Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 61 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 4,501 to 4,575 of 8309
  1. #4501
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Are you really being put out by not being able to say it to a black person while another black person can?
    I don't like racism. I just see racism different to most people. When someone says to me black people can use a word that white people cannot, I see that as racism, more so than the use of a single word. There are different standards of behaviour being applied here. It's not a case of the word meaning different things. The word "fuck" means different things, it's still an offensive word. The word "nigger" is offensive in just about every nation in the world. So some people have decided to "reclaim" the word or whatever is going on. Fair enough, they can do that all they like. So can I. Not that I'm going to, but those who say that I can't use the word while black people can, they are being racist, even if it's unintentional. Racism isn't necessarily conscious, it's treating people differently based on their race, and that can come from the subconcious.

    The word "tosser" is a completely different issue. For one, it's not particularly offensive here, it's kinda mild; furthermore, it doesn't have the historical connotations that "nigger" has; for another it's not like we have one group of people using the word regularly, while at the same time saying another group of people can't use the word because it's offensive. So your "tosser" analogy really isn't cutting it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #4502
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    The word "tosser" is a completely different issue. For one, it's not particularly offensive here, it's kinda mild; furthermore, it doesn't have the historical connotations that "nigger" has; for another it's not like we have one group of people using the word regularly, while at the same time saying another group of people can't use the word because it's offensive. So your "tosser" analogy really isn't cutting it.
    The degree of offensiveness or the commonality of the usage is irrelevant. The word is (mildly) offensive here but not in Canada. So by your logic it should not be used by Canadians to refer to someone making a salad, since it having a different meaning depending on the nationality of the user would be xenophobic.
  3. #4503
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If I'm a gay man, and someone calls me a faggot, my assumption is not "he's calling me a bundle of kindling that they burn witches with, how offensive". I'd think "he's calling me gay, which indeed I am".

    And if I thought he was actually using the word in its correct historical context, I'd have a little respect for him for knowing such history.
    Hence the word "ignorance." You live in a society where there's an awareness that a word you use is offensive, and instead of choosing to educate yourself on why that is and seek to understand from your fellow people's perspective why it's offensive, you ignore all that and go on using it.

    This is the problem with how we view morals. Everything is either categorically wrong or it's amoral. No, things are varyingly degrees of bad or (as is most ignored) good. One side is dissecting whether every action makes you a fascist shitlord or makes you meh. The other side is concerned about doing just enough to be blameless, and not giving a shit about the rest.

    What should be perfectly clear to both sides is that it's good to take the care to know how your words affect others and it's bad to be hurtful toward other people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
  4. #4504
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    When was the last time you heard someone say nigger, and also heard or saw a black person become offended? It's a small sample size right?

    What we do know, is that the news, television, movies, and more continually jam the "it's our word, you can't use it" down our throats. Is it even true?

    If it wasn't true before media did this, it's probably been made true by the media. It's now American culture to get offended by it, and to have long discussions on forums over it. But at the end of the day, ong is right.
  5. #4505
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Hence the word "ignorance." You live in a society where there's an awareness that a word you use is offensive, and instead of choosing to educate yourself on why that is and seek to understand from your fellow people's perspective why it's offensive, you ignore all that and go on using it.
    There is no need for me to educate myself about the origin of words because I don't use these words in question against those they are used to insult. I sometimes call my friend a faggot. I also call him a tosser quite often. Should I check why we say "tosser" in case it's because someone British once masturbated while tossing a child out of a window? Then let's take a look at "bugger", another word I use often. For that matter, I don't know why we say bollocks. I have no idea why lesbians are referred to as dykes. For that matter, what does Yank mean? I'm not even sure what Limey means. I couldn't give a fuck what it means, I'll never take offence to someone calling me a Limey.

    What should be perfectly clear to both sides is that it's good to take the care to know how your words affect others and it's bad to be hurtful toward other people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
    Are you guys familiar with the phrase "sticks and stones"? We ram that phrase down kids' throats when they get called names at school. Why does that not apply to adults?

    The idea that words alone can cause hurt is completely alien to me. Sure, there are definitely some things that some people could say that would upset me, but it won't be the words themselves. I doubt anyone I couldn't give a fuck about can hurt me with words. Family, friends, sure they probably could, but it won't be the words alone that cause the hurt, it will be the breakdown of the relationship with someone I care about. Actual emotions, instead of reflex offence.

