jokes and using humor to talk about real problems is not racism, even if it doesn't always come in the form of discourse that you're used to. And as a results of some of those jokes I made, my friend and I have struck a few actual lengthy conversations about racism. In fact, my gaming buddy and I oftentimes end up talking about these things very seriously even though those conversations oftentimes start off as very inappropriate (by some standards).
So I suggest that you broaden your horizons. I think that's what you need.
Dude, I totally agree with everything you've said here (and have wrote about it), and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
On December 27 2013 15:47 IgnE wrote:
I don't know what you are talking about? Are you making the argument that because some people are hypocrites that makes it ok for you to make racist jokes? Because maybe you really care about "equality in life" and are "actually doing" something?
It's not okay to make racist jokes, which is why they are extra-funny.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
It's not because I don't want to try to understand it. It's a gross usage of the word "violence" for one, and calling it an institution is loosely okay, but not very convincing. Calling jokes between friends "institutional and cultural violence", IgnE, is an attempt to manipulate people's emotions and to demonize something in order to make it easier to argue against.
I'm done IgnE. I think it's really sad though, your heart is in the right place but you don't know how the world works, you don't know how to tackle problems like this one. And in your defense, the problems of racism, discrimination and intolerance are complex ones. This explains why people like yourself, instead of thinking and reading, prefer to flail your little arms around, attacking every part of racism, symbols, and roots alike, with no understanding of what's going on. That's like how my grandma used to panic every time she saw an ad for an antivirus on her computer. The word virus scared her and she thought it was better to close every browser page which displayed the word "virus". It's not a very effective way to combat viruses, IgnE, as I'm sure you'll understand.
In life, you don't deal with problems by flailing your arms, though. And I don't have solutions either, nor is there an easy way to deal with the problem of racism. But I'm keeping calm, because if I started flailing my arms around, people would stop thinking about racism and they'd start wondering what the fuck this crazy guy is doing slapping everybody in the face.
So you say I'm acting like a child. You think like one.
What I'm saying here is that by attacking the wrong "parts" of racism, you're muddying the water and you're reducing racism to its words and symbols. This is not only useless functionally, it's counter productive because it detracts from the real problem and the actual people who are guilty of being racist.
It's interesting to be told about the "real" world of racism from a guy whose guilty pleasure is telling his white privileged friends racist jokes in private. Why don't you come into the inner cities of the American eastern seaboard and talk to some black folks about how you think n***** is just a word that you use sometimes but you aren't racist because you only use it in private company?
You're hopeless, truly hopeless.
And about the part in bold, I've explained MULTIPLE TIMES that it has nothing to with that. Your refusal to understand what racism really is, that's the root of our disagreement. You misunderstand the word at the very core of this discussion. We've been unable to have a good discussion because of this. And despite my many explanations, you continue to distort my position. You censor the word "nigger" in your own posts as if the words used for the purpose of conversation was an offense. And that's a testament to your incompetence in this rational conversation. Your arguments are irrational and continuously appeal to emotion. So again, you think like a child.
Like I said, I believe that you have a good heart, can't fault you there. But you don't know what you're doing when you accuse me of racism, when every fiber of my being is disgusted by racism. I actively discourage and fight it. I'm absolutely disgusted by my brother's actual racist jokes because I know he means to degrade those people.
My making light of social issues through humor, may the issues be about racism, social inequalities, poverty, the environment, etc... It has no negative intentions. Satire and jokes and using humor to talk about real problems is not racism, even if it doesn't always come in the form of discourse that you're used to. And as a results of some of those jokes I made, my friend and I have struck a few actual lengthy conversations about racism. In fact, my gaming buddy and I oftentimes end up talking about these things very seriously even though those conversations oftentimes start off as very inappropriate (by some standards).
So I suggest that you broaden your horizons. I think that's what you need.
You say the fact that your jokes are private doesn't matter and yet you keep them private. There's a reason that even amongst comics you don't see pink people using the word n*****. You're a grown up boy who doesn't think words have power, but you wouldn't use the word in public and you wouldn't admit to a brown person you just met that you've used the word in private amongst your friends. You suggest I broaden my horizons but you are the one who needs to ask some brown people how they feel about the use of the term, even behind closed doors.
On December 28 2013 05:27 IgnE wrote: You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Nope. Jokes in private can't possibly be "violence" because they're jokes and they're in private. It don't even really know how to respond to that without outright insulting your intelligence frankly. It's like I'm reading a self-help book of some description and it tells you erroneous definitions of violence. Moral violence! You can hurt others with your thoughts or some shit.
