Right, like that
Exactly. I talk about what interests me and you talk about what interests you.
But the significant point is why some people prefer to address issues like this in an asymetrical fashion. IMO in most cases it’s because it makes it easier for them to take inconsistent positions WRT what are logically the same issues, based on their personal preferences.
No it’s because black racism is used as a ti quoque to arrest actual progress in society. Black racism is an individual problem, but it’s not the degree of societal problem that white racism is.
That’s actually what I meant by “personal preferences”.
The significant point is that two things are different, and your ongoing position is that it doesn’t matter that they’re different, because the differences don’t mean anything to you personally. That’s the critical personal preference here: yes, the context is different, but I don’t care about that, because it can be framed as the same dynamic if you’ll let me do the framing. It’s convenient to call that logic, but what it is is a self-imposed blind spot.
You do realize, I hope, that I said no such thing.
Well, I disagree, but I don’t see any hope of making any further headway here.
At very least, I hope that I can suggest that, while there may be a correlation between the view and racism, and thus it can be a valid “warning sign,” it is not a sure-fire definitional symptom.
I can call my husband “babycakes.” (And I do. Which is probably bad of me, but he doesn’t complain.)
You can’t call him babycakes.
Is that unfair and a form of inequality?
I guess I’d like to see a world where it’s the same, no matter who uses it. Where in-group and out-group relationships aren’t so broadly separating. Where the word (all words?) has lost its ability to hurt because the social divisions are not so deep.
Where the N-word is about as pallid an epithet as, say, “Frenchman” or “Brit.”
I’m addressing the linkage you made. I’m not saying you literally claimed people died for your right to use that word.
That’s kind of a stretch just based on the nature of human relationships, but who knows- maybe if some of the root causes of racial inequality get addressed in a serious way that’ll be possible at some point.
I think that’d be a world where slavery didn’t happen.
Great. All you have to do is go back to the beginning and not implement those social divisions in the first place. Let me know when you’ve got your time machine up and running, 'cause there are a few other things I’d like to do with it as well.
You could make these same statements about anything someone is saying that you happen to dislike. Quite possibly you do. Personally I don’t think it adds anything, but to each his own.
Did you see my post about dialects?
Growing up I called my brother by a variety of derogatory nicknames. He didn’t mind, even has one tattooed on his arm. But you know what? If you walked up to him on the street and started calling him those same things, he would get quite upset. Does this inequality offend you as well? After all, we are apparently not equal. I clearly have the great advantage of being able to use certain words in context that you would not.
A broader point that I think might be helpful: many people don’t understand what “fair” and “equal” mean. No one, not even identical twins, are absolutely, Platonically, equal. It isn’t possible. And fairness should not depend on it. My youngest son is having a terrible time with this concept right now (he is 4, so I forgive him). He thinks it is unfair that his brother get to go to party and he doesn’t. Never mind that he went to a party the weekend before without his brother, he isn’t getting something his brother is getting, and he feels wronged.
I get to insult my brother without causing offence, and you as a random stranger cannot. But if you have a brother/cousin/friend/etc. that you exchange good-natured insults with, I don’t get to walk up to the group and use the same insults. That is completely fair and we are equal. Poor rural people from Appalachia can call themselves hill billies and still take offense if someone from NYC use the same word. Jeff Foxworthy can make jokes about negative traits of rednecks and Chris Rock can make jokes about blacks.
But that is just the simple stuff. Eventually, most of come to accept that. But, what I see in this thread (as others have mentioned) is the next step. Context, history, and status matters. Comedians sometimes call it punching up vs. punching down in the context of a joke. Moking those above you in societal status is allowed. Mocking those below you isn’t. Or at least is considered offensive to those not in your privileged slice of society. Which is why a minority (or low power) comic can make fun of the majority (or high power group) without being called out as racist.
It goes beyond comedy of course into other things. Black resentment towards and distrust of whites is fair in a way that the opposite is not. Just like it is fair for my older son to get dessert when his younger brother doesn’t, fairness requires taking context into account. For my sons it’s the fact that the oldest ate his dinner including vegetables while the younger did not. For whites and blacks it’s that whites have systematically and institutionally oppressed blacks, while the reverse is not true.
