That isn’t necessary. No one should be insulted based on his or her race, no matter what that race or ethnicity might be. Not even black conservatives.
I think you have kind of put your finger on the issue, or part of it - that some posters can be insulted based on their race. That shouldn’t be, IMO.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a big difference though. The “Uncle Tom” has a necessarily racial component, someone having an “anti-colonial” background does not. ONe has to do with how you were born, the other where you happened to have lived.
Unknowable, of course, but not a problem if racial slurs directed at another poster are a no-no regardless.
Just to be clear, hate speech about a persons worldview is OK, since they can change that, but the unchangeable race must be protected?
NM
An argument that could only be made by someone with no clue about the roots of post-war anti-colonialism.
Hell, for all his idiocy, even D’Souza seems to understand its roots:
No racial component there, nosiree.
Anti-colonialism was not merely a geographic ideology. It was expressly, in most cases, about how colonial domination had also been racial and ethnic domination, and had robbed the native peoples of their own wealth and resources in the name of enriching Europeans. Sure, not every colonist was white, and not every colonized person was black or brown, but issues of race and ethnicity were central to arguments about colonialism in the post-war world.
Why would you need to?
It would be a simple rule to say no racial insults.
Besides if someone refers to another poster as “a house nigger”, it’s obvious that the person using the term is addressing a black person, or at least thinks they are.
Is there a master list available for reference, or a cut and dry definition that everyone can agree to?
What do you mean by “master”? :dubious:
How about “insults based on race”?
Regards,
Shodan
And what do you mean by Bosstone? :dubious:
It should be pretty obvious.
Does anyone think Uncle Tom, House Nigger, and towelhead aren’t racial slurs?
“I didn’t intend it as an insult”
“How can it be an insult if they say it to each other”
“The reference is to her/his ethnicity/country of origin, not her/his race”
“It may be an insult in that culture, but it isn’t in this other culture”
There are probably a few more excuses that exist.
Is this your master list?
Do you think excuses similar to this cannot be given in defense of any insult, and therefore there is no way to tell if anything is insulting?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, here’s one reference that came up on an initial search. Looks pretty comprehensive. If we used that as our list, then—just going by the first page alone—the terms “7-11,” “Abe Lincoln,” “African,” “Albino,” “Alphabet,” “Alcoholic,” “Amigo,” and “Ant” would immediately and forthwith be banned.
Anyone else seeing a few potential problems with this proposed… ethnic cleansing, as it were?
Deleted
The “master list” is a cute ZOMG IMPOSSIBLE!!! device, yet we never get examples of which racial epithets should be hunky-dory and why.
Take a looksee at the list Vinyl Turnip found, and tell be you would have no problem banning all of those words.
:rolleyes: I didn’t say there was “no racial component”. I said it didn’t necessitate the person being of a certain skin color. You even quoted me saying it. Then you even say yourself: “Sure, not every colonist was white, and not every colonized person was black or brown,…”.
So, maybe you should pay better attention. Both to what people write and the thoughts sprouting in your brain. My point stands.