You are acknowledging that it could happen while making it pretty clear that it’s not likely.
Let’s put it this way. If one of the first couple posted on this board that they went into a restaurant and did all of the right things and were called niggers, would your first thought be “That’s awful!” or “That’s pretty unlikely unless you did something nasty”?
When I demonstrate my low intelligence, people call me stupid. When my friend demonstrates his low intelligence, people call him nigger. What’s the difference between me and my friend?
It is the meaning of what she said. If you have some alternative meaning of what she said, feel free to trot it out instead of just babbling vaguely about paragraphs arguing other paragraphs.
Both of her paragraphs were on the same theme, which is why I quoted both. However, the first paragraph was not the one in which she implied that others disagreed with her. Since my point was that this implication was false, I focused on the second which is where she made that implication.
Read this several times, then ponder it a lot, then get back to us.
It doesn’t sound like you’re following your own logic. If you could call it that.
[FWIW I don’t think you’re stupid, though you are acting like an idiot on the internet. If you stoop to that kind of idiocy in a milieu without the wind at your back, you would probably get called stupid. But then, you’d be a lot less likely to try it to begin with.]
I assume you’re white and your friend is black? See post #52.
Saying something doesn’t make it correct. If you want to point out the difference between the two instances and what makes them logical inconsistent, be my guest. However, a simple word substitution (IQ -> Black) and (idiot on internet -> Piss people off), will show that it’s exactly the same thing. Exactly.
That was not remotely my intention, I apologize if it came off that way. I didn’t want to try to be at all specific about how likely it would be in the first case because I honestly have no idea how likely it is in real life Alabama today, and I didn’t want to either overstate it (and seem to be accusing Alabamans of being more racist than they are) or downplay it (and seem to be denying the existence of real-life racism).
Please read “the probability is not zero” as “there is a very real probability, but I can’t give even an order of magnitude guess as to what it is”.
I did miss your comment before I wrote that. (I only thought to look at those defending Annie.) So, yes, one person has offered a stereotype. Unfortunately, by doing so when you don’t believe it, you made things difficult.
Because now, even if Shodan or F-P do finally come back with a stereotype, I can’t be sure they weren’t copying from you. I will still assume that, because they both kept avoiding actually saying it, they didn’t actually have anything in mind.
Even you avoid saying it directly, though I can gleam what you mean from your post. I don’t agree with you, but it is an answer. The reason I don’t agree is that the well dressed people, if they were being assholes, would be called niggers (by those who would use the term), and polite gangstas would be less likely to be called that.
I’ve encountered people both in real life and online who use that word. None of them have meant anything similar to “gangsta.” It’s just any black person who they think badly of.
I’m not pretending there isn’t a stereotype. I don’t believe there is one, based on my observation of people who use the word. And, if what you said was what Annie-Xmas meant, she should have just said that.
I actually suspect she means something more about being poor, given her previous comments about people in Section 8 housing.
Is there anyone in this (or any) thread who has said that a black person will never be called “nigger” if they “behave properly”? Honestly, I think you guys are just talking past each other at this point.
It’s a mistake to rely on “simple word substitutions” instead of understanding the underlying logic. The difference is in what you’re trying to prove.
If you were trying to prove that being black suffices to be called a “nigger” then your analogy would hold. But that’s not what’s at issue here, because no one disagrees that being black suffices to be called “nigger”.
What is at issue is whether it follows from that fact that the term “nigger” is simply about being black and not about various stereotypes associated with being black. So the question is what the various likelihoods of being called “nigger” in different situations tell you about the connotation of the word “nigger”. Similarly, in my analogy, the issue was what the various likelihoods of being called an idiot tell you about the connotation of the word “stupid”. It does not cease to mean “low intelligence” just because people might try to insult intelligent people by calling them “stupid”. And “nigger” does not cease to connote certain stereotypical behaviors just because people might try to insult people who don’t exhibit those behaviors with that same term.