Once a year, youse pays yer monies.
What does “WADR” mean?
BTW, I don’t appreciate your suggestion that I wield this article like a trump card. I specifically pulled up that article because I thought it was more accessible than something that say, Ivory Toldson, has written. Interesting that you’ve got me pegged as a “a guy who has this article in his pocket.” Where are the statistics and studies you’ve presented?
From what I could tell the premise of this discussion was that White fathers were justified in being suspicious of Black men because Black on White crime is more prevalent. Again, Wise’s analysis:
There’s a historically based long-standing trope about Black men, specifically, targeting White women. The entire history of lynching is based on this. But when one accounts for population and encounter rates it doesn’t pan out. There’s no factual basis to be particularly fearful of a random Black person being violent. That’s an artifact of fear.
Look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Most murders are intraracial. 84% of Whites are killed by other Whites. 93% of Blacks are killed by other Blacks. That’s only one variant of violent crime, but it’s fairly telling - even an ahistoric, purely numbers-driven look will tell you that if you fear crime, you should fear the person who looks like you. Of course that’s completely misusing the statistical finding.
Then you could attempt to argue that by percentages, the statistics show that a larger percentage of Whites are killed by Blacks than vice versa. (Again, go ahead and ignore the analysis that Wise and others have conducted if it makes you feel better.) I’m not going to access the actual DOJ numbers, but it looks to me that it’s about 8% Black on White murder and 4% White on Black murder. (There are other races getting involved in the murder game, it seems.) If you’re more concerned about an 8% probability than an 84% probability… let’s just say I don’t want you managing my money. I’m just indulging in this exercise for the sake of argument, because any of these assumptions are hugely flawed. (There are other interesting findings such as the rate of stranger homicide, where there is a much larger race gap - but by virtue of the Black suitor dating the White daughter, that’s not germane.)
Let’s also take into account that these statistics are based on convictions. So you won’t find OJ Simpson in those numbers for a Black on White murder. And if you acknowledge that Blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime, the numbers already are a little shaky to begin with. The research literature is full of evidence of bias in arrests, convictions, and sentencing.
No, it’s an appalling ignorance of history, social movements, and legislation. You’re claiming that an individual experience (and I’d like some evidence for the propensity of these alleged numbers of attacks on Whites by Blacks) overrides judicial, correctional, and societal inequities.
Yes… But, again, it makes me uncomfortable that a “native speaker” of a dialect has a greater right to use words from that dialect than one outside of it. Culture isn’t genetic, and, in my opinion, culture shouldn’t be proprietary.
The local Kumeyaay band of American Indians is working very hard to keep their language out of the hands of outsiders. They don’t want their culture diluted; they don’t want to see a brand of [Kumeyaay Word] restaurants or car-washes or whatnot. Their goals may be good, but I don’t feel good about the tactics.
The lesson I always carried away from the First Amendment is that offensive speech must be protected, because it’s the only kind of speech that’s going to be controversial. (Also, separation of church and state.)
To be more clear. I am not among those who immediately drop the term “racist” on those who ask the question regarding who is “permitted” to use “nigger.”
However, I find an appeal to “equality” to be a meaningless argument when the matter is defined by in-group and out-group expressions that are employed by every social group. “Papist” and “mackerel-snapper” have long since lost any power to insult, but I am more likely to think a person who called me either name was a twit than if another Catholic used those terms. “Equality” is simply not a realistic part of the discussion.
Frankly I don’t buy the “dialect” theory. It’s much more a “social groups” dynamic.
And, by the way, race is not genetic.
From my understanding, it’s not about rights – it’s about proper usage. A native speaker of AAVE knows how to use ‘nigga’ (if they so choose to use it) in a way that’s not the slur and not the epithet, and a non-native speaker probably does not know how to use it this way. So if a non-native speaker tries, it’s usually clear to any native speakers, and awkwardness will ensue.
So it’s not rights – it’s just that one group knows how to use it, and outsiders probably don’t, and when that word is not used properly, offense is likely to be taken.