    I understand why racism hurts. But racism isn't words. Racism is discrimination. It's the discrimination that hurts, not the word itself. Anyone who gets offended simply by a word needs to get a fucking grip.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #4506
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    But at the end of the day, ong is right.
    I take offence to the phrase "at the end of the day", because my grandfather died around six years ago at 11.57pm. Please apologise, and don't use this phrase again. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #4507
    ^^i lold
  8. #4508
    It's certainly racist to say that a person cannot use a certain word because of his skin color.
  9. #4509
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's certainly racist to say that a person cannot use a certain word because of his skin color.
    Well, I don't think anyone's actually arguing white people can't say it, merely that the level of offence is different depending on your skin colour. I believe this too is a racist viewpoint, because it implies that I am subject to certain behavioural standards purely due to my skin colour.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #4510
    holy hilariousness. you can see the moment when she sees the ludicrosity (made up word, deal with it) of her gender/sex beliefs and must reconfigure her braingorithm (brain+algorithm) to make sense of it. At 1:54

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7vH...youtu.be&t=114
  11. #4511
    That's definitely a dude who could turn me gay.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #4512
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ludicrosity
    Better than "manosphere".

    The word you're looking for is ludicrousness, by the way. You can probably drop the second 'u' like the faggot Yank that you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #4513
    ludicrousness is a dumb word. ludicrosity sounds better.
  14. #4514
    wtf is a manosphere
  15. #4515
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not even sure what Limey means. I couldn't give a fuck what it means, I'll never take offence to someone calling me a Limey.
    It came from British sailors eating limes to prevent scurvy. This happened in ye olden days when they first started colonising the world. The parts of the world that grew lemons hated the British and wouldn't trade with them, so they had to eat limes. The name limey is a dig at that fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I understand why racism hurts. But racism isn't words. Racism is discrimination. It's the discrimination that hurts, not the word itself. Anyone who gets offended simply by a word needs to get a fucking grip.
    The problem is you want to be the one to decide whether a word should hurt another person or not, based on how you feel about the word yourself. And that's not how discourse works. Your choice is about whether to use the word; the rest is out of your hands. Deal with it.
  16. #4516
    Before getting into it, I'll first re-emphasize that I don't think that every time a white person uses the word "nigger" it's necessarily wrong, and every time a black person uses it it is necessarily right.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't like racism. I just see racism different to most people. When someone says to me black people can use a word that white people cannot, I see that as racism, more so than the use of a single word. There are different standards of behaviour being applied here.
    Well, you should know that your definition of racism isn't what the word means.

    The cold, uncontextualized logic of double standard gets you in a lot of trouble when applied to social issues. Whether or not using a word is offensive is dependent on so much context (right down to whether it's said in a comedy setting or said in even a slightly sarcastic tone, and so on), that forcing the logic to apply equally regardless of the subject or object is necessarily problematic.

    When you speak, you come with a different upbringing, background, beliefs, intent and whatever else (either assumed or actual), and those contexts all factor some way or another. This is true of any social issue, but it's especially hairy with the "n-word" issue when the whole reason it's gained so much semi-mainstream use is (at least ostensibly) a campaign to make the oppressed group reclaim the word. Your thoughts on how black people are trying to reclaim the word so you can just claim that you're doing that too are just so ong's-gonna-ong that I don't really know how to rebut it.

    Again, doesn't mean that being black is sufficient to excuse you from hatefully using the word (hatefulness and superiority, by the way, should be prominent terms in this discussion), nor that someone being non-black means they're racist for using the word. It just means it all figures into it.

    Is that all an overwhelming amount of considerations to make? Well, I mean, yeah it is. If that makes you just wanna play it safe and just say "n-word," and at that, use even that phrase as sparingly as possible, then fine. Doesn't necessarily reflect on you has having great rhetorical fortitude, but I can understand doing that rather than risk (rightly or wrongly) offending others or turning the microscope onto you. If that makes you wanna throw up your hands and say Fuck Tha Police, I'm gonna say it anyway, then you can do that as well, but you're still responsible for the things you say even if you can't keep up with new-fangled social expectations (and it's hardly like this is the only social expectation that's difficult to keep up with).

    As for people who complain about not being "allowed" to use the word, lmao, as much as I hate divisive terms like "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining" ... my god, you can't actually think that's a viable social issue.
    Last edited by surviva316; 01-21-2017 at 02:41 PM.
  17. #4517
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    wtf is a manosphere
    Do you even watch the videos you link us?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #4518
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's definitely a dude who could turn me gay.
    Possibly because it's a woman who just changed her gender on her id card. So technically if you banged her/him you wouldn't really be gay.
  19. #4519
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Deal with it.
    If by "deal with it" you mean "talk shit on the internet about it", I'm way ahead of you, bro.

    Quote Originally Posted by surviva
    Well, you should know that your definition of racism isn't what the word means.
    I haven't defined it, all I said was racism is discrimination. That was in comparison to words, rather than attempting to define the issue at hand.