I know I'm twisting what you're saying but it's such an irrelevant and nonoperational string of words, I can't possibly make sense of it. And here's the thing: nor can you. Nobody can defend that bullshit.
Uncivilized boors can do whatever they want behind closed doors and are entitled to free speech in public. A racist joke is not absolved of its immoral patina simply because it's conducted in private. If you want to argue that the context of the joke is important, even central, to it's meaning and moral heftiness, I wouldn't argue with you. But that's not what you've been saying. If you want to talk about context, you brought up private jokes in a thread about the use of the word n*****. If you are using that word in private jokes with your friends, you are overwhelmingly likely an uncivilized racist boor.
I use racial slurs in private with my friends. I call my gay friend a faggot. Yet I don't think lowly of people of other races or sexual orientations, and much to the contrary, I defend them when they're attacked by actual intolerant and racist people. So when you try to fiddle with semantics to try to make me out to be a racist person because of my usage of words, you're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
And yes sometimes with my friends I lack class. That makes me a classless guy sometimes, but not a bigot, nor a racist.
You would never use that word around a black person you didn't personally know
No, and I also don't talk about how fucking terrible white people are in front of people who don't want to hear it. I change my language depending on what I know people can hear.
Do you seriously think that things done in private are not racist by virtue of the fact that they are done only amongst friends? That there are no Others around to hear your racism and be offended?
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't understand. You're incredibly shallow.
Things are racist, or they aren't. To believe that people of other races are inferior in some way, that's what racism is. I say the word "nigger" here, and I can say the word "faggot". This last sentence is not racist or homophobic because those words are not inherently bad - they're bad in a context of intolerance. The fact that I jokingly call my gay friend a faggot (because he expressively told me it's ok and he calls me all kinds of shit himself) is not homophobic. My jokes are not racist because they're not meant to be hurtful, and furthermore they don't hurt anybody. I don't condone actual "racist jokes" that incite hatred or anything of the sort. I don't condone jokes made among racist fuckers who try to get a rise out of lowering others.
There are three reasons why I specifically mention that those jokes are made in private: 1- People like yourself exist. You don't understand the world and you wouldn't understand what I'm saying. + Show Spoiler +
A local comedian "offended" a bunch of people when he made a bit about cripples. They left the theater all pissed off and told the media about how offended they were. The comedian was making jokes which prefaced a bit about his crippled brother, and the foundation he made in his honor.
2- I'm worried that actual racists might hear me. This is in line with what you've been saying. I choose my friends carefully - and they're good people like myself. 3- Sensitive jokes like that can sound bad if you don't hear the whole thing.
For as much as you pride yourself on your "rationalism" and use of reason it's strange that you think your arguments are sound here. You've finally admitted in this post that you think making racist jokes in private is ok, because it "just is," but you still rail on with your ridiculous line of logic about how your boorish and racist behavior is justified by the existence of other hypocrites. If you want to think your behavior is fine because it "just is" then so be it. But don't pretend all this other bullshit you've been talking about makes any sense.
I think it's funny. Those two parts in bold show that you haven't listened. The "ridiculous line of logic" doesn't exist. I say that jokes about race are inherently okay, not that they're justified by the fact that worse things exist.
Jokes about race, as opposed to racist jokes, can be social commentary. Jokes about race can also be tasteless, like dead baby jokes - but none of these necessarily incite hatred of those people, or the belief that they're inferior.
I think that this entire little debate between us is rendered useless by the fact that you foolishly refuse to see the difference between racism and "jokes which pertain to race". So I want to reiterate that you're a shallow individual and you're wasting everybody's time with your silly and ineffective way of combating racism by attacking people like myself who make use of certain words in a completely innocent and harmless way. Fuck, I'm more disgusted and reactive than the average person when I see actual racism. By a fair margin too. My brother and I have been drifting apart because of his intolerance which I find completely despicable.
I also want to say that this following line is the stupidest thing I've heard in months and you should be ashamed
You talk about institutional violence against the Roma and fail to realize that "jokes in private" can constitute institutional/cultural violence in themselves.
Absolute garbo catchphrase. Get ahold of yourself.
You can't make sense of racist jokes as institutional and cultural violence because you don't want to try and understand. It is easier for you to sit there and say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." You are acting like a child.
It's not because I don't want to try to understand it. It's a gross usage of the word "violence" for one, and calling it an institution is loosely okay, but not very convincing. Calling jokes between friends "institutional and cultural violence", IgnE, is an attempt to manipulate people's emotions and to demonize something in order to make it easier to argue against.