Both Shodan and I have referenced the Chris Rock bit, repeatedly. If that failed to penetrate your consciousness, that’s just par for the course.
There’s definitely some truth to that. “Nigger” certainly has always meant, and continues to mean, “black person who I am demeaning/dehumanizing”.
But my claim is that there are certain negative (and value-neutral) stereotypes associated with black people, and a black person acting in one of those ways increases their likelihood of receiving that epithet more than a black person acting in a negative way that is totally orthogonal to the stereotypes.
That is, a racist might call a black person “nigger” just because they’re a racist, and an anti-semite might call a Jew “kike” just because, and that likelihood probably increases any time the object of their derision does anything that upsets them. But I argue that it increases MORE if they do something upsetting that also fits into the pre-existing negative stereotypes.
I disagree with the “at this point” - this began in post #75, where JM made the completely specious point that since any black person can might be called “nigger”, it follows that the word is not associated with any particular behavior. I called him on it from the start, and he’s been dancing around it ever since.
The correlation between being called “nigger” and being black is probably several orders of magnitude greater than the correlation between being called “nigger” and any particular behavior. Thus it seems entirely reasonable to say that the slur is much, much more about being black than it is about any particular behavior.
Who you calling no one? That was the guy to whom my “specious” post #75 was in response to, btw.
Remind us again who is doing the dancing here?
Well, that’s a remarkably stupid thing for Shodan to say. I mean, I almost always disagree with his politics, but that’s such a bizarre statement that I have to wonder if he just comically misrepresented what he was trying to say.
Shodan: do you believe that a black person in America in 2017 who is called “nigger” is always called “nigger” because they did something which prompted it, as opposed to simply existing with dark skin?
Context.
Shodan was responding to you, and your post which began that exchange (#33) was "There is no stereotype of that word other than being black. Shodan’s response was (#39) “If it held no stereotype other than being black, it wouldn’t be offensive”, and he referenced Chris Rock. You quoted those words (#50) and countered with “No, it’s offensive because it’s a derogatory word and all you have to do to be called it is to be black.” So at that point you were treating “no stereotype other than being black” and “all you have to do to be called it is to be black” as interchangeable, and I understood Shodan to be going with that, and meaning in context “it is not true that [the only factor in whether you] get called a nigger is to be black”. Shodan can correct me if I’m misinterpreting him.
Regardless, it would not make your logic any less specious if Shodan did mean what you say. Your point was not dependent on Shodan’s position, and predated your exchange with Shodan. (I initially cited post #75 above because that’s the one I responded to, but it began in post #33, as above.)
Obama didn’t earn the enmity of so many simply because he was black. He earned it by being black and demonstrably uninferior. That upset a lot of folk’s worldview and that pisses folks off big time.
You do a mighty fine jig, young man! A mighty fine jig.
I’m happy to repeat the original point: There is no stereotype for the word “nigger” other than being black. You might THINK you are calling out some aspect of behavior that pisses you off, but you wouldn’t call a white person exhibiting the same behaviors a “nigger”. And if you did, it would be saying “you’re just like a black person”. It’s about being black. Period.
You don’t have a “get out of jail free” card because you only use the word to describe certain black people. They are still black people.
And I notice you haven’t admitted you were wrong about saying "no one disagrees that being black suffices to be called “nigger”, which you underlined for emphasis. Got any dance moves for that one?
So if the first couple are called niggers, why were they called that? Not because they fit any stereotype, right?
The father who tells his daughter “All I know is you better not marry a nigger” isn’t talking about a specific type of black person.
All those white people in the 50s and 60s who protested in front of school buildings carrying signs like one…were they addressing a specific type of black person? Or all of them?
I’m starting to feel like this thread is one big whoosh. Surely people are not seriously debating whether “nigger” is a racist word that targets all black people, not just those black people that someone arbitrarily decides are “niggerish”. And yet here we are, debating. WTF.
Yes, obviously, as I’ve said many times. Just to quote myself:
