So we’ve got oreos and crackers and twinkies and bananas and coconuts…
It’s not hate speech, it’s a pantry. I’m getting hungry.
I’ve been giving this a lot of thought since last night. I think, in the end, what it comes down to is that “nigger” is simply an expression of raw hatred. There’s no where to go from there, in a conversation. “Oreo,” for all its other flaws, is at least an expression of an idea. Someone using the word “nigger” isn’t expressing anything more than, “I hate black people.” Someone using the word “Oreo” is saying, “Black people should act in a certain manner. If they don’t act in that manner, they’re not really black.”
Now, I’m not saying that’s a good idea, but at least it’s some sort of a vague thesis. While I don’t want to speak for the GD mods, I think “Black people are foolish for supporting Republicans/conservative ideals” would be an acceptable topic there. Calling someone an “Oreo” is, to my ear, a pittified version of the same argument.
I want to emphasize that the above is not an iron-clad rule for determining the acceptability of any and all racially-charged insults. Race, racism, and the language we use to discuss either of those is one of the most complicated areas of American society, and there’s no way to craft one rule that can adequately all possible words, variations of those words, contexts, subtexts, emotional baggage, or historical weight. This is why the rule on hate speech explicitly states that we will not be providing a list of “acceptable” slurs. It’s something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. That does, admittedly, put posters in a bind if they want to know if a particular insult is going to get them dinged or not. The best advice I can offer there is, if you don’t know if what you’re about to say violates the pit hate speech rule, don’t say it.
As to the idea that there’s a double standard based on politics, I don’t think a good case has been made for that. I don’t know what standard of proof I can offer, other than my word, that the politics of the two posters in question did not enter into my calculus when I was deciding whether or not to issue a warning.
In GQ, yes, apparently it will.
This thread is about what’s acceptable in the Pit.
It’s a thread started by a conservative, bashing a liberal, using significantly worse language than “Oreo,” which did not receive a warning. Potentially, that argues against a bias on this issue.
In fairness, though, it’s not a perfect match. G-SE wasn’t using the terms to insult other posters, he was mocking someone else’s post for what he perceived as a racist position. It’s really not the same thing as BobLibDem’s post.
If I recall correctly the term was being used for whites in general and not just a specific poster. So if that played a part in the determination of it’s warnability I don’t know.
Don’t forget watermelons. Why should Martians get special treatment of no racial epithets? We should all be equal because after all we’re all human be…we’re all beings who poop and pooping is the great equalizer.
It seems like a no-brainer that if any racial slurs are banned then they all should be, including “oreo” and all the “hypotheticals” Magellan is so lovingly tossing around in this thread.
Holy shit—Miller and Marley are the same person! Or is it that Miller knows the workings of Marley’s mind? Hmmm. 
I agree it’s not the same thing as that crackah’s post, as that OP was not attacking another poster.
I would agree with this.
So far we have yet to see any benefit or even provided with a reason why some racial slurs should be allowed while others aren’t while we’ve seen a lot of evidence that allowing some and banning others causes lots of problems.
The sudden passionate devotion to racial sensitivity from our conservative posters is heartwarming. We’ve truly turned a corner, and I’m happy I was here to see it.
Yes, we’ve gone through some terrible times, and this is one of them. Let the healing begin.
So could I call someone an injun in the Pit?
Which is why I am glad that we have brains, and understand ideas like nuance and intent
Based on the reasoning you’re supplying here then you also would have felt that Bob shouldn’t have been warned if he’d referred to OMG as either “our house nigger” or “our house negro”.
After all the terms house negro and house nigger are expressions of an idea "there are some ways that black people are supposed to behave and those who behave in a certain way are selling out their own and are more loyal to white people then they are their fellow blacks.
Here is an example of that being expressed by Malcolm X who was easily one of the most influential black leaders of the last half of the 20th Century.
In fact, you’ll notice that Malcolm X is using the term exactly the same way and for the same purpose that people use the term “oreo”. That is why I earlier assumed that you would feel that referring to a black poster as such would certainly not be something you’d approve of and you’d actively discourage, but that you wouldn’t feel the need to give a warning about. Apologies if I was wrong.
So then, to clear up the argument over whether or not the term house nigger and house negro are considered violations of the pit rules, had Bob used the term “house negro” or “house nigger” would you have felt he should be warned for doing so, do you think you would have let it slide, or would you feel that those are terms that you’d rather wait and see if they’re used and then make a determination but for now you feel that you can’t.
True, but there are many conservatives white and otherwise who say similar things regarding black conservatives and use similar language. I.E. Herman Cain referring to the Democratic plantation and blacks voting for the Democratic party being loyal slaves who’d been brainwashed.
By the standards you’re setting you seem to be saying that it would also have been acceptable though discouraged for a white conservative poster to refer to a black liberal poster as either Uncle Tom, Oreo, plantation slave, or something similar.
Am I correct?
Except many of the people arguing on the same side are not conservatives. Some of us let an argument stand or fall on its merits, not on who is making the argument.
All or nothing? Really? Is there a master list containing all racial slurs that we can refer to…or are you pushing in the other direction for all restrictions to be restricted?
I’m not a mod, but if you did I would certainly report you for doing so and I’d be very upset if they didn’t issue a formal warning for doing so.
Beyond that, you seem to be completely ignoring Miller’s explanation which was that the term “Oreo” expresses an idea that would be considered acceptable as a GD thread as opposed to simply hatred of black people.
“House Nigger”, “House Negro” and Uncle Tom are expressions of such ideas that would be considered acceptable to post as a GD thread.
I don’t see how “Injun” expresses anything other than hatred of Indians.
Now, were you to do something like call me a “Camel Jockey” or a “Towel head” since I’m a Muslim you might argue that you’re expressing a pittified version “Muslims are primitive”, “Muslims are backward” and “Muslims are violent” which have clearly been acceptable GD threads.
That said, I’m pretty sure Miller would find those slurs unacceptable.
No, I don’t think that racial slurs should be used in the pit period. At least not directed at other posters.
To be honest, I think this board tolerates far too much racism, but I understand and respect the decision of the Board to force minorities to put up with racist threads and racist comments(so long as not directed at us personally) for the purpose of promoting the free expression of ideas.
I can’t speak for others, but I’m not a conservative and I’ve had to put up with quite a bit of racist threads and racist comments regarding Iranians, Middle Easterners and Muslims in general.
Personally, I like the idea that racial slurs couldn’t be directed at other posters.
Moreover, I’m in full agreement with Ta-Nehisi Coates, the writer, who argued that when Ralph Nader called Barack Obama an Uncle Tom he was being no different than D’Nesh D’Souza ranting about Obama’s “anti-colonial” background.
I know some people think it’s cool to see liberal whites use racial slurs against minorities who they see as not behaving correctly, but I’m not one of them.
Thiis discussion is about racial slurs directed at other posters. I can’t see why some would be sanctioned while others are deemed unacceptable. Nuance and intent? The mods would have untangle that mess with every usage? It should be simple: no hate speech, ie no insults based on a posters race or ethnicity. If “fuck you” is disallowed because its an offense to decorum, then yes, this should be a no-brainer.
Well-said.
You think keeping track of everybody’s stated race and ethnicity would be simple?