Where the fuck is Dogface anyway?
This could be clarified in 5 seconds.
I’m just amused that Lib’s one-size-fits-all-epithet transforms Lynn into a liberal.
Desmo
The article said of the teens:
That sounds like religious zealotry to me.
It’s not a racial epithet? How is this possible? Is it applied to all races? Does it not play on the race of an individual and ascribe negative characteristics to that individual?
But of course, no amusement that the hyena pack’s one-size-fits-all pile-on transforms Dogface into a racial bigot. Don’t choke on your cackling.
I said I was amused, not that I was reduced to fits of helpless cackling. I suspect that the response to Dogface’s post was made in conjunction with numerous other threads in which he has posted one-line attacks that over-generalized people in the Middle East while conveying unthinking anger. I have not jumped on any dogpile and have made no prior observations regarding Dogface. I simply find it amusing that, while exhorting others to consider their condemnations more carefully, you invoke your own blanket epithet.
Yes, I read that bit.
“The gang was aparently upset because…”
There’s no evidence provided in the story to back up that suggestion. There’s no suggestion in the story that the guy who got attacked heard anything from them other than a confusion of identity.
The inference of motive comes entirely from the journalist.
Now, if more info is forthcoming, you may well be proved correct. Until it is, you’re just guessing.
No. It plays on the expressed traits of an individual. White Trash is a title that is earned by the behavior of the individual; not based on inherent charactistics. It has never been used as a blanket epithet against an entire ethinic group. Furthermore, it originated within the ethinic group that uses it. So no, it is not racially charged.
Maybe not in Texas, but it’s certainly racially charged in most other places.
It plays on the expressed traits of an entire supposed subculture, not an individual. When someone calls someone else “white trash,” they’re lumping them into an entire stereotyped subcategory, that of the lazy, shiftless, slobby, single-minded redneck. This phrase is never used to describe anyone but white people; ergo, it is most definitely racially charged.
The term “white trash” is always used as a blanket epithet against an exactly one ethnic group - Caucasians. It has never been used against African Americans, Asians, American Indians, Latinos, or any other ethnic group.
Tom (or Debb)
Why does it drive you to amusement, rather than to say, pity or concern? Ordinarily, amusement is pleasurable. Therefore, you derive pleasure from what you perceive as an hypocrisy in me. That seems a bit sadistic.
I checked out Dogface’s recent posts as well, and believe that your characterization of them is itself a generalization. Why can’t people simply disagree about a thing without one of them having to be a racial bigot?
It has already been said that “white trash” has nothing to do with race. If that much latitude can be given for that term, then I would presume that a latitude equally broad ought to be extended to Dogface.
Desmo
Damn, you’re dense. The article also says:
You made a whole list of possible reasons, not one of which is backed up in or out of the article. But you begrudge Dogface from taking from the article its very clear meaning.
Okay, my question is, whether it is a religious group or a race being called savages, why is it allowed for either one? Libertarian seems to be saying that he reads the OP as saying that it’s a religious group, which makes calling them savages alright. Why?
Susan
Its synomym, trailer trash, however has. By me. On numerous occasions.
Yes! That’s a different term that’s used in similar situations. It’s the “white” part that makes it racially charged. (After all, you’re not saying the person is trash that happens to be white; you’re saying they’re white trash.)
Susan
I’m not saying that disparaging a religious group is all right. I’m saying that a particular religious group — fundamentalist Christians — are routinely disparaged on this board with nary a warning about hate speech. So, why is it hate speech to disparage fundamentalist Muslims?
I’m not asking for both to be allowed; I’m asking for the rule (whatever the heck it is) to be applied equitably.
The white is simply a descriptive modifier of the trash.
Using that logic, the term “black trash” also would not be racially charged, since “black” is merely modifying “trash.”
I’ve never heard the term “black trash,” but I feel certain that the use of it would be racially motivated.
Well, firstly, i can’t believe that so many people see the term “white trash” as a purely racial epithet. Maybe this demonstrates little more than the pervasive American tendency to avoid any discussion of class. I know that Americans often like to believe that this is a classless society, but if ever an insult was designed with economic and cultural class distinctions in mind, then “white trash” is it. “Trailer trash” serves pretty much the same purpose.
As far as Dogface is concerned, my beef with him is related more to his idiotic hit-and-run debating tactics than to the content of the OP in the thread being discussed here. It’s common for him to enter a debate with an outrageous, unsupported assertion, and then, when a bunch of people point out that he is not only misinterpreting the nature of the debate, but is also factually incorrect, he makes no further appearance in the thread. Even when people are polite about it, making rational and moderate points, or when they ask him to clarify his position, as at least one person did in the thread in question, he never returns to qualify or clarify his earlier statements.
Such consistent behavior leads me to think that he only makes those posts in order to get a reaction out of people, and not in order to make an effective contribution to a thread. Call this type of behavior what you will, but whatever you call it, it leads people to become irritated with and dismissive of the Doper in question. There are numerous examples of Dogface’s tactics in the Pit Thread started by cheddarsnax. The fact that he does it in his own threads is even more perplexing; you’d think that if someone was exercised enough over an issue to start a thread on it, they would also be interested in contributing to the ensuing debate.
You may be right, Lib, about the content of his OP, but why do you expend so much energy defending him when he apparently lacks the courage or the intelligence or the inclination to defend himself? Of course, much of Dogface’s contribution to this message board consists of ranting and foaming against liberals, who apparently made his life hell back in college. Given this part of his track record, maybe your defence of him is not too surprising. Birds of a feather, and all that.
I detest generalizations as much as the next guy, especially when people are called savages. As much as I wanted to launch right in with an acerbic rejoinder, I had to rein it back in and re-read the OP.
There’s always the possibility that Dogface was referring to entirely someone else as “stupid savages.” Doen’t this then make the reader a RACIST if he parses a blanket statement to conform to his own sensibility?
uhhh…“Doesn’t this…”
So much could be cleared up if Dogface would just return and clean up his own mess.
For what it’s worth, I could see his original OP going any of three ways: railing against a race, a religion, or fundie zealots.
However, one also needs to consider the source, and Dogface does seem to, as mhendo puts it: [engage in] “hit-and-run debating tactics”, which seldom leads to anything but polarization and each side’s “default” interpretations.
IMO, nobody should get too upset over this until/unless the OP deems to clarify what he said- oitherwise, really, everyone’s is preaching to their own choir, and no understanding will ever be had.