**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

It's kind of like if you and wuf started calling each other 'cracker' all the time. In the context of two (presumably) white people speaking to each other the word takes on a different meaning than if a black person on here called you 'cracker'. In the context of you and wuf the word 'cracker' would be much closer to 'brother' in meaning than to 'dickhead of another race', since obviously the latter meaning makes no sense when both the speaker and the listener are of the same race.

[CoccoBill]

It's kind of like if you and wuf started calling each other 'cracker' all the time. In the context of two (presumably) white people speaking to each other the word takes on a different meaning than if a black person on here called you 'cracker'. In the context of you and wuf the word 'cracker' would be much closer to 'brother' in meaning than to 'dickhead of another race', since obviously the latter meaning makes no sense when both the speaker and the listener are of the same race.

Should I, as a white guy, be insulted if they call each other crackers?

[OngBonga]

Should I, as a white guy, be insulted if they call each other crackers?

Only if myself and wuf are both black.

[CoccoBill]

Only if wuf and I are both black.

Somehow I think Poop trying to apply universal morality to this issue is failing. Being offended is a personal experience. I for one am not letting others dictate when I should or shouldn't be offended.

[OngBonga]

Somehow I think Poop trying to apply universal morality to this issue is failing. Being offended is a personal experience. I for one am not letting others dictate when I should or shouldn't be offended.

Yeah, couldn't agree more.

I mean the world we currently live in, I can't say nigger because I'm white, but I can call a black man a wanker for the simple reason he's black, and so long as noone else knows my motive, it's ok, because I only called him a wanker.

The racism is not the word, it's the motive. Motives are often covert, so the moral crusaders go after the words instead, which are overt, to make them feel somewhat better about the sins of their ancestors.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, couldn't agree more.

I mean the world we currently live in, I can't say nigger because I'm white, but I can call a black man a wanker for the simple reason he's black, and so long as noone else knows my motive, it's ok, because I only called him a wanker.

So your argument is that if a person expresses their racism in a way nobody understands as racist, that's a problem with language. Actually, that's a problem with their vocabulary.

The racism is not the word, it's the motive.

This is like saying the problem with an earthquake isn't the word earthquake, it's the ground shaking. Ya of course it is. What's your point?

Motives are often covert, so the moral crusaders go after the words instead, which are overt, to make them feel somewhat better about the sins of their ancestors.

That's your interpretation. It's more likely in my eyes that the word becomes offensive for the simple reason that it's hurtful. It's the same reason calling a woman a 'cunt' is deemed offensive.

[Poopadoop]

Somehow I think Poop trying to apply universal morality to this issue is failing. Being offended is a personal experience. I for one am not letting others dictate when I should or shouldn't be offended.

I'm not making any moral judgments or trying to tell anyone if and when they should be offended. I'm simply describing my understanding of what the conventions on word usage are.

Ong is trying to say it's racist that white and black people have different dialects where the word 'nigger' has a different meaning. I'm saying it's not.

[Poopadoop]

Should I, as a white guy, be insulted if they call each other crackers?

That's up to you to decide. It's not my place to tell you if and when and why you should be offended.