    (hatefulness and superiority, by the way, should be prominent terms in this discussion)
    You clearly understand what racism is. Discriminating against someone based on their race, that is racism. Assuming one race is superior to another, that is racism. These are what cause hurt, not a word.

    Your thoughts on how black people are trying to reclaim the word so you can just claim that you're doing that too are just so ong's-gonna-ong that I don't really know how to rebut it.
    I don't even want to use the word nigger, I just expect society to consider it equally offensive for me to use it as anyone else. If I release a rap song saying nigger this and bitches that, I'd face a huge social media backlash. Dr Dre does it and it's all cool because it's just part of the lingo.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #4520
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Possibly because it's a woman who just changed her gender on her id card. So technically if you banged her/him you wouldn't really be gay.
    Legally I would be.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #4521
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva
    Your thoughts on how black people are trying to reclaim the word so you can just claim that you're doing that too are just so ong's-gonna-ong that I don't really know how to rebut it.
    You clearly realise that I'm just typing words as I smoke, so I don't really know why you indulge me when you oppose my position.

    poop indulges me because, like me, he is semi-trolling, and finds it all somewhat amusing, while simultaneously being (mostly) interesting conversation.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 01-21-2017 at 03:22 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #4522
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you even watch the videos you link us?
    I watched the portion I said to watch.

    I also have bad hearing so I don't hear everything on poor quality videos.
  23. #4523
    Well watch the first few seconds and see that bitch make up the word "manosphere". I have no idea what she's talking about, I just wanna nail the dude who's interviewing her.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #4524
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ...
    You didn't really address the main point of my post:

    Quote Originally Posted by ME
    The cold, uncontextualized logic of double standard gets you in a lot of trouble when applied to social issues. Whether or not using a word is offensive is dependent on so much context (right down to whether it's said in a comedy setting or said in even a slightly sarcastic tone, and so on), that forcing the logic to apply equally regardless of the subject or object is necessarily problematic.


    The context of what you say matters. Your race is (one easily outnumbered) part of that context. This is what happens when we have conversations. It is only in highly politicized aspects of conversation that we get in a huff that we judge comments in the context of who said it and to whom it was spoken.

    If I go on a jocular tirade about my son being a snot-nosed little brat who wouldn't even defend himself if the dog ate his face off, I might get some laughs; if you say it to your girlfriend while you're in the car, you might get an unwilling smirk and an, "Oh ong ... "; if you say it in front of everyone at the dinner party, including my son, things might be very awkward for a bit and my wife will be like, "Who's this internet shithead my husband's invited"; if we've been BFFs since birth and you say it, then it might get some laughs but be just a little more uneasy than when I say it; if it's a callback to something that was already said earlier in the evening, it'll be all the more uncomplicatedly funny; if you say it in an overly dry manner that gives the appearance that you're serious, you might downright dampen the night. None of this is really debatable and people seldom take issue with it.
  25. #4525
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva
    You didn't really address the main point of my post:
    Yeah I was basically glossing over it and hoped you'd let me get away with it.

    I agree the context matters. It's critical, in fact. I've been saying this myself, that the word isn't what matters, it's the context, or intent, the motive, whichever way you want to look at it. I'm not sure I agree that the colour of my skin plays a role in determining the context, though. Ultimately, the context of anything I say is controlled by me, by the things I say, by the intent. If someone else decides that the context of my language is different to intended, they are mistaken. If they are applying context to my language purely because of my race, they are being racist.

    if you say it in an overly dry manner that gives the appearance that you're serious, you might downright dampen the night.
    ^ this one, assuming I can hide my smirk. That's why I love the internet so much, nobody can see me smirking.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #4526
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not sure I agree that the colour of my skin plays a role in determining the context, though.
    I could have added additional examples of you being a dad in my analogy versus not being a dad, of you being a loving dad versus a neglectful one, etc all adding additional context.

    Also, the race thing comes down to background as much as it comes down to color of your skin. If a black Brit were to, fresh off the boat, in a top-hat and posh accent go up to someone in the Bronx and say "What's up, my nigger," it might not go over so well. Likewise, there's a history of non-black but peoples of vaguely brown decent who grew up in American ghettos saying the same thing and it being (generally, for all those with the knowledge and appreciation of its context) accepted.

    Finally, in most cases, it's not as big a deal as it is with this particular word. This is specifically because of its unique history of being purposefully re-appropriated by a certain peoples and re-mainstreamed for a specific cause. If a gay person were to walk into a LGBTQ demonstration and say "Wassup, faggots," while it would probably sting at least a bit less than a straight person doing it (especially with additional context, like it's said by a close friend in a jovial way), it would still be mostly the same. The whole reason anyone can say the n-word, black or white, in any context where it seems mundane is exactly because of this history of a certain people re-appropriating and normalizing it, otherwise it'd be some degree of cringey regardless of who uses it. So if you're not from that particular people using it in that particular way, then it's going to be comparably cringey to if that word were used by a black person in an alternate timeline where the word was never re-appropriated.
    Last edited by surviva316; 01-21-2017 at 04:40 PM.
  27. #4527
    ...

