You are confusing the First Amendment with the freedom of speech. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech against government interference. It does nothing to protect it from private interference.
You can validly argue that Sirius should not be able to fire employees because of their views, but you should silly when you base this argument on the First Amendment. It simply doesn’t apply.
Sirius did not exercise “1st amendment rights” when it fired Cumia. It made a business decision - exactly what you claim it ought to be doing. The fact that you do not agree with their business decision does not mean it is not a “business reason”.
I don’t agree. The meaning intended and conveyed by referrring to someone as a “black person” is signifcantly different from referrring to the same person as a “nigger”. If you want to call that “connotation” instead of “semantic content”, it makes no difference.
You apparently believe that, if one phrase has the same “semantic content” as a racist statement, then both are racist. OK - “nigger” has the same “semantic content” as “black person”. Ergo, “black person” is racist.
If this is not so, then it must be the case that a statement with the same “semantic content” as a racist statement is not therefore proven to be racist. So I am shown to be correct - a statement with the same “semantic content” as “nigger” is not racist. It must therefore be the other factors that are associated with “nigger” that are not associated with “black person” that make the difference.
And so we are led ineluctably to the conclusion that what I argued in the linked thread is correct, and what MrDibble claimed about it is wrong. Sayiing “one of the problems of South Africa is that most of their populace is inexperienced in living in a modern democracy” is not a racist statement, whether or not “most of the populace has one leg in the bush” is.
This is quite different than what I understood you to be saying in the other linked thread – in that thread, you seemed to be strongly implying that it was not racist to say that most South Africans live in the bush.
That’s, you know, racist. Or is it only racist if you use the word “nigger”? But savages, animals, “it”, bitch, cunt, “they aren’t people”, that’s not racist? Because hey, if you used those words to describe white people it wouldn’t be racist, so it’s not racist if you use those words to describe black people? Yeah, actually it would be racist to use those words to describe white people, if you used them to describe white people as a group. “White people are savages” is a racist statement. And there are plenty of racist black people, racist Chinese, racist hispanics, racist indians, racist Indians, and every shade of ethnocentrism and prejudice you care to imagine. If you think it’s unfair that we never talk about how some Chinese dude said something racist against some Indian dude, you’re certainly free to start threads about it.
As for the First Amendment stuff, where to start? How does using my 1st amendment right to call what he said racist deprive someone of their first amendment rights?
He said racist shit, which he has a 1st amendment right to do. I say that what he said was racist, which I have a 1st amendment right to do. You say that I don’t have a right to call what he said racist, which you have a 1st amendment right to do.
Thing is, you have a 1st amendment right to say shit, even it it’s stupid and wrong and repugnant. Anthony said stupid repugnant shit. I said truthful shit. You’re saying wrong shit. All these statements are protected by the 1st amendment.
If Sirius fires Anthony over the shit he says, nobody has a right to a job. I certainly am not advocating or agitating or hoping that anyone gets fired over a racist rant. I’m just advocating and hoping that when someone makes a racist rant we can summon the courage to call a racist rant a racist rant. If people want to keep listening to a radio show despite the host being a racist, then fine. But if you try to argue that what he wrote wasn’t racist, then I’ll disagree. If you try to argue that saying/writing racist rants doesn’t make you a racist, then I’ll disagree. If on the other hand you argue that just because someone is a racist that doesn’t make them an inhuman animal, I’ll agree.
Is this the one you made up yourself, that goes " If they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either"? Because that’s weak sauce when we’ve linked to your own damn words.
I think this is what your actual rule is: “If they in fact read it and didn’t agree with me, I’m going to pretend I won the argument anyway. La! La! La! I can’t hear you.”
I think the rule is, “If someone disagrees with Shodan, it’s clearly because they didn’t read carefully enough and not because they have substantive disagreement, because first things first, Shodan is always right, so there’s no need to respond to them substantively.” It’s a good rule, that Shodan’s rule.
Wow, no, my point was exactly the opposite of that. You used identity of semantic content in order to argue that since one usage wasn’t racist, neither could the other one be. My whole point was that just because two terms have the same semantic content, that does not mean one can’t be racist while the other is. “Nigger” and “black person” are just such an example–same semantic content, but one is racist, the other is not.
To put it more succinctly:
If “fresh out of the bush” isn’t racist because it refers to the same people as “not as experienced with Democracy,” then by the same reasoning, “nigger” isn’t racist because it refers to the same people as “black persons.”
You say you don’t agree, then explain exactly why you do agree. The meanings are different, even though they refer to the same things. Similarly, “fresh out of the bush” means something different from “inexperienced with democracy,” even if they refer to exactly the same people.
History will always vindicate a conservative. Because twenty years from now, conservatives will see what the right side of the argument was and claim they were on it all along.
I didn’t mean to imply that “nigga” is perfectly OK to say.* I was saying that Cumia’s problems are not with all (or even most) black people, but only those that don’t contribute to society.
I didn’t mean to imply that “racist” is a harsher term than any form of the n-word. I was saying that it gets applied to anything that vaguely mentions ethnicity in anger or disdain, even if it’s clear that the speaker doesn’t have a problem with the entire race.
That said, I don’t think it’s racist to say “That fucking nigger just raped my family and stole my car”, or “That fucking jew bastard forclosed on my parent’s house”. Nor do I think it’s sexist to say “That cunt ex-girlfriend of mine spraypainted my car just because I dumped her!” In all 3 cases, the speaker is just really pissed at 1 individual, and is trying to use words to hurt the person, so they say the worst thing that they can say. People who aren’t violent often feel like they can only use words to fight, so they use the worst words they can.
Re: the 1st amendment talk. I didn’t want to get into this, because it’s all been done before. Nobody’s right to free speech has been curtailed. Sirius did a cost:benefit analysis and decided that he cost more than he was worth. He is still free to tweet.
My point is that he wasn’t using those words to describe black people as a group. But that’s a debate that I’m kinda getting tired of fighting. As cantcurecancer said above… [ETA: Well, really just the first sentence. But it’s too late to edit post 259]