I'm done IgnE. I think it's really sad though, your heart is in the right place but you don't know how the world works, you don't know how to tackle problems like this one. And in your defense, the problems of racism, discrimination and intolerance are complex ones. This explains why people like yourself, instead of thinking and reading, prefer to flail your little arms around, attacking every part of racism, symbols, and roots alike, with no understanding of what's going on. That's like how my grandma used to panic every time she saw an ad for an antivirus on her computer. The word virus scared her and she thought it was better to close every browser page which displayed the word "virus". It's not a very effective way to combat viruses, IgnE, as I'm sure you'll understand.
In life, you don't deal with problems by flailing your arms, though. And I don't have solutions either, nor is there an easy way to deal with the problem of racism. But I'm keeping calm, because if I started flailing my arms around, people would stop thinking about racism and they'd start wondering what the fuck this crazy guy is doing slapping everybody in the face.
So you say I'm acting like a child. You think like one.
What I'm saying here is that by attacking the wrong "parts" of racism, you're muddying the water and you're reducing racism to its words and symbols. This is not only useless functionally, it's counter productive because it detracts from the real problem and the actual people who are guilty of being racist.
It's interesting to be told about the "real" world of racism from a guy whose guilty pleasure is telling his white privileged friends racist jokes in private. Why don't you come into the inner cities of the American eastern seaboard and talk to some black folks about how you think n***** is just a word that you use sometimes but you aren't racist because you only use it in private company?
Racism means one of two things:
1. The belief that certain races are inhaerently better than other races or deserve more rights than other races. 2. The practice of making a distinction based on race
Joking about race, joking about anything, does not mean the former belief, or the latter action. Spelling the word nigger out in full most certainly does not mean any of both and if you think it does you're intellectually challenged.
Apart from that, saying the word does not mean violence, in fact, saying 'I'm going to stab all niggers in the face' does not mean violence, actually stabbing people constitutes violence. Even calling for genocide does not constitute violence, actually committing genocide does however. No matter what you say or call for, it can't constitute violence until you actually do something, and if you don't understand that your English is broken. Violence means the destruction or damaging of physical objects via the means of applying physical and pressure to them.
racism is carried out by thoughts put into words, it has been for centuries .. your deny it equates to less than nothing violence is carried out with words much more often than with acts
if you actually cared about someone else than yourself, which you pretend by acting all self righteous in all your posts, you would realize that ...
you were mocked by racists, got HURT by the VIOLENT POWER of those words, which made you do it to someone else in response .. you hurt other people that will in turn hurt others
that your feeble attempts at understanding any of this fail is yet another symptom of the potency of violence words are indeed capable of: if you hear enough racial slurs in a context that make them seem harmless, and you do not no anything else, then you feel it is normal to do so it does not mean it is, it just makes you feel/think that it is
however, not everyone was brought up to be a douchebag, and the indoctrinating powers of words is of such lethalness that these years of upbringing/indoctrination take years to be thwarted.. and by thwarted i do mean that one's vista can be broadened so that one realizes on one's own that one was wrong to do "x" (in your case disregard social conduct/history and basically anyone who disagrees with you)
most people never get the chance to fully come back from years of hate/contempt indoctrination, i'm not betting much on your chances
but i was lucky AND i know it, and that comes with a responsibility towards you to broaden your vista, be patient and show you that you are not a failure, that you can be redeemed, again and again, until you realize .. on your own, what a douchebag you were to stand up for the defense of the word nigger (among other clear signs of contempt for your equals: other human beings)
ps: re read the thread, maybe some of it will bear fruit, and yes i said fruit, not puss .. from you henceforth
pps: you are incapable of having a meaningful discussion about such a subject, you are blinded by hatred and contempt for others if you were not, i would (as i said it from the start) be carpet bombing this thread with all my hate of pc ness and damage control and hypocrisy that this world is suffering from..
..but things being such as they are, i have no qualms at jumping the fence to point out that you are a violent young person that doesn't even realize that by ignoring other people he is part of the problem and therefore needs help
On December 28 2013 18:43 enord wrote: ignE, you should let him wollow in his ownn vomit, he likes it
he is a hypocrite racist that uses the cover of discussing suppression of words to spew his filth
continuously acting all self righttious and indignant whilst he knowingly perpetuates what he denounces
I don't perpetuate racism. I use the words sarcastically, ironically and to casually parody situations while fighting actual racism. You're close minded if you don't see that humor is a good way to talk about topics. Furthermore, you're *VERY* close minded if you ignore the fact that I actively discourage real racism in my surroundings.
