I expect this attitude is seething under the surface of a lot of Americans, unfortunately. But since I love all Dopers (even Clothy, as disgusting as his attitude is on this), I’d love to hear other conservative Dopers excoriate Clothy for his repulsive assertion, here, in this thread, and perhaps they can assure me that I’m wrong that this is a common sentiment.
Truly repulsive, Clothahump. A hateful term that comes from hate and nothing else. It’s not about a river (obviously, since very, very few immigrants actually swam across any river to get here), it’s about a hatred of a class of people that requires a dehumanizing label.
Problem is that the term has evolved over time. As I understand it, the original usage of it was in line with Clothahump’s definition and was not an ethnic slur (if it might have been a slur to the particular people who snuck in illegally). It would seem now that it’s an ethnic slur, but that’s the term evolving, and it’s possible that some people still use it in the old sense.
That sounds like it describes literally every single racial/ethnic/religious slur ever. Some people use n***** in the “old sense” (senses, really, since it has had multiple meanings over time), but that doesn’t excuse any modern usage in the least.
If you can see into people’s hearts and know that they really mean it as an ethnic slur then you’re entitled to this sort of outrage. But absent that, I would think a guy like you who loves all Dopers would adopt a more charitable in interpreting other people’s intentions.
ETA: One key question that doesn’t involve seeing into anyone’s heart is: does Clothahump actually use the term to describe the entire ethnic group? Until you have evidence that he does - and I don’t believe you do - then you’re back to what I wrote above.
While it’s certainly offensive to some we’re not talking the level of really hateful terms such as nigger, kike, etc. Wouldn’t use it myself but equally I wouldn’t throw a hissyfit if others did.
BTW the euphemism n****r above reminds me of Louis CK’s comment that people who use it don’t want to write it themselves but force readers to say it for them in their heads.
I’m much less concerned about intention than I am about actions (and words, in this case) – the attitude that he has expressed, in words, is repulsive. If he has no ethnic hatred in his heart than perhaps he can explain why he’s using a term that’s, quite reasonably, seen by so many as a hateful slur – and my mind is open to be changed. But I found his explanation ridiculous, and disgusting, and no different than the things that I heard so often as a young man from my classmates and peers about how slurs for black people weren’t really slurs because they just applied to the bad ones (or some other equally weak justification).
It doesn’t matter – it’s still a slur if he’s only using it for immigrants, or illegal immigrants, or his ridiculously small grouping of ‘people who swam across the Rio Grande’. It doesn’t matter if someone calls a person or group n*****(s) but is not intending to describe all black people – it’s still a hateful slur against black people.
The reason hateful language inspires offense, outrage, and challenges like this post is not because there’s something inherently wrong with certain syllables arranged in a certain way, but because historically the usage of such language has always been used to justify terrible, monstrous actions like slavery and genocide, or build up an attitude to ease those events into being, and the societal tolerance of such language makes it easier to tolerate those kind of actions.
So, raghead should be OK as well, eh? The term is applied correctly to anyone who wears a headscarf, regardless of country of origin, and as such is not an ethnic slur. Only people who look for things to be offended about think it is one.
Most likely he thinks his usage of the term is the correct usage, and people like you are being oversensitive. (Even if he’s wrong about this, that doesn’t then mean that he’s trying to denigrate anyone with this usage.)
Of course it matters. If it applies only to the illegal immigrants then it’s not (being used as) an ethnic slur.
Hard to compare directly, because the literal and historical meaning of the term doesn’t differentiate between one type of black person and another. That term has in fact evolved over time to become more offensive, but it’s not like it evolved from a specific to a more general application like wetback did. So someone who claims he’s just using it for certain people is just making up his own definition, which doesn’t fly.
Humpy is a moron, his use of ethnic slurs is moronic. Don’t mitigate his comments with a “not as bad as” qualifier. If there’s a line, he clearly crossed it with that comment.
Why would this matter? Plenty of slave owners thought they were using correct language as well, undoubtedly. So did plenty of anti-Civil Rights, anti-miscegenation, and pro-segregation activists. It’s hateful language, regardless of intent.
So it’s an anti-immigrant slur, or an anti-illegal-immigrant slur, or an anti-Rio-Grande-swimmer slur, perhaps, in his intention (while obviously still being an ethnic slur in general). Those don’t make it any better. This is not a defense.
I’ve known plenty of people who claimed, explicitly, that it did, in fact “differentiate between one type of black person and another”.
Speaking as someone who grew up in white Texas, “wetback” was always used as an insult/slur on illegal immigrants, not hispanics in general. For the general hispanic slurs, the terms I always heard were “beaner” or “spic”.
Not that it makes it any better, but “wetback” was definitely NOT the generic slur that people have made it out to be. No idea about modern usage though.
Of course even if that is the case it supports the point I have made that racism is an extreme form of ignorance. With many bits like that just ignored by people that in really do not understand why minorities do have problems still today.
The issue is: Do the ones that are grossly wrong (like **billfish678 **also) are willing to learn? Hard to do when other posters like octopus, **aldiboronti **and others just cavalierly push the idea that they can defend their hate speech just because they think that they are making a point about defending people of “unfounded” accusations that they are Trolls or to defend “the voices of the opposition”. As if they were the only ones here.
What that does in reality is to encourage more irresponsibility and bigotry in the end. As much as I do not agree with **Bricker **one issue he pointed before is a bit valid: If you are willing to participate in a thread where very reprehensible things are being said it is crucial to tell the one making the hateful remarks that you do not agree with the poster. Otherwise you are in essence letting others that you agree with the ignorance, the evil or the troll. It is that defending a principle is not bad, but unfortunately I have been discussing so long in forums to know that usually the ones claiming to defend a principle and not the hate of a poster come up later with other hateful or ignorant ideas. Hate is a great crank magnet.
I agree that the term has also evolved over time, and is a lot more offensive now than it was back then. That said, most of those people back then meant to use an offensive term that applied to all black people. They just didn’t mind doing that.
How? Hatred of Mexican immigrants, or Mexican illegal immigrants, or Mexicans who swam a river, isn’t any less hateful than hatred of all Mexicans, or all Hispanic people.
They meant that it only applied to the “bad” ones (which usually had something to do with manner of dress, speech, etc.).
Is there really a debate going on in here trying to decide if “wetback” is a racist slur? I have never heard it used as anything but. It is a hateful term that no one should use. As Sean Sphincter would say - PERIOD!