    It's also *maybe* worth noting (but almost certainly not worth it) that I do think JKDS is kinda onto something that the appropriation and counter-appropiation and n-word edgelords and the debate over this whole thing has gotten so old at this point (hell, most of a decade has gone by since we had this discussion post-BF), that some of its edge probably has at least somewhat dulled in at least some contexts where it's not used in an obviously hateful way. But I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on that matter ...
  28. #4528
    Ok well allow me rephrase the comment you quoted of mine...

    I'm not sure the colour of my skin should play a role in determining context.

    The fact it does is kinda my problem, to be honest. I guess I'm indirectly acknowledging that you're right, while arguing you shouldn't be.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #4529
    Color of skin is only relevant on this issue due to racism.
  30. #4530
    I think the reclaiming of the word has so far been an utter failure. If you reclaim the word, with the intent to deflate it's punching power, you cannot also be offended by the word.

    Take for example, "Nasty woman." Sure it never had the sting that nigger did (does), but it was successfully reclaimed, and now if a left leaning woman is called a "nasty woman" by a man, whether joking, intending insult, or whatever, she will likely reply, "damn right I am!"

    All that being said, the campaign to reclaim nigger was started when, essentially, only racists were using the word to insult and denigrate black people. The goal was to deny these racists the power that the word had carried-- if the campaign had not ever been started, you would not be saying the word, except maybe in an academic context, and so the failure of the well meaning (if always doomed) campaign should not change your use of the word.
  31. #4531
    Excellent points.
  32. #4532
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    the campaign to reclaim nigger was started when, essentially, only racists were using the word to insult and denigrate black people. The goal was to deny these racists the power that the word had carried-- if the campaign had not ever been started, you would not be saying the word, except maybe in an academic context, and so the failure of the well meaning (if always doomed) campaign should not change your use of the word.
    Interesting analysis, but the bolded is where I think you go wrong.

    First, you generally cannot ascribe a goal to a linguistic development. It's not like black people got together and campaigned for reclaiming the word. There was no centralized organisation involved in it; it just happened more or less spontaneously afaik. The fact that a word can have its original interpretation altered over time is not unique to the word 'nigger'; it happens all the time. 'Gay' used to mean 'happy', 'silly' used to mean 'blessed', etc. etc.

    Second, if there was a goal, it would not have been to deny power to racists (though it may have been a 'fuck you' to racists, see below). Racists can still use the word with its same harmful effects, and if they couldn't, black people wouldn't be offended by white people using it (which afaik they still are - haven't tested that theory myself and don't plan to). More apt would be to describe the purpose of using the word when addressing a fellow black person as a way of identifying with an in-group. Like saying 'nigger' instead 'my brother', which used to be in common use among American blacks when I was a kid.

    But, there probably never was a conscious goal behind adopting the word nigger. It just came about in an ironic sense, as analogous to calling your friend 'moron'. You and he both know it is only teasing, and in that context the word has little if any negative connotation.

    White people getting up in arms about the use of the word 'nigger' between black people reflecting some kind of racist use of language, and crying foul because they're not allowed in on the joke, fail at irony imo. The effect of black people's use of the word among themselves has been to remove not enable the racist overtone. It's no more racist than calling your friend 'moron' in a joking manner is a sign of an anti-mentally-handicapped mentality. If however, you call a person with Down's Syndrome 'moron' you're being a douche.

    OTOH, I can kind of understand how whites might think the word's being used indirectly by some black people as a way to fuck with the heads of white people. Like when the teacher calls you and your friend 'boneheads' and so you start calling each other 'bonehead' in front of the teacher. It's mocking the teacher, right?

    In the end, I guess my advice to people who think this is unfair to whites is that they should try to see the history of the word and understand why some black people enjoy using it in an ironic sense. In the end, having one word that they can use but you can't is not really a huge travesty of justice or whatever. Just let it go.
  33. #4533
    Right, so I think you're absolutely wrong in thinking that no people of standing in the community ever called for reclaiming the word with the goal of disarming racists. And even if this were true, it is undeniably a meme, and whether it stems from some authority or not does not matter. So, I believe my point stands, insofar as the purpose of using the word is to reclaim it from the racists, it has been a failure.