And words with "violent power" as you amusingly say, can be gutted from their power when used properly. Racial slurs can be harmless when they're made out to be. They can be harmful when used in such a way that's likely to hurt others or negatively influence others in a relevant way. So I'm not saying language is harmless, I'm saying it can be, when it's used by people who know how to use it.
Now you clearly don't know how to use language, this is made clear in your posting. You also seem to be driven by your emotional response to those words more so than the actual consequences (or lack thereof) of those words. You get out of your way to insult a person who's completely innocent of any actual important wrongdoings in the way of racism. Hell, worse than that, I'm actively fighting racism in whatever ways I can, and yet you're so misguided that you'd take me as a target for some bullshit reason when I've probably done more to deal with racism than you ever have.
Like the other guy, your heart is in the right place, but you're so hung up on the potential indirect damage that words can inflict that you forget the real issues. So to reiterate, yes words can cause damage - but they don't always do it. A disgusting book like Mein Kampf in my hands is harmless. In a neo-nazi's hands it might not be. Mein Kampf or any neo-nazi in my hands may be eye-opening, and it may make me more aware of what I'm fighting against. Much like jokes about black people, in the correct setting, can act as a social commentary, or sometimes, a harmless, tasteless goof like a dead baby joke. It would be silly to ignore the power of words, but it's just as silly to assume that they can't be stripped from their power also.
On December 29 2013 00:29 enord wrote: i was referencing the op, not you
i actively ignored you
You wrote "I actively ignored you" and somehow didn't get a huge red flare in your head that said "perhaps that's a really dumb thing to say or do". Come on man.
Granted, this shows what I'd been suspecting. You'd rather flail your arms around helplessly than think about shit. You're a zealot, basically.
On December 29 2013 00:29 enord wrote: i was referencing the op, not you
i actively ignored you
You wrote "I actively ignored you" and somehow didn't get a huge red flare in your head that said "perhaps that's a really dumb thing to say or do". Come on man.
Granted, this shows what I'd been suspecting. You'd rather flail your arms around helplessly than think about shit. You're a zealot, basically.
On December 29 2013 00:29 enord wrote: i was referencing the op, not you
i actively ignored you
You wrote "I actively ignored you" and somehow didn't get a huge red flare in your head that said "perhaps that's a really dumb thing to say or do". Come on man.
Granted, this shows what I'd been suspecting. You'd rather flail your arms around helplessly than think about shit. You're a zealot, basically.
Calm down, he's just being an n-word.
Nina you're negatively affecting my subconscious :X
the op is who i am adressing "actively ignoring you" might seem like a bait but it wasn't (but if it was you took it with hook line and fisherman, so what was that again about power of words?) i meant that i did not read your posts nor invested any of my time trying to find if my typing to you would do any thing (good, bad, to you, to any one else reading)
i adressed ignE as a form of thanks to him for trying to reason the op out of his fiction
i adressed op because it is wrong to let hate spew uncountered
would you like us to converse, seems like you like to converse, seems like you like to insult too
just to retort and show good will, i started out in this thread with the intention to give my 2 cents on pc corectness and hypocrisy (which i think are bad for everyone and in a sense are the origin of many aweful stuff) and never it never got to that i stumbled upon a more pressing/important issue: countering a kid who thinks hatred of some things gives him the right to spit in whole lot of people s faces (people alive and dead both)
when you say "i use taboo words to disarm them", can i ask you how you rate your succes? lenny bruce did it and he changed america for ever, georges carlin did it too to a lesser extent do you think you are on par with them? context, space and timing to ellaborate, the talent and the talent to do it only when it will achieve a sound goal are very hard to come by wouldn't you agree?
actively ignored, why would i have typed this? maybe this is my way of saying i have more respect for you than for the op maybe i came to the conclusion of my patience on this thread maybe i know what i'm doing maybe words can be misenterpreted maybe i was demonstrating to lurkers reading what i meant by power of words, by a "world of words" (forums) or maybe my kid was more important and i typed what i had time to type in that moment
ps: the edit is strong with you, i wonder how i should take that (sorry, just in case you are wondering, i meant i read it unedited then edited and i'm reflecting on your train of thought)
You ask me my rate of success, you speak of changing the world, as if small steps didn't count. I didn't change the world, nor did you. I'm not Lenny Bruce, I'm not George Carlin - sorry. But I can do what they do, without their talent, with my friends.
