This is not how it’s used.
It most certainly is.
Plus I’ll reiterate that “subsets” such as black athletes, musicians, actors, residents of Alabama, whatever, are still protected against hate speech on this board. Unless you’re okay with the n-word being used freely as long as it’s applied only to subsets of the black population, then you can’t claim that being a member of a subset makes a person a fair target for race based insults.
You can say it’s a recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches if you want to - but that doesn’t make it so. There are reasons to object to the term and plenty of good reasons not to use it, but I don’t think the arguments posted here are convincing reasons for use to treat it as hate speech.
Are you suggesting it’s not “a race-based insult targeting people of a certain race for defying race-based expectations”?
This line of reasoning is absurd.
Is it hate speech to say “you are a traitor to your own race”? Or “you are a self loathing Jew”? Or “you are a gay bashing homosexual”?
Merely referencing race in an insult is not automatically racist.
It’s no more hate speech than in the general sense that any insult comes from a negative mindset.
I already agreed it’s an insult and only applies to African-Americans. Like I said upthread, the problem is with the “race-based expectations” part. That’s not a good description. It implies the word is thrown at people who defy stereotypes, and that’s not how it’s used. It’s used against people who are perceived (by the person doing the namecalling) to be working against their own interests and the interests of the racial group.
In the SDMB context, we’re really just talking about whether or not you can apply the term to a non-posters without being warned (we’re agreed that it’s insulting and not something you can say outside of the Pit), and I would say that absent other comments or factors, you could do that in a discussion of racial issues.
There’s really no logical reason that using the word nigger should be insulting an entire group. The only reason it is so is that a group of people have determined it to be so, and we as a society have accepted that. But, here’s the thing: differently groups of people think differently. While we all agree that that one word is hate speech, not everyone agrees with every other word, or even the definition of the term “hate speech.”
You act as if there’s some logical explanation that everyone follows, but there isn’t. Just do a quick google for “Uncle Tom hate speech.” You’ll find not only people who think it is hate speech, but definitions that agree with Starving Artist that the term is used to make fun of black people who choose to be subservient to whites*, rather than the definition claimed here: a black person who is racist against black people.
As much as you want to claim, it isn’t black and white. There is no clear definition of hate speech. And that’s even without getting into what groups of people are and aren’t okay to discriminate against.
It’s fine that this board does not want to consider the term as hate speech, perhaps because of the multiple definitions mentioned above. But to act like people are stupid because they don’t conform to your standard of what hate speech is? That’s just silly.
*Wiki even gives two sources for that definition.
I contend that it is. It’s thrown at black people who defy the stereotype that only Democrats or liberals have their best interests at heart, and it strongly implies that by embracing different values the black person in question is a traitor to his race. Race is the all-important, underlying theme behind the use of the term. It requires a certain standard to be applied to someone because of their race, and it condemns people on a racial basis for not adhering to that standard. One test would be whether the behavior would hold up if reversed and applied by the other side, and I have no doubt whatsoever that if Republicans and conservatives were to start calling liberal black Democrats “Al Sharptons” or “Jesse Jacksons”, or even “Cornell Wests” or “Skip Gates”, the shreiks of racism coming from the left could be heard in outer space.
No, it really isn’t. You are mistaken.
That word includes a whole group, “Uncle Tom” does not, and is not an expression of hostility against a group. It doesn’t meet any sensible definition of “hate speech.” It’s just a lame attempt at a tu quoque.
Thanks for your post but I think a word of clarification is in order here. It isn’t my belief that the term is used to make fun of black people who choose to be subservient to whites, it’s that the term is used to make fun of black people for having conservative values. It holds that to appreciate education, individual responsibility, family values, and a more disciplined way of life is somehow traitorious to the well being of black people and equate to sucking up to white people. Both of which are ridiculous on the face of it, and are only used to try to make conservative black people feel guilty on a racial basis for the values their hearts and minds tell them leads to the best quality of life. There is simply no way to separate racism from the use of “Uncle Tom”, as racism permeates every implication attached to it.
That’s still wrong, no matter how many times you say it. That’s not how it’s used. If you have any confusion about the meaning, why don’t you ask somebody who uses it.
So you’d be okay with it if white people started referring to aspiring black baseball players as “a bunch of Jackie Robinsons”? I mean, not every black person is a baseball player…so what’s the prob? Or referring to liberal college professors as “Cornel Wests”? Again, black liberal college professors are a subset of the black race, so again what’s the problem?