    Second, if there was a goal, it would not have been to deny power to racists (though it may have been a 'fuck you' to racists, see below). Racists can still use the word with its same harmful effects, and if they couldn't, black people wouldn't be offended by white people using it (which afaik they still are - haven't tested that theory myself and don't plan to). More apt would be to describe the purpose of using the word when addressing a fellow black person as a way of identifying with an in-group. Like saying 'nigger' instead 'my brother', which used to be in common use among American blacks when I was a kid.
    You're making a logical error here-- the fact that the initiative has failed cannot be proof the initiative does not exist. If the goal followed the linguistic development rather than the other way around, this still doesn't have any bearing on my post. The initiative exists and it has, so far, been a failure.

    As to your claim that nigger, when used by black people, is a different word-- you are partially correct. So, while its use may have originally stemmed from an ironic use of the slur, nigger (more precisely "nigga"), when used as a synonym for "brotha," is no longer meaningfully tied to its origins. However, this unfortunately gives cover to black people who use both nigger and nigga as a derogatory slur towards other black people, e.g. "that stingy nigga", "he's a good for nothin nigger", etc. I think that most people who are accepting of blacks' use of the word as a term of endearment, including the black people who themselves use it, don't consciously recognize this distinction. This continued and sanctioned use of the slur within the black community is neither good for it, nor society as a whole.

    In the end, I guess my advice to people who think this is unfair to whites is that they should try to see the history of the word and understand why some black people enjoy using it in an ironic sense. In the end, having one word that they can use but you can't is not really a huge travesty of justice or whatever. Just let it go.
    I think this last paragraph, and in particular the bolded last sentence, belies the baselessness of your argument. It is a quagmire of a topic, it is deep in the weeds, but it is most certainly not insignificant. We can take this line of thinking to the absurd and make the same dismissive gestures on any topic until we realize that the most important topic, until we rand all the possible topics, is the ranking of topics. Trying to switch the subject when it's apparent no one is going to budge and even the dead horse is getting tired is admirable, but ushering the discussion to a new topic while simultaneously being dismissive is anything but.
    Last edited by boost; 01-23-2017 at 12:18 AM.
  34. #4534
    To be clear, I don't spend much time thinking about this topic, and I don't know where I'd rank its importance among topics concerning the African American community, American society, or whatever other category-- but when it comes up, and if we are going to talk about it, however uncomfortable it makes us, I think we should talk about it in an intellectually consistent and honest way.

    Anyways, what's the next topic at hand? The wearing of the hijab? When human life begins? How tall of a wall do you have to propose and how does the judge need to be for compulsory reclusion?
  35. #4535
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Right, so I think you're absolutely wrong in thinking that no people of standing in the community ever called for reclaiming the word with the goal of disarming racists.
    I may well be wrong, but then - who are these people? I have never heard anyone of stature say such a thing.
  36. #4536
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Anyways, what's the next topic at hand?
    Can we work on banning the word "fascist". I don't find it particularly offensive or anything, it just seems to me that 99.9% of people who use it lately, don't know what it means.
  37. #4537
    Let's ban banning.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #4538
    Read the whole post. I'm not going to do the work, because ultimately the point doesn't pivot on whether or not persons of authority initiated or even ever espoused the meme. The meme exists and is widespread.

    And to go one step further, I again encourage you to read the whole post, because, again even the existence of this meme, and its subsequent failure is not the strongest argument against black peoples' use of the word.

    And one last point.. I'm trying to avoid identity politics here, but your framing of the debate as something happening only outside of the black community, or that it's only non blacks calling for a moratorium on the use of nigger-- well it's simply wrong. You're wrong on this issue, even if it's only insomuch as you think you're on the side of black people.
    Last edited by boost; 01-23-2017 at 10:28 AM.
  39. #4539
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The problem with use of that word is that its use is racism, so long as the sole reason I would be scorned - even if I used it in identical context and meaning as "good friend," and not as a derogatory - is due to my skin's melanin content.

    Any argument which says its use is not racist is ignoring the fact that the context or meaning of the word as used is irrelevant when compared to the skin color of the person who used it.

    I agree with boost that - regardless of whether its initiation came from some singular authority or if it was a collective decision made by individuals - the useage was to reclaim the word. In similar way that I self-identify as a geek / nerd / etc. Yeah, some people say those words with scorn, but I say them with pride, so I'm not bothered.

    I'm not sure if it's a failure, since it has been so effectively reclaimed that ANY use by non-black people is regarded as obviously offensive. Shit, that one sports commentator lost his job because he called a black woman, "nappy headed," which literally means, "tightly curled hair," which I'm fairly certain applies to most black people and some non-black as well. Thing is, that "nappy headed" is used relatively interchangeably in black culture with "nigga," so any use by a non-black is deemed racist.
  40. #4540
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Shit, that one sports commentator lost his job because he called a black woman, "nappy headed," which literally means, "tightly curled hair," which I'm fairly certain applies to most black people and some non-black as well. Thing is, that "nappy headed" is used relatively interchangeably in black culture with "nigga," so any use by a non-black is deemed racist.
    Are you referring to Imus? He's not strictly a sports commentator, so I'm wondering if you're thinking of someone else.

