No, you seem to have it down pat! 
Ignorance sort of fought. I understood thoughtco.com, although Wikipedia and Psychology Today were impenetrable.
Of course it is. Fortunately, you and West say dumb things with sufficient frequency that your skin colour and his are utterly irrelevant.
West, at least, has the excuse of wanting to be famous, so if he says things that are stupid, it may not be because he is stupid, just that him saying such things gets him attention and press coverage, while being rational and logical gets none.
I’ll just ask this question again since your browser evidently didn’t see it.
There was another question that was kind of implied but if you ignored a direct question, I am confident expecting you to reply to a question that was merely a logical extension of my post is expecting too much of you.
So, I’ll directly ask if the term “asshole” is hate speech?
If you ignore these questions again, I’ll assume it’s because you suck at conceding that you’re wrong.
This SWM blew this stuff off before we installed a fog-horning racist into the Oval Office.
The vocabulary of racism studies is indeed challenging and the topic is trickier than white dude’s like myself might think. Huey tries to present this material with straightforward language, occasionally takes some wrong turns, and gets dinged for it. I cut him some slack.
**John_Stamos’_Left_Ear **: Ookay, pull out your crayons and listen carefully while I expand on John Mace’s point.
(1) Discussing bigotry: acceptable.
(2) Discussing a bigoted expression: acceptable on NPR. Why? See (1).
(3) Discussing an expression that can be bigoted or not, depending on context: acceptable. Why? See (2): (3) is a special case.
(4) Insulting a poster: acceptable in the Pit, mostly.
(5) Using a bigoted slur: could be hate speech: this is different than discussing a bigoted slur. Not acceptable at the SDMB, depending on context.
(6) Insulting a poster, using a bigoted slur in the Pit. Special case of (5). Not acceptable at the SDMB, depending on context. And within the context of insulting another poster, it’s likely to be unacceptable.
(7) Insulting a poster, using a bigoted slur in the Pit, that nonetheless can be used in a non-bigoted way by a discriminated group. Special case of (6). Not acceptable at the SDMB, depending on context. And within the context of insulting another poster, it’s likely to be unacceptable.
I’m not giving you directions, I’m just explaining a few distinctions.
I never once got the idea that Huey was MLK, here to save us all; he holds up the mirror so that we can see the zits on our faces. What he writes is ugly, but I got damn guarantee you that whatever ‘ugly’ he writes ain’t nearly as ugly as having the cops called on you - or being shot by a cop - for entering your own apartment. Huey’s not nice. He doesn’t pretend or want to be nice. He wants to be real. I admit that as a white man it’s not always comfortable when it’s aimed in my direction, and I can’t say I agree with everything he has to say, but it’s important to understand what’s underlying the rhetoric. I agree with Huey 100%: even white people who think of themselves as progressives don’t really get it.
Huey can’t be a ‘racist’.
White men who claim to be victims of racism from black people are like rapists who claim to be victimized by the people they rape.
lorls
Hmmm, let’s give an an example: does that mean it’s not possible for a black man to be an anti-semite? :dubious:
I apologize too, for using that gendered insult.
And I do not understand this slack. I don’t get why saying racist things, even a fucking slur against Bricker for being Hispanic isn’t enough for people to just ignore him. He actually attacks people by calling them white. That’s not a guy who understand racism studies.
I actually put him on ignore because I got so tired of him slipping in little anti-white jabs. No other poster on this board does this. And they can discuss racism issues. So what’s the point in wading into the garbage to find the gems?
His view of racism seems to be entirely through a “white people are the problem” lens. It’s not really racism studies. That’s the stereotype, not the real thing. Racism ultimately is not ultimately a flaw of white people, but a flaw of the racial majority.
That’s not to say “whiteness” can’t be studied: the commonalities that white people have. Nor is there a problem with discussing how it’s the default, similar to discussing heteronormativity. But there is a problem when it is used as the source of all problems.
I mean, the guy got told by the mods not to insult people, and he argued that that was them being “white.” It’s just a snarl world for him.
Racism is a character trait shared by every human being, to one degree or another. To say that black people can’t be racist is to imply that they are less than human.
This is a pretty wonderful example of just why any attempt to define hate speech is going to get some sophomoric idiot trying to make a barrack room defence that actually it should be fine.
Coonery is derived from the word coon*. This privately run message board has said certain words, and their derivatives, cross their line for hate speech. Coon is one of those words. You may disagree with their definition of hate speech, but until such time as you set the house policy, tough fucking shit.
What utter, utter fucking bollocks. Of course a black person can be “a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races”.
That’s not what “whiteness” is, the way it’s being used here.
Then maybe he should use a different term.
If someone went on a rant condemning “Jewishness” I’d have a hard time believing he wasn’t an anti-Semite, no mater how many reasonable people defended him.
Is an African-American’s negative attitude towards Whites necessarily prejudice, though? A defining feature of prejudice is that it is “not based on reason or actual experience”. I’d argue that any negative attitudes the average African-American feels towards Whites was damn well earned.
It’s a term of art. One that’s been well expounded on right here, in various threads, as well as with a substantial academic pedigree. It’s hardly some secret argot.
And how many of those threads featured exactly this problem?
It’s a weasel word, a way to openly express prejudice and bigotry while allowing enough wriggle room for useful idiots to claim, “Well actually, what he meant to say was…”