As for my edits, sorry. I'm never satisfied with my posting so they sometimes tend to be living posts.
I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context. The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity. He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context. The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity. He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
It's a good thing you aim to stop people from using the word rather than putting in any effort to fix any of those problems. Good on you.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context. The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity. He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
It's a good thing you aim to stop people from using the word rather than putting in any effort to fix any of those problems. Good on you.
Yep yep. Easy way to get the moral high ground effortlessly.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context.
What negative context? Also, why assume it's a 'he'? Now that is something that not offends, but indeed slightly annoys me.
My opponent was simply remarking upon the scout time of my probe and was a jolly friendly opponent I might add.
The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity.
No, it doesn't, maybe it did 60 years back but the meaning of the word 'nigger' has completely changed at this point. Nigger is just no longer an insult depending on context. Neither is 'fag' or 'bitch'.
Sometimes, yes, these words are used as insults, sometimes they are not. And reading contextually something you seem thoroughly incapable of, allows you to infer if it's meant as an insult or not. I remember a girl who referred to her boyfriend as 'my bitch' once and in no way was that implied as an insult. Her phone just rang and she said 'one moment, my bitch calling.'
He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence
No, he or she didn't, he or she was simply remarking upon the time my scouting probe arrived and after that a friendly conversation followed during and after the game regarding the merits of early probe scouting.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
Now imagine being a young brown child who can read context and can realize that the same word can be used as an insult, or not, depending on the context in which it stands. Which is the case with so many words. Take the word 'dick', pop quiz, see if you can read context, here are some made up quotes.
"Obama is the biggest dick ever, he promised so much and didn't follow up with any of it, he's almost a second Bush!"
"You're such a dick you know that, ahaha." - your SO after you come home from being in the cold, sneak up on him or her and put your ice cold fingers into his or her neck
"Holy fucking dick, that graphics card has some mad specs."
"That was such a dick move by Artosis, first asking money for esportsu and then not giving his customers anything, big scam."
Now, go ahead, see if you can filter out the cases where "dick" is used as an insult and the cases where it isn't.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context. The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity. He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
It's a good thing you aim to stop people from using the word rather than putting in any effort to fix any of those problems. Good on you.
The use of the word is a problem over and on top of the other problems. Language matters.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context.
What negative context? Also, why assume it's a 'he'? Now that is something that not offends, but indeed slightly annoys me.
My opponent was simply remarking upon the scout time of my probe and was a jolly friendly opponent I might add.
The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity.
No, it doesn't, maybe it did 60 years back but the meaning of the word 'nigger' has completely changed at this point. Nigger is just no longer an insult depending on context. Neither is 'fag' or 'bitch'.
Sometimes, yes, these words are used as insults, sometimes they are not. And reading contextually something you seem thoroughly incapable of, allows you to infer if it's meant as an insult or not. I remember a girl who referred to her boyfriend as 'my bitch' once and in no way was that implied as an insult. Her phone just rang and she said 'one moment, my bitch calling.'
He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence
No, he or she didn't, he or she was simply remarking upon the time my scouting probe arrived and after that a friendly conversation followed during and after the game regarding the merits of early probe scouting.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
Now imagine being a young brown child who can read context and can realize that the same word can be used as an insult, or not, depending on the context in which it stands. Which is the case with so many words. Take the word 'dick', pop quiz, see if you can read context, here are some made up quotes.
"Obama is the biggest dick ever, he promised so much and didn't follow up with any of it, he's almost a second Bush!"
"You're such a dick you know that, ahaha." - your SO after you come home from being in the cold, sneak up on him or her and put your ice cold fingers into his or her neck
"Holy fucking dick, that graphics card has some mad specs."
"That was such a dick move by Artosis, first asking money for esportsu and then not giving his customers anything, big scam."
Now, go ahead, see if you can filter out the cases where "dick" is used as an insult and the cases where it isn't.
Dick is not the same. You don't get to decide when a word that functioned as an instrument of oppression has lost its oppressive functionality.
Pop quiz. Try and do the same thing except instead of a lame word like "dick" actually use the word n*****. Except do it at a public bar with brown people. Oh that's right, you wouldn't.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context.
What negative context? Also, why assume it's a 'he'? Now that is something that not offends, but indeed slightly annoys me.
My opponent was simply remarking upon the scout time of my probe and was a jolly friendly opponent I might add.
The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity.