    In Imus' case it wasn't just "nappy headed". He also called them "ho's". And the entire context of his comments could only be interpreted as a white man, co-opting black vernacular in an attempt to mock and denigrate a group of women because of their gender and ethnicity.

    It was pretty bad.

    If you listen to the exchange, Imus was clearly "joking". There wasn't any hate, or malicious intent. It was just insensitive. His usage of black phrasing seems to be similar to what's being discussed here, for example, when white people say "what's up my n...." to each other. However, it still offended people, and there's a lesson in that.

    Even if you don't think you're being racist when you use that word, someone else might think you are. And with that particular word, it's likely that someone will take offense. So just don't use it.

    Of course, there are contexts where white people can say it. Leo DiCaprio gets a pass for saying it in Django. Artistic authenticity (term I just made up) demanded it. Similarly, if you're a voice actor hired to record "To Kill a Mockingbird" as an audio book.....the word is gonna come up. Mostly though, even in factual, intellectually-based conversations, it's just as easy to substitute the term "n word" without hurting your argument or distracting from whatever point you're trying to make.

    Kinda surprised this debate went all weekend guys. Is the horse dead yet?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-23-2017 at 11:56 AM.
  41. #4541
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Yeah... Imus sounds right. (I'm strictly not a sports follower).

    Fair point that it's impolite to call people ho's, even in jest, unless you know them personally and know they appreciate your humorous intent.

    The point that he was only joking, and that his tone and meaning were not at fault, but that the specific words he chose were enough to cost him his job is crux to my understanding of this corner of America's race problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by banananananananana
    Even if you don't think you're being racist when you use that word, someone else might think you are. And with that particular word, it's likely that someone will take offense. So just don't use it.
    Well, on the one hand, LDO - I'm not trying to get mauled.
    On the other hand - WTF? The fact that this attitude is so easily espoused by so many is testament to the fact that MOST people are not racists, but just want to get along with their lives w/o unnecessary conflict.
  42. #4542
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I think you're absolutely wrong in thinking that no people of standing in the community ever called for reclaiming the word with the goal of disarming racists.
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    the initiative has failed
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Read the whole post.
    I don't need to re-read your whole post to ask you whether there's any evidence for your specific arguments. The evidence wasn't in your post, that's why I asked for it. Your argument was that black people deliberately decided in an organised fashion to make the word 'nigger' lose its power by using it in a different way, and this was led by some person or persons, and it failed. I'm arguing it didn't happen that way, and asking how you came to your specific conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I'm not going to do the work, because
    I'm not interested in doing the work myself to back up your points either, that's not how arguments work. Either back them up yourself or admit you don't have the evidence and it's just conjecture on your part, and that my interpretation is a priori just as likely as yours to be the correct one - in fact more so since it doesn't rely on events that I have no evidence for having ever happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    ultimately the point doesn't pivot on whether or not persons of authority initiated or even ever espoused the meme. The meme exists and is widespread.
    The point was that the effort was deliberate and it failed. It absolutely depends on the above.
  43. #4543
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The point that he was only joking, and that his tone and meaning were not at fault, but that the specific words he chose were enough to cost him his job is crux to my understanding of this corner of America's race problems.
    Well in this example, let's not immediately connect the dot from "racist terminology" to "fired". There were quite a few intermediary dots on that one. Basically Imus was given a responsibility for the content of the airwaves. He put out content that he should have known would be controversial. Doing so, knowingly, puts the network and it's sponsors at risk. That, right there, is enough to get fired, regardless of why the particular content is controversial. The same thing would have happened if he had something positive about Pepsi and the show was sponsored by Coke.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    On the other hand - WTF? The fact that this attitude is so easily espoused by so many is testament to the fact that MOST people are not racists, but just want to get along with their lives w/o unnecessary conflict.
    I dont' know about that. You can be racist and also want to avoid unnecessary conflict.
  44. #4544
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/sta...3Fy?li=BBnb7Kz

    Holy shit!! I solved racism!!

    The recent movie "Sing", a CGI produced film for children where all of the characters are animals, was decried as racist because most of the animals with dark fur were villains. It's also widely known that comparing black people to monkeys or gorillas in any way, is totally offsides.

    Yet, in the story I linked, they show a twitter reaction where someone posted a video of a raccoon and likened it to Ms Dash.

    Isn't there supposed to be outrage here? Shouldn't this comparison of a black person, to a raccoon, be considered blatantly insensitive?

    It seems you can't be racially persecuted if you also embrace conservatism.

    So, if we want to eliminate racism in this country, we need all black people to vote republican. That's it.!!!

