Alice? . . . I mean, Asahi’s malice?
Good grief. Are you seriously claiming that your desire to continue insulting random people after you’ve been informed that you’re doing so is equivalent to the civil rights movement?
If the people sitting in at Woolworths had instead of doing so taken to randomly insulting people who had nothing to do with Jim Crow, you might have a point. Since that’s not remotely what happened, you don’t.
It’s a matter of whether you’re also insulting a lot of other people. Why is that still unclear?
Are you claiming that there are no words whatsoever that can be considered generally offensive, so long as there is some group somewhere on the planet that is not offended by them?
Whichever word you use for ‘stupid’, it’s still insulting to people who actually are of significantly below average intelligence, in the same way using ‘gay’ as an insult is insulting to gay people. Is that clear yet?
You’re essentially right, but wrong in detail. Black people were excluded from diners, yes, but it’s more than that white people thought their presence was “offensive.” It was thought that “race-mixing” was a challenge to the proper natural order of the world. It was much more than “offensive.”
However, even after the passage of the VRA and the CRA, and after a lot of genuine improvement in our treatment of our Black fellow citizens, there were (and are, sadly) some expectations that Black people act and appear in certain ways because to not do so would be “offensive.”
I’m thinking of the awful hairstyle rules that Black women were (and are, to some extent) required to follow, which banned some hairstyles that are perfectly natural and forced Black women to use harsh chemicals and heat and who knows what every day, simple because braided or locked hair was seen to be “unprofessional” and even “offensive.”
You’re giving far too much credit to our Republican friends. They insist on talking about the “Democrat Party,” or ranting about the “Democrat agenda,” and so on, not because they don’t want to admit that their opponents support democracy, but simply because it’s juvenile and rude and annoys people. It really is some elementary-school playground level shit. There’s nothing more to it than that.
And as to the use of words like "retarded, or even “stupid,” let’s all get a grip. You can find examples of people here in the Pit, of all political persuasions, even good liberals and lefties and progressives, mocking the intellectual ability of others, or deriding them for having less in the way of formal education and degrees. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong no matter who the targets are. If it’s wrong only when directed at certain groups, then it’s not wrong.
No. I’m not claiming that.
‘Good’. You know it’s only considered wrong when directed against certain groups. That’s why I don’t take all the moralising over offending people seriously any more.
I actually want to rephrase that a bit (or qualify it, or something – I’m never sure, maybe because of my community college degree).
Obviously there are some words that are offensive in certain contexts. And part of that context may be the target.
But overall, I’ll stand by my point.
Ah.
That’s probably why I tend to use “willfully ignorant” instead. Or phrasing such as not using all one’s brain cells, which implies that the problem isn’t with the brain but with how one’s choosing to use it.
Then I’m entirely unclear about what you are claiming. If some words are offensive despite the fact that there are groups of people who aren’t offended by them, then why are you saying
You can get anything you want…
What, here?
Here is the difference between ‘stupid’, ‘gay’, and ‘retarded’.
If I am calling you ‘stupid’, I am saying that what you are doing or saying at that moment or in general lacks intelligence. That’s what the word means. I am using it ‘as intended’.
If I am calling you ‘retarded’ I am also saying that what you are doing or saying at that moment or in general lacks intelligence, but the word ‘retarded’ does not mean ‘lacks intelligence’, it means ‘suffers from an intellectual disability’. But the person you are saying this about is NOT suffering from an intellectual disability - you just disagree with them.
If I am calling you ‘gay’ (in this context), I am ALSO saying that what you are doing or saying at that moment or in general lacks intelligence. But this time the word doesn’t mean that AT ALL, not even if you stretch it. ‘Gay’ is only insulting if there is something fundamentally wrong with being homosexual.
‘Stupid’ just doesn’t have that same weight to it.
The way you SHOULD read that is, “I’ve misunderstood plenty of people who talked about systemic racism here on the Dope”.
I’m not sure what you are asking, what you go on to quote here is self-explanatory is it not?
Which part is a problem for you. Ask me a question about it if it isn’t clear and I’ll try to clarify.
Ok, you fucking disgusting shitstain from the smegma-dripping prolapsed anus of the worst of the contributors to this board.
Ok, then.
I’ve seen that argument, but not here as such (although I’m sure someone at some point said it here). Usually the context is about “punching up/punching down”, insofar as racism against white people isn’t remotely as widespread, systemic, or driving clear discrimination* in the way that racism against black people clearly is. I’ve even seen black people arguing amongst themselves over whether black people can be racist (the zinger being “ask a Korean”).
*countdown to affirmative action reference in 5…4…
That’s a matter of differing definitions of the word “racist”.
If the word’s taken to only mean bigotry which has become institutionalized in the dominant society, then in a society in which there is such institutionalized bigotry against a given race, only bigotry against that race is technically “racist”; and generally in places where people are having that argument, there’s such “racism” against people of color but not against white people. So going by that definition, bigotry against white people is still bigotry, but it’s not racism.
I do also agree with that. Some words just have more charge to them than others.
It appears to me that you were saying two things that are contradictory: that a word isn’t offensive if the group using it doesn’t think so, and that some words are offensive even if some groups using it don’t think so.
Maybe this will help to clarify: as you’ve agreed that some words are generally offensive even if there’s at least one group that doesn’t think so, what is it that makes those words qualify as generally offensive?
Since it is generally so little trouble to find a different word to use when an existing one has become offensive, how about applying the same ingenuity to this situation and coming up with some new words or phrases for all the different meanings of ‘racist’? It would prevent a lot of argument and misunderstanding.
True; but, unlike the possibility of different individuals at different times choosing any of dozens of other ways to tell somebody their argument, or their pattern of argument, is seriously lacking, nearly everyone would have to agree both on the new words and on their precise definitions. Feel free to give it a try; but I think that, even if you’re successful, it’s going to take quite a few years to get it to work.
Getting a consensus might be hard, but we could all make more of an effort to specify which definition we are using, and to clarify which someone else meant before making assumptions.
If enough people do that, the definitions they used would start catching on, at least on this board.