The “subset” argument is nothing but a dodge intended to take the focus off the real issue, which is that certain black people are being held up to ridicule for not behaving in a way that black people are stereotypically supposed to behave.
A black that behaves according to the values of WASPs is not an Uncle Tom, he’s a bounty. Maybe keep the crazy unfounded rants to the Pit where you can be flamed back appropriately.
Uncle Tom=willingful servant of a system that exploits him.
You know as well as I do that the liberal assumption is that any black person who is a Republican or who holds conservative values is the “willing servant of a system that exploits them,” and the use of “Uncle Tom” when applied to conservative black people - as it often is these days - is intended to say just that.
If you are arguing that the term is being applied around here in some other way I’d like to see some examples of it.
I don’t think it is hate speech. It *would *veer that way if someone said something like “Black Republicans are all Uncle Toms”, and definitely if you tacked on “… and we should get them for it” but that isn’t how it is used. I know when I’ve used it, I’ve directed it at a specific person for specific actions. “Colin Powell is an Uncle Tom for his WMD speech to the UN” is not hate speech, it’s an opinion about Powell’s actions, and doesn’t even slightly imply taking any action towards Powell either, which is part&parcel of the hate speech qualifier to me.
And I have used, and will use, the term or a variant thereof, for people who aren’t Black. Although usually I find “House <whatever>” works better. Trying to remember when I used the term “House Gay”…
My opinion of “Uncle Tom”; it’s less awkward than saying “he’s either an idiot who doesn’t know or or so corrupt that he doesn’t care that he’s collaborating with people who hate him because of his skin color”. The term exists and is still used because it is a short label for a real phenomenon. If anything the problem is that there needs to be a more general version of the term, for people who work with and support their own enemies; it’s hardly only a black/white problem.
It has nothing to do with “different values”. It has to do with throwing in with political factions that hate them.
Conservatives generally hate education, “individual responsibility” is a noble sounding way of saying “screw you, I’ve got mine”, “family values” refers to sexism and the hatred of homosexuals, and conservatives aren’t more disciplined, if anything they are less disciplined. There’s nothing admirable about any of that; but none of that has anything to do with getting labeled an “Uncle Tom”. Collaborating with racists - that’s what it means, whether the racists in question are conservative or liberal. Except that liberals are far less likely to be racist, especially extremely racist.
But it’s an opinion based on race. How are black people ever going to rise to positions of power and influence if every time they say or do something someone somewhere doesn’t like they’re going to get called Toms for it? As long as white people make up the majority of the population, black people are not going to be as numerous in government as white people, and therefore there will never come a time when a black person couldn’t be accused of sucking up to white people because white people are going to predominate numerically. Racism won’t end until both sides start viewing black people as people instead of as black people. If you don’t judge a man based on his actions and his character instead of what he ought to be doing because of his race, than you are being a racist whether you know it or not.
Since when do racist remarks have to imply action against the target. This is a definition of racism I’ve never heard before.
I have an aunt who’s 86 years old and uses the n-word to refer to black people. To her it’s just a word she grew up with and she means nothing by it, and especially not that she intends to take some sort of action against whoever she’s using the term to describe. But I’d bet dollars to donuts that if you heard her sitting in her living room, cheering on Emmitt Smith to win Dancing With the Stars and happily proclaiming “I hope the n***** wins it”, that you would adjudge her comment not to be racist simply because no action toward Smith was implied.
Then again you are criticizing someone for doing a job you disapprove of and using their race as a basis for that criticism, and you are fostering the very racism you seek to eliminate by giving credence to other racists who would claim that “black people aren’t suited for jobs like that, even their own kind think so.”
Possibly. I don’t know if there’s an easy line to identify separating insults from hate speech. But I do see your point and wouldn’t argue to vehemently against it. But are you saying that if someone calls a person he’s in an argument with a “nigger”, that it’s automatically “hate speech”? Why can’t it just be I guy who dislikes another guy and is intentionally trying to be hurtful?
I will say that I think that "UNcle Tom can be just as hurtful. A black man that is called that is hearing that he has turned on his people. That he is trying to ingratiate himself with his oppressors at the expense of his race. That’s pretty shitty. Especially since the guy should be able to use his mind and determine for himself the ideas that will guide his life.
Sure I can: Black conservatives.