    Also....I was blown away to read that she's 50. Way to keep it tight Stacy!
  45. #4545
  46. #4546
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    The funniest part, I think, is the husband. He just sits there at the beginning, like "oh, there she goes again". As if she does this all the time.

    Pretty hilarious when he starts clutching his chest as the security guy comes over, like he's in some kind of distress.

    And then ultimate irony is when the lady demands that the flight crew "have some respect" for her situation.

    Sorry lady, the days where you could fire off abusive and derogatory slander under the cloak of PC progressivism, and then demand respect for your own problems, are over. That was Obama's america. Nowadays we have to disagree like civilized people.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-23-2017 at 04:09 PM.
  47. #4547
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I dont' know about that. You can be racist and also want to avoid unnecessary conflict.
    Fair. People are confusing.

    I mean... that sounds like a self-contradicting set of beliefs to hold... which describes people, so ...

    Fair.
  48. #4548
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sorry lady, the days where you could fire off abusive and derogatory slander under the cloak of PC progressivism, and then demand respect for your own problems, are over. That was Obama's america. Nowadays we have to disagree like civilized people.
    Ironically Trump is making liberals understand racism on a whole new level.
  49. #4549
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The funniest part, I think, is the husband. He just sits there at the beginning, like "oh, there she goes again". As if she does this all the time.

    Pretty hilarious when he starts clutching his chest as the security guy comes over, like he's in some kind of distress.

    And then ultimate irony is when the lady demands that the flight crew "have some respect" for her situation.

    Sorry lady, the days where you could fire off abusive and derogatory slander under the cloak of PC progressivism, and then demand respect for your own problems, are over. That was Obama's america. Nowadays we have to disagree like civilized people.
    hahahahhahahahahah omg that is her husband? i thought that was her fucking daughter or something. these men cuck themselves so hard. it's the only reason this bullshit behavior breeds. she's crying out for a man with balls and when she doesnt get it she turns into a princess whose supper isn't ready yet.


    This was one of the things I was looking forward to after Trump getting elected: it would signal that it's no longer okay to treat people poorly due to a disagreement. We're seeing this finally begin.
  50. #4550
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Ironically Trump is making liberals understand racism on a whole new level.
    I think I'm lost on what you mean. It can't be that they realize they're the ones who dish it out whenever the opportunity arises. They haven't realized that one yet.
  51. #4551
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This was one of the things I was looking forward to after Trump getting elected: it would signal that it's no longer okay to treat people poorly due to a disagreement. We're seeing this finally begin.
    That type of behaviour has never been tolerated.
  52. #4552
    Would you explain? I've seen gay people describe coming out as gay as easier than coming out as a Trump supporter. You know, because it is not "tolerated." I, and millions of others, keep my opinion to myself IRL because it is not "tolerated."
  53. #4553
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Would you explain? I've seen gay people describe coming out as gay as easier than coming out as a Trump supporter because it is not "tolerated." I, and millions of others, keep my opinion to myself IRL because it is not "tolerated."
    Abusing someone verbally whatever the reason on a plane is always going to result in you getting kicked off the plane if it hasn't taken off & has never been ok. It doesn't really matter what the reason for that abuse was.

    Getting shit for your opinions, whilst not nice, is part and parcel of free speech. Unless you're all for Trump safe spaces.
  54. #4554
    Yeah that's true.
  55. #4555
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    First day (workday, according to previous interviews) in office

    Trump just reinstated the global gag rule. It won't stop abortion, but it will make it less safe.


    Thousands of women will die across the world, and millions will lose access to both safe abortion and birth control.
    http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1...-rule-abortion
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  56. #4556
    Sometimes I wonder how killing babies became such a virtue.
  57. #4557
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sometimes I wonder how killing babies became such a virtue.
    It gives people incredible control and choice in their lives to which they have never had before allowing them to make much better life decisions not only for themselves but vastly on average for the unborn child as has been demonstrated by some great improvements in many social issues.
    Last edited by Savy; 01-23-2017 at 10:20 PM.
  58. #4558
    I'd respect Trump's pro-life stance a little more if he was in favour of abolishing the death penalty.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #4559
    Framed as not babies. Motherhood vilified. Necessary prerequisites to defeating the power structure at greatest opposition to the state -- the family.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 01-23-2017 at 10:29 PM.
  60. #4560
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'd respect Trump's pro-life stance a little more if he was in favour of abolishing the death penalty.
    pro-life people aren't "pro-life", they're "pro-innocent-life". if you disagree with their stance, the death penalty approach will have no persuasive impact on them since it doesn't identify their view the way they do.
  61. #4561
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sometimes I wonder how killing babies became such a virtue.
    Oh wow
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  62. #4562
    I still feel there's a level of hypocrisy there. Neither are issues that particularly bother me, since I sympathise with both sides of the debate. But for me, pro-life means pro-life without any caveats.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #4563
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Framed as not babies. Motherhood vilified. Necessary prerequisites to defeating the power structure at greatest opposition to the state: the family.
    Whether or not they are babies is irrelevant really, it's such a shit argument from both sides. That being said they aren't.

