The hell…? Well then, we need a rule for proper grammar too, because “don’t be a jerk” doesn’t cover that.
If that was a shot, it scored; not for it’s accuracy but for it’s venom. My “simplistic” understanding is your “words mean what I say they mean unless they don’t.” Read my posts again and see if I ascribe to your false dilemma.
I expected better from you. Good day.
Sorry to offend you; I really didn’t mean to. I don’t think you’re simplistic, but I’m really having trouble understanding what position you take, if it’s not subscribing to that admittedly false dilemma. As such, your position seems simplistic to me.
If you don’t subscribe to that false dilemma, can you lay out your theory of the derivation of meaning of words?
Daniel
Granted, It’s not perfect, but what you propose would certainly create more work for TPTB, not to mention more clutter in The Pit and the probably overtaxing of the hamsters.
There’s such a thing as being too vague. Sure, it coveres hate speech but I can see someone coming in, saying “nigger” as a perjoritive, and claiming ignorance when informed that such behavior falls under the “don’t be a jerk” rule. Having a specific rule for hate speech avoids that.
Only if improper grammar becomes a bannable offense. 
My point exactly. The so-called hate speech rule was not a necessary rule, but merely a rule to cover a whim. It is like making tobacco illegal, and thereby creating a whole new crime.
It’s redundant, yes, but I don’t agree that it wasn’t necessary.
I suppose you’re right. Someone needs to protect the feelings of the white trash fundies. Oh, wait…
Oh, wait, no they don’t, because they’ve not been the target of a campaign of violence directed at them for being white fundamentalists and accompanied by racial/religious epithets. Oh, wait indeed.
Daniel
Actually, contemporary violence against Christians for nothing more than their religion, complete with epithets, is commonplace in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Feel free to search Human Rights Watch. Unless you advocate some sort of Americentric morality, and do not count people and events outside the US, it is unclear why we should dismiss or trivialize their plight. Nor is it clear why an examination of history should exclude Christians from ancient Rome to the recently deceased Soviet Union, not to mention violence against Catholics in our own country, carried out for decades by the Ku Klux Klan. Moreover, it is not clear why a history of violence is a criterion for so-called hate speech, since speech cannot bruise anyone — especially on an anonymous international message board. But indeed if hatred were the criterion for hate-speech, as a reasonable person might suspect it would be, it is hard to conceive a more hated class on this board than white fundamentalists.
You’ve mentioned this before. I suspect that, as before, you’ll fail to link this to the hate speech in question–specifically, that the word “fundie” has ever been used in conjunction with this violence. Therefore, this violence is irrelevant to the distinction I’m drawing.
Same thing.
I have given my reasons above in this thread. If those reasons are not clear, please quote them and show me why you think they are not clear.
On the contrary, it’s absurdly easy:
-The incoherent
-Racists
-Michael Moore fans
-John Birchers
-Cecil Adams haters
-Nazis
-Stalinists
White fundamentalists are hardly hated on this board. Nor, again, is hatred of them on this board linked to real-world violence against them (unless you propose that Scott Plaid, when not online, is in Sudan killing Christian babies).
Daniel
Too long for a band name.
Lyrics for a speed-metal song?
Daniel
Yeah, you’ve said that before. Even then, it was unclear why you expected Chinese thugs might shout English words at Christians. But this time, your requirement was different. You cited no specific epithet, but merely epithets in general.
You know, quite honestly the fact that you want documentation of some specific act of violence by a person screaming “Fundie!” in mid-swing is imbecilic in its conception. Hate is not always expressed with a fist, especially by cowards like this guy. If you can present a compelling argument that he and his ilk do not hate the object of their dehumanizing derision, please present it.
I saw no reasons, only declarations like, "As far as I’m concerned, a term ought to be banned as hate-speech when it’s got a solid history of being used in conjunction with violence directed against the target of the term. And “While I’m sure there’s been at least one person who’s been beat up for being “white trash,” I’m guessing the violence associated with the word is far less than the violence associated with the word “nerd” or “dork”.” You attempted to draw some arbitrary distinction, and the only reason I can find is basically that your distinction suits you, as opposed to Fenris’s distinction, which suits him.
Perhaps you perceive no hatred because you are not the object of it. Empathy is not exactly your strong suit.
Fuck off, dude. You’re not one to talk, except of course you do. Until I read this lame and shitty little insult of yours, I was prepared to address your points; but I see the old Lib is back. So fuck off.
Daniel
I’m afraid that old dog don’t hunt no more. I no longer seek your respect. Maybe you should become the example of what you believe other people should be.
Yeah, you’re right–scratch that. I forget at times that you’re pathologically self-centered, and are incapable of seeing the world beyond yourself; you therefore view my lack of empathy toward your petulant martyr-pose as a lack of empathy toward everyone. Why argue with the insane?
Of course, if you read around, you’ll find that you’re in a minority in viewing me as lacking empathy; on the contrary, in the past week I’ve been held up by a couple of posters as the poster-child of empathy. But of course, your pathological self-centeredness prevents you from doing so, and so you post those beautiful ironies of yours.
There you go; enjoy the last word.
Daniel
As far as I can determine, that’s the recipe for a good libertarian.
You monster! You absolute creep. You-(The post continues for quite a long time, using cut and pastes from a lot of pit threads I read over. Finally, it concludes with the following:)
How dare you reveal how I spend my free time? What have you done, hired a private investigator? How dare you breach my privacy like this?
Lots of good and not so good points made by for both sides of this issue. leleanorigby’s thoughts on the subject mirror mine…
I have never, nor would it occur to me, to form the thought “nigger” merely upon seeing/meeting a black person. There are, however certain behaviors that will cause that term to come instantly to mind. To me “nigger” is just the nastier term for “black trash”. Perhaps it’s because I grew up in a liberal, middleclass neighborhood where everyone pretty much acted the same. Black kids were in the minority at school, true, but to my knowledge it was never an issue. Nobody knew any different. So, it is not my intention to trivialize or invalidate the awful history of the term, just that it doesn’t have that connotation to me(in my mind) when I use it. (Well, think it rather).
What I really came in here to say is that I’m just glad we’re having this discussion. I find everyone’s opinion fascinating, whether I share it or not.
Oh, and I’m going to add “stinky, stinky undead boy” to the repertoire of names I call the **PANUBDUDE ** in bed
I keep coming back to this thread, amazed that the argument is still on.
I think despite tomndeb’s research indicating that the term ‘white trash’ has lost it’s racial roots, this discussion has proven that a significant number (of Dopers, at any rate) feel the ethnic insult is still alive and strong.
While ‘white trash’ doesn’t have the violent history of other racially weighted pejoratives, it still carries some weight with some people. Nobody ever said that everyone has to be equally offended.
I know the Mods rule, but maybe we could put it to a vote.
(I for one would like a vote on whether to ban hate speech in The Pit, but that’s not gonna happen either.)
Cuda