No, it doesn't, maybe it did 60 years back but the meaning of the word 'nigger' has completely changed at this point. Nigger is just no longer an insult depending on context. Neither is 'fag' or 'bitch'.
Sometimes, yes, these words are used as insults, sometimes they are not. And reading contextually something you seem thoroughly incapable of, allows you to infer if it's meant as an insult or not. I remember a girl who referred to her boyfriend as 'my bitch' once and in no way was that implied as an insult. Her phone just rang and she said 'one moment, my bitch calling.'
He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence
No, he or she didn't, he or she was simply remarking upon the time my scouting probe arrived and after that a friendly conversation followed during and after the game regarding the merits of early probe scouting.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
Now imagine being a young brown child who can read context and can realize that the same word can be used as an insult, or not, depending on the context in which it stands. Which is the case with so many words. Take the word 'dick', pop quiz, see if you can read context, here are some made up quotes.
"Obama is the biggest dick ever, he promised so much and didn't follow up with any of it, he's almost a second Bush!"
"You're such a dick you know that, ahaha." - your SO after you come home from being in the cold, sneak up on him or her and put your ice cold fingers into his or her neck
"Holy fucking dick, that graphics card has some mad specs."
"That was such a dick move by Artosis, first asking money for esportsu and then not giving his customers anything, big scam."
Now, go ahead, see if you can filter out the cases where "dick" is used as an insult and the cases where it isn't.
Dick is not the same. You don't get to decide when a word that functioned as an instrument of oppression has lost its oppressive functionality.
You don't get to decide that, you get to do that. I can say the word nigger here and it's not an instrument of oppression in the context of this sentence.
Pop quiz. Try and do the same thing except instead of a lame word like "dick" actually use the word n*****. Except do it at a public bar with brown people. Oh that's right, you wouldn't.
You keep saying that dumb bullshit, but if you're capable of thought you'll also understand that certain things offend certain people. Dead baby jokes are largely fine, but if a guy just lost his kid, maybe I'd get decked in the face. Certain people are not open to certain types of humor depending on their circumstances. It doesn't mean that we can't talk about those things, it just means that it's important to be considerate.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context.
What negative context? Also, why assume it's a 'he'? Now that is something that not offends, but indeed slightly annoys me.
My opponent was simply remarking upon the scout time of my probe and was a jolly friendly opponent I might add.
The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity.
No, it doesn't, maybe it did 60 years back but the meaning of the word 'nigger' has completely changed at this point. Nigger is just no longer an insult depending on context. Neither is 'fag' or 'bitch'.
Sometimes, yes, these words are used as insults, sometimes they are not. And reading contextually something you seem thoroughly incapable of, allows you to infer if it's meant as an insult or not. I remember a girl who referred to her boyfriend as 'my bitch' once and in no way was that implied as an insult. Her phone just rang and she said 'one moment, my bitch calling.'
He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence
No, he or she didn't, he or she was simply remarking upon the time my scouting probe arrived and after that a friendly conversation followed during and after the game regarding the merits of early probe scouting.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
Now imagine being a young brown child who can read context and can realize that the same word can be used as an insult, or not, depending on the context in which it stands. Which is the case with so many words. Take the word 'dick', pop quiz, see if you can read context, here are some made up quotes.
"Obama is the biggest dick ever, he promised so much and didn't follow up with any of it, he's almost a second Bush!"
"You're such a dick you know that, ahaha." - your SO after you come home from being in the cold, sneak up on him or her and put your ice cold fingers into his or her neck
"Holy fucking dick, that graphics card has some mad specs."
"That was such a dick move by Artosis, first asking money for esportsu and then not giving his customers anything, big scam."
Now, go ahead, see if you can filter out the cases where "dick" is used as an insult and the cases where it isn't.
Dick is not the same. You don't get to decide when a word that functioned as an instrument of oppression has lost its oppressive functionality.
You don't get to decide that, you get to do that. I can say the word nigger here and it's not an instrument of oppression in the context of this sentence.
Pop quiz. Try and do the same thing except instead of a lame word like "dick" actually use the word n*****. Except do it at a public bar with brown people. Oh that's right, you wouldn't.
You keep saying that dumb bullshit, but if you're capable of thought you'll also understand that certain things offend certain people. Dead baby jokes are largely fine, but if a guy just lost his kid, maybe I'd get decked in the face. Certain people are not open to certain types of humor depending on their circumstances. It doesn't mean that we can't talk about those things, it just means that it's important to be considerate.