    How is motherhood vilified? (genuine question) It makes it a choice. Especially in situations where this choice could otherwise be forced upon you against your will that's a pretty good thing.

    I also don't see how it damages families except in the case of forcing people together for no reason other than to look after a baby which I don't see being a bad thing. This may result in less families but they weren't particularly good ones on average in that situation anyway. We can clearly see that being able to have abortions doesn't result in no one having children.

    If you sleep with someone you meet on a night out and get them pregnant, neither of you know each other that well, neither of you want a child, tough shit?

    There is lots of social data to show the results of this, worth looking up if you're interested.
  64. #4564
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I still feel there's a level of hypocrisy there. Neither are issues that particularly bother me, since I sympathise with both sides of the debate. But for me, pro-life means pro-life without any caveats.
    Go with the meaning of the phrase instead of a reductive revision of what the phrase would mean if taken as literally and simplistically as possible.
  65. #4565
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Go with the meaning of the phrase instead of a reductive revision of what the phrase would mean if taken as literally and simplistically as possible.
    No. I can't reduce my position to anything further to distinguish it from the position of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty. I am pro-life in the literal regard. I can't help it if hypocrites have stolen the phrase.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #4566
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Whether or not they are babies is irrelevant really, it's such a shit argument from both sides. That being said they aren't.
    I'm not saying they are babies. I don't know what they are.

    To rationalize abortion, they are framed as not babies, which is a curious frame to use given how very close to babies they are.

    How is motherhood vilified? (genuine question) It makes it a choice. Especially in situations where this choice could otherwise be forced upon you against your will that's a pretty good thing.

    I also don't see how it damages families except in the case of forcing people together for no reason other than to look after a baby which I don't see being a bad thing. This may result in less families but they weren't particularly good ones on average in that situation anyway. We can clearly see that being able to have abortions doesn't result in no one having children.

    If you sleep with someone you meet on a night out and get them pregnant, neither of you know each other that well, neither of you want a child, tough shit?

    There is lots of social data to show the results of this, worth looking up if you're interested.
    It isn't that abortions themselves harm the family, but that the culture of abortion harms the family. As to why this institution has been pushed, your guess is as good as mine. From some perspectives, it keeps very strange bedfellows with the intent to harm the family.
  67. #4567
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No. I can't reduce my position to anything further to distinguish it from the position of those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty. I am pro-life in the literal regard. I can't help it if hypocrites have stolen the phrase.
    Are you trolling or are you looking for enlightenment?
  68. #4568
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Are you trolling or are you looking for enlightenment?
    I'm not going to find enlightenment here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #4569
    So, trolling. And correct, no 'lightenment 'round these parts.
  70. #4570
    I don't think I agree with the lashing out from the Trump crowd against Katie Rich. I don't like policing comedy. That's what SJW's do. On the counter, it's been said that you gotta use their weapons against them. I don't know which I agree with.

    Her joke is kinda funny too.
  71. #4571
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    If you sleep with someone you meet on a night out and get them pregnant, neither of you know each other that well, neither of you want a child, tough shit?
    You irresponsible scum, it is very clearly stated in the bible that you should not sleep with someone you meet on a night out, you deserve the burden of your child of pure sin!
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  72. #4572
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    You irresponsible scum, it is very clearly stated in the bible that you should not sleep with someone you meet on a night out, you deserve the burden of your child of pure sin!
    It's not an endearing caricature, that's for sure.
  73. #4573
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    You irresponsible scum, it is very clearly stated in the bible that you should not sleep with someone you meet on a night out, you deserve the burden of your child of pure sin!
    Implying that happens to me.

    On a serious note are all children not pure sin?
  74. #4574
    Abortion is probably the topic on which I have the fewest answers. Which is why I find the abundance of assurance on either side strange. I don't agree with the foundational intent of either side too
  75. #4575
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's not an endearing caricature, that's for sure.
    Definitely not endearing in real life, let alone caricatures. But that is always the number one argument, because bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Implying that happens to me.

    On a serious note are all children not pure sin?
    Yup, and made with quite possibly the most delicious of sins as well


    I don't get these people who want a "smaller government"yet are constantly trying to meddle in female wombs. Why do they care about abortion that much? Why do they care so much about what a woman does or doesn't do with her pussy?


    Fucking "family values" asshole hypocrites, who cheat at first chance anyway
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •