No, seriously. You can’t have a discussion that isn’t laden with insults. Your entire demeanor is one of intellectual superiority – which grows old real fast in any sort of debate. Why? What is your point?
If you don’t like my ideas or my posts, then don’t read them – and certainly don’t reply to them. Because unless you get rid of this obnoxious tone, I’ll not read anything with your name on it – and I certainly won’t respond.
I look forward to the day that uttering the word “nigger” draws nothing but a shrug. Or even better, pity.
Insults are issued to get a reaction. If you do not react, you give no power to the insult.
I like to know where I stand with people. I have no doubt that there are people who dislike me, for whatever reason, my skin colour, the car I drive, my religion (or lack thereof) etc etc, ad nauseum. And if they choose to call me some name, the fact is, I then know exactly where I stand with them, and what is going on in their mind. I can then choose to ignore them (and their insult), or I can choose to engage them and try and understand them, and maybe change their mind, their perception.
We need to move beyond “oh my god he called me a kaffir/dirty boer/baboon/cupboard” to a place of “what can I learn from this interaction?”
I most certainly can.
You should probably avoid such blanket, absolute assertions. They are difficult to support.
Substitute “purpose” for “point” and the answer, generally, is self-amusement. What’s yours?
This is your idea of reasoned discourse? Of a pleasant tone?
The conventions for debate are a bit loose in the Pit. You may be happier elsewhere.
No, I like it here just fine. I guess we’ve settled this. Happy posting.
Well said. Words have only the power they’re given.
Like most insults, the level of offensiveness depends on the tone of voice and/or the facial expression of the person leveling the insult. If an insult is accompanied by laughter and/or a smile, it sometimes loses its sting. At the least, the person offering the insult can always say, “Hey, man, I was only kidding” or words to that effect. Speaking from experience, I’ve been called ‘cracker,’ ‘ofay’ and *‘Chuck’ and in each case, the intent was to insult if not to incite a fight. I can’t offer cites but I’ve heard each of these terms used by black comedians on TV; if a white man used the corresponding term ‘nigger’ he would be taken out and executed.
‘Chuck,’ as used by a black person to a white person with the intent to insult is exactly the same as the use of ‘Mista Charley’. If you don’t know the insult inherent in being called 'Mista Charley," do a little research.
My only point is that racism crosses all lines and is not limited to white people by any means.
Why would they want to give up their offendedness? As it is, they get instant credibility and political power as soon as someone utters the word. Heck, if I had the power to get someone who hated me fired, I’d grab that chance with both hands.
Oh, clearly you’re right, and I don’t mean to say that my grandmother and this guy did equally offensive things. I was just trying to say that the more racist a society you grew up in, the less sensitive you are to the use of racial epithets, and the more likely you are to express the biases of your childhood without conscious malice.
I agree, and when they do stupid things like have a freaking funeral for a word that only makes the word a better weapon.
Who is “they” and who did they fire?
Stop hiding behind ambiguous pronouns.
“They” is the niggers, silly. Now getcher ass to the back of the bus.
What ywtf said, essentially. There’s only one offended party here; I thought it would be obvious.
You’re wrong on two counts: 1) Black people didn’t fire him and 2) It’s not just blacks who were offended by the guys word choice. Last time I checked the OP is not black and he seems pretty offended.
The only thing that is obvious is your idiocy.
I just read in Diverse Issues in Higher Education that good ol’ Ralph has asked his name to be removed from the name of the law school and plans to continue his philanthropy at RWU. Incidentally, athelas, the student organizer behind the name change was named:
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume, based on the name, that Matt Jerzyk is not Black. I could be wrong though.
I agree that he’s probably not Black, but the ethnicity of the people running that campaign is fairly irrelevant. My point is that the Black community is the furnace behind the harshness of the “nigger”, since it would simply go the way of “cracker” if they refused to get outraged about it. And certainly there is a slight but definite benefit for them to discredit someone with power who (I’m going out on a limb here) dislikes Blacks. Given that they can maintain the taboo against “nigger” with a mere burst of RO for each incident, I fail to see why they would want to stop.
But that’s just… bizarre. It’s like offering the mugger some bullets because his gun is unloaded.
That’s a baseless assertion. There are plenty of people outside of the Black community (what is that, anyway?) who are offended by the word “nigger” - wasn’t that the argument during the Imus incident?
There are plenty of threads on this board that have White and non-Black posters discussing their disdain for the word.
See if you can get a sense of it from the context of this article in the Washington Post, where it’s used three times by its African-American author.
:: one week later ::
that ole predictable, monolithic black community is going to rise into furor over this any day now…
Aw - why do the threads most embarrassing to the moronic racists on this board who simply can’t wrap their heads around the idea of black individuality have to die so quickly?
athelas insisting that outrage from the black community as a whole over incidents is wielded for some sort of undefined political power, even though that’s not what happened at all, Liberal acting like a black author using the term “black community” validates it completely - this is classic stuff.