It's unlikely you would get decked by anyone for telling dead baby jokes. This isn't about anything so trivial as "taking offense," but your conflation of the two is telling.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context.
What negative context? Also, why assume it's a 'he'? Now that is something that not offends, but indeed slightly annoys me.
My opponent was simply remarking upon the scout time of my probe and was a jolly friendly opponent I might add.
The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity.
No, it doesn't, maybe it did 60 years back but the meaning of the word 'nigger' has completely changed at this point. Nigger is just no longer an insult depending on context. Neither is 'fag' or 'bitch'.
Sometimes, yes, these words are used as insults, sometimes they are not. And reading contextually something you seem thoroughly incapable of, allows you to infer if it's meant as an insult or not. I remember a girl who referred to her boyfriend as 'my bitch' once and in no way was that implied as an insult. Her phone just rang and she said 'one moment, my bitch calling.'
He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence
No, he or she didn't, he or she was simply remarking upon the time my scouting probe arrived and after that a friendly conversation followed during and after the game regarding the merits of early probe scouting.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
Now imagine being a young brown child who can read context and can realize that the same word can be used as an insult, or not, depending on the context in which it stands. Which is the case with so many words. Take the word 'dick', pop quiz, see if you can read context, here are some made up quotes.
"Obama is the biggest dick ever, he promised so much and didn't follow up with any of it, he's almost a second Bush!"
"You're such a dick you know that, ahaha." - your SO after you come home from being in the cold, sneak up on him or her and put your ice cold fingers into his or her neck
"Holy fucking dick, that graphics card has some mad specs."
"That was such a dick move by Artosis, first asking money for esportsu and then not giving his customers anything, big scam."
Now, go ahead, see if you can filter out the cases where "dick" is used as an insult and the cases where it isn't.
Dick is not the same. You don't get to decide when a word that functioned as an instrument of oppression has lost its oppressive functionality.
Pop quiz. Try and do the same thing except instead of a lame word like "dick" actually use the word n*****. Except do it at a public bar with brown people. Oh that's right, you wouldn't.
Yeah, you're the one who is being offended in situations where:
A: No offense was meant by the person you are offended by, no ill will towards you or anyone was present. B: Other people are not offended.
Seems like the problem is you to me.
If you're perceiving people as racist who have no such ideals whatsoever and other people are perfectly capable of figuring that out, then you need to work on your racism radar.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context.
What negative context? Also, why assume it's a 'he'? Now that is something that not offends, but indeed slightly annoys me.
My opponent was simply remarking upon the scout time of my probe and was a jolly friendly opponent I might add.
The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity.
No, it doesn't, maybe it did 60 years back but the meaning of the word 'nigger' has completely changed at this point. Nigger is just no longer an insult depending on context. Neither is 'fag' or 'bitch'.
Sometimes, yes, these words are used as insults, sometimes they are not. And reading contextually something you seem thoroughly incapable of, allows you to infer if it's meant as an insult or not. I remember a girl who referred to her boyfriend as 'my bitch' once and in no way was that implied as an insult. Her phone just rang and she said 'one moment, my bitch calling.'
He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence
No, he or she didn't, he or she was simply remarking upon the time my scouting probe arrived and after that a friendly conversation followed during and after the game regarding the merits of early probe scouting.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
Now imagine being a young brown child who can read context and can realize that the same word can be used as an insult, or not, depending on the context in which it stands. Which is the case with so many words. Take the word 'dick', pop quiz, see if you can read context, here are some made up quotes.
"Obama is the biggest dick ever, he promised so much and didn't follow up with any of it, he's almost a second Bush!"
"You're such a dick you know that, ahaha." - your SO after you come home from being in the cold, sneak up on him or her and put your ice cold fingers into his or her neck
"Holy fucking dick, that graphics card has some mad specs."
"That was such a dick move by Artosis, first asking money for esportsu and then not giving his customers anything, big scam."
Now, go ahead, see if you can filter out the cases where "dick" is used as an insult and the cases where it isn't.
Dick is not the same. You don't get to decide when a word that functioned as an instrument of oppression has lost its oppressive functionality.
You don't get to decide that, you get to do that. I can say the word nigger here and it's not an instrument of oppression in the context of this sentence.
Pop quiz. Try and do the same thing except instead of a lame word like "dick" actually use the word n*****. Except do it at a public bar with brown people. Oh that's right, you wouldn't.
You keep saying that dumb bullshit, but if you're capable of thought you'll also understand that certain things offend certain people. Dead baby jokes are largely fine, but if a guy just lost his kid, maybe I'd get decked in the face. Certain people are not open to certain types of humor depending on their circumstances. It doesn't mean that we can't talk about those things, it just means that it's important to be considerate.
It's unlikely you would get decked by anyone for telling dead baby jokes. This isn't about anything so trivial as "taking offense," but your conflation of the two is telling.
There's no conflation, my point is that your argument sucks. You're essentially saying that since "brown people" can get offended by those words, it means that we can't use them. My argument is that there are plenty of words or jokes that offend people for plenty of reasons. The fact that certain things offend certain people is not a good reason not to mention those words.
So I'm not equating racial slurs and dead baby jokes in general, I'm equating them to show why your argument is a POS.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context. The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity. He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
It's a good thing you aim to stop people from using the word rather than putting in any effort to fix any of those problems. Good on you.
The use of the word is a problem over and on top of the other problems. Language matters.
Like I said. It's a good thing you're focusing on the most important part of fixing racism which is obviously the use of words that people can find offensive.
On December 29 2013 02:09 SiskosGoatee wrote: I just met someone on the ladder, I always scout early and my opponent says of my probe. "Damn, that's one early nigger.", prime example of context, it's a probe, it doesn't have a race, obviously the opponent didn't mean to imply any racist thought anywhere, if you get offended by that you need a class in context reading.
That's an absurd analysis. He could have substituted a variety of other denigrating words there all with a pejorative connotation. He's perpetuating the use of a racist epithet in a negative context. The word he used is a label for an entire race of people that were literally propertized and objectified for centuries and continue to be dehumanized even 150 years after emancipation by the continued use of a word that Others them. He is implying racist thoughts by using that word because the word signals a sub-race of humanity. He anthropomorphizes the probe and promptly Others it to heap scorn upon it. This is the perpetuation of cultural violence.
Imagine being a young brown child growing up in a society where people say "what a _______ n*****" to describe people and events that annoy or infuriate them. The word would designate something inherently problematic, suboptimal, and bad. Imagine growing up in a society where a word that means "brown person" also means something shitty and problematic. It certainly doesn't simply designate a person worthy of empathy and full participation in the society. Now imagine the systemic effect of a population of people who are unconsciously programmed to associate shitty, problematic things with a racial epithet and by extension an entire race. This is the meaning of systemic violence.
It's a good thing you aim to stop people from using the word rather than putting in any effort to fix any of those problems. Good on you.
The use of the word is a problem over and on top of the other problems. Language matters.
Like I said. It's a good thing you're focusing on the most important part of fixing racism which is obviously the use of words that people can find offensive.
I'd go so far that this stuff is even counter productive to a large extend as it creates a culture where people strive against each other rather than come together. Same with how a lot of feminists operate, they create this whole 'women vs men' idea. Obviously a lot of feminists do good work but some just increase the problems they aim to solve.
Yeah, I agree, I knew "faggot" as a general insult before I knew it was originally something for gay people and I knew that before I knew it technically means bundle of wooden stick.
Also, I knew "gay" as something related to sexual orientation before I knew it meant a state of mind technically.
I also knew "Son of a bitch" before I knew what "bitch" was and what was actually implied with the phrase, I just thought it was a random insult and didn't decompose it into its individual parts.
So I've incidentally been reading up on the status of transgenderism in Thailand and how they treat it reminded me of this topic.
Essentially, transsexuals are far more accepted in Thailand than in the west, many famous film and pop stars are transsexuals in Thailand, they enter and often win beauty contests, some politicians are and so fourth. About 1% of Thailand is in fact transsexual which is far higher than in the west, possibly because more people dare to come out just because it's more accepted.
But here's the point, they can't change their legal gender, and they are seldom referred to as the sex they identify with, instead people perceive them as third and fourth genders and they do so themselves. Basically, in Thai culture it's like: "No, I don't think you're a real woman, but I'm totally cool with whatever you are though and you're kind of hot." in the west it's more like "Yes, I totally believe you're a real woman, or so I say, but in the end I'm a little bit uneased by you and being around you.".
Which is a very intersesting distinction, in the west transsexuals are more accepted as the opposite biological sex, but aren't really accepted as what they are. In Thailand they aren't accepted as the opposite biological sex, but much more as what they simply are. People don't get uneasy around transsexuals and around the subject. A transsexual pop star in the west would just never work, too many people would be too uneasy deep down inside to become fans, but in Thailand it seems to work just fine.