1. Would it be ok for an Asian to call a black person the N-word?

[CTLawGuy]

Take note that there is no substantial history of Asian persons oppressing blacks in this country.


In my opinion, it is NOT ok because it is wrong for any person to insult another's race. History is irrelevant.

2. What about vice-versa? Is it ok for Shaquille O'Neal to mock Yao Ming because of his race, like he did a while back?

Take note there is no substantial history of black people oppressing Asians.

Again, I believe it is NOT OK, because it is always wrong to insult someone's race.

3. Would it be ok for a black heterosexual female to call a white gay man a hateful slur? If not, does that imply that black women have enough social clout to oppress others?

I believe it is wrong, on prinicple, to insult another's sexual orientation.

[mr_hat]

1. I'll take Questions Answered for 200, Alex.

[CTLawGuy]

3. I'll construe that as agreement with me

:)

[CTLawGuy]

4. deleted

redundant

see post 3

[Warpy]

2. Calling somebody else a racial name is a great twit indicator.

It lets you know a great deal about the speaker and nothing at all about his target.

The only time that stuff is at all appropriate is using it on oneself in a self deprecating manner, and even then, overuse is a twit indicator.

[Padraig18]

5. Racism/sexism, etc. are NEVER OK.

Never.

[displacedtexan]

6. My daddy always said that anyone who would call the Chinese

"The C word"...would also call a Black person "The N Word," a Mexican "The S Word," and a Jew "The K word."

In other words, my daddy recognized that prejudice was pretty much universal among the pig ignorant!

[Crunchy Frog]

7. No, I believe that it's wrong to use racial epithets

or to make slurs based on people's sexual orientation or other personal characteristics. It has nothing to do with a history of oppression between members of particular groups, it's just something that's wrong period.

That's my opinion anyway.

[Catherine Vincent]

8. I agree. An insult is an insult.

[ultraist]

76. No gray areas?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hfojvt]

84. in my experience, black people call each other,

and themselves "nigga" all the time. To them, it is not the same word as the one ending in "-er". In fact, they do not consider it derogatory, it means something like "one of the brothers". Of course, I do not know how universal this practice is, or if it depends on age (or hipness of older people) as well.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[livinginphotographs]

27. So you think in certain situations

it's okay to call someone a n*****?

Wow. Just wow. :eyes:

[GiovanniC]

51. In Related News, Girls Wearing Short Skirts Deserve to be Raped

Film at 11.

[ultraist]

86. What?

edited to remove my response to quoted and deleted material

[SemiCharmedQuark]

114. So should I say thanks when someone calls me a spic then?

If I don't and they shoot me, have I warranted it?

[Igel]

11. I agree. On the other hand, I got into a quarrel on DU

yesterday who were sure that what they assumed was black-on-white violence and name calling was simple bullyin or ok, since the purported blacks didn't really have any power.

I grew up in a very racist working class neighborhood. Almost no blacks; absolutely no Muslims, Middle Easterners, Latinos, Jews, or Asians. 98% white, all at least 2-3 generation European (or much older).

Most common epithets: dago, wop, pollock (not the fish). Fightin' words. (The n-word was incredibly rare.)

[theboss]

13. But Italians could call each other "dago"

That was my neighborhood. And actually, Poles or Hungarians or whatever could use "Dago" too if they were being friendly about it.

In seventh grade, I had a teacher tell me he liked me because "I was a little wop just like him." Ah, good times. Good times.

[ultraist]

96. The word "nigger" was rare because there were no blacks to use it against

I'm sure there were power dynamics within the all white neighborhood you lived in, based on ethnicity and class.

What do those words mean: wop, dago, pollock?

[theboss]

12. My grandfather's group of friends was interesting

Apparently in the 1930s, all men were required by law to have a nickname. And that nickname had to accurately reflect a man's apperance or personality. Hence, my grandfather's friends were "Keyhole," the peeping tom; "Patcheye," who behaved like a pirate, "WildMan," for obvious reasons; "Chink," who looked Chinese; "Brownie" who was black, "Pete the Greek" who was, well, Greek; "Joe Polack," who was, well, Polish; "Red" who had red hair; "Ears" who had big ears; "Pal" who who was friendly; and, um, "Faggots," for reasons I don't really want to know.

I guess when you go to a funeral for a man eulogized as "Joe Polack," it trains you to think that words are just words. It's the intent behind them that matters. I though Shaq's joke about Yao Ming was pretty funny, because I don't think Shaq hates Asians. I think Bernie Mac's jokes about his nephew "the homosexual" is funny because I don't think he hates gays or his nephew. I don't think Michael Savage is funny.

[ultraist]

OH! It was a joke! The OP said, "mocks"

"Mocks" implies it was within a negative context.

Do you remember WHAT the joke was or WHERE it was said? It seems this has been taken out of context.

I agree, it's completely different in a comedy setting. Granted, some comedians cross the line and are really crass and nasty, but there are a LOT of funny and harmless jokes based on race. This is NOT the same as using a racial slur in other settings.

We see the M$M take quotes out of context all of the time and distort the meaning, I guess some have come to accept that as ok.

[ChairOne]

14. YAPOWPT........

Yet Another Poor, Oppressed White People Thread...

Damn negroes - why can't they "see" that they're JUST AS BAD as white folks - and hence stop complaining? (That really is all white folks want, after all)

[CTLawGuy]

15. wow,

you must have been reading a different thread.

All white people are evil...

are you happy now?

[DrWeird]

16. Ah, the standard false dichotomy.

Right on schedule.

[CTLawGuy]

18. when

the poster points out his hypocrisy by diminishing race based attacks on people because they are not of a certain race, I tend to get a little upset (especially when it is out of the scope of the thread).

you know the whole fairness thing. and I mean actual fairness, not radical authoritarian "fairness".

[DrWeird]

25. "I mean actual fairness"

Do you really?

[CTLawGuy]

35. yup

holding blacks and whites to the same standard of conduct. It's called judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. There's a guy named Martin Luther King...

he's a smart man.

[DrWeird]

37. So then you're all for affirmitive action.

Right?

[CTLawGuy]

42. yup

Im for taking affirmative steps to empower minorities to fully participate in our society.

Some things I like are:

ensuring racially diverse recruitment,
resources for minorities in the workplace and schools,
racial sensitivity training, and zero tolerance for racist business practices.

[DrWeird]

43. And you're for it as is practiced now? nt

[CTLawGuy]

46. how is it practiced now?

in other words, what are you thinking of?

[DrWeird]

50. Are you for or against changing/modifying Affirmative Action?

Methinks you're dodging the question.

[CTLawGuy]

53. im not going to give you a yes or no answer

for something you haven't told me the specifics to.

[DrWeird]

56. Affirmative Action as is practiced now, in the United States.

Febuary the 17th, 2005. A.D.

[CTLawGuy]

59. Im not answering your question

im not interested in playing games. I've told you my position. If you won't tell me what you mean by "affirmative action as it is practiced today", I won't answer your question, because otherwise you are playing gotcha games.

[DrWeird]

88. Pretty simple question.

Why can't you answer it? Because you think Affirimative action should be modified?

[CTLawGuy]

97. it depends on what specifically you mean by it

racial quotas?
taking race into account in awarding spots?
getting extra points for being a certain race?

[DrWeird]

103. Would you, or would you not...

if given the ability, change anything about Affirmative Action?

[CTLawGuy]

122. I would make affirmative action

conform to the programs and goals that I previously stated.

[DrWeird]

132. How would you do that?

What specific changes would you make?

[CTLawGuy]

136. scrap it and remake it with the programs I mentioned earlier

plus similar ones that promote the same goals. I would use AA in a way that does not hurt white people, but in a way that brings more resources to black people so they can sit on an equal height.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

142. So you're saying Affirmative Action as it currently is hurts white people?

[CTLawGuy]

145. nope

because I am not familiar with the totality of what Affirmative Action is today. I plead guilty to ignorance. But I value an ethic of helping rather than hurting.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

147. Please explain, what is your idea of "hurting white people"?

[CTLawGuy]

150. hurting white people

using their race against them.

I am in favor of lifting black people up, not knocking whites down.

You are waiting for the chance to pounce on me arent you?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

151. Well, please explain "using your race against them".

And no, you wished to expand these ideas, I merely wish to help you there.

[CTLawGuy]

156. a big thing is

passing over a person who is much more qualified with someone who is less qualified because of their race.


Whats amusing is, whether you find the above scenario horrible or acceptable depends on the races of the people involved.

I find the scenario to be contrary to principles of fairness regardless of the races involved.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

157. Ahh...here we go. One of those anti-AA talking points I love so much.

You really believe that AA is used to put "Much more qualified" people to the side? That's ridiculous. It gives people the benefit of the doubt.

[CTLawGuy]

163. nope

I didn't say AA did that at all. I'm saying Im against that sort of thing.

AA is great for empowering blacks to get back to an equal height.

[DrWeird]

174. "get back?"

I thought you said you understood black history.

[CTLawGuy]

176. sigh

misspoke

way to play gotcha. You're truly doing great things for race relations. I salute you.

[DrWeird]

188. Yes.

And what have you done for race relations?

[DrWeird]

161. Studies show that if equally qualified black people and white people...

apply for the same job, the white person more often gets it. Even with Affirmative action in place. And despite racist right wing rhetoric.

[DrWeird]

152. No surprises here.

It's always the people who talk about color blindness and keep using that same old quote from Martin Luther King that want to scrap Affirmative Action. I wonder how many of them know enough about Martin Luther King to know he was in favor of Affirmative Action, and of those, how many care. Guilty of ignorance indeed.

[iverglas]

79. but not the first

I rather liked this one, of jjtss's:

In that instance using the K word,
the N word or the C word is not only
justified but preferrable to using
the trigger.

I mean, there are only the two choices, right?

And hey, there was another one there, too:

If the minority can't stand the epithet then
that person should not create a situation
that gives rise to the usage occasion.

Apparently the only choices available to "that person" are:
- being obnoxious and being subjected to a racial slur; and
- not being obnoxious.

Hell. Whatever happened to people just being obnoxious and not having to choose whether to be killed or racially insulted?

Whatever happened to people just calling other people obnoxious, and not having to choose between killing and racially insulting them?

Those always worked pretty well when I was a kid, lo those many decades ago.


... "gives rise to the usage occasion". Must be something like "the devil made me do it", I guess.

[DrWeird]

93. Where'd you find those quotes?

Are they from the "my little bastard finally got told off" thread?

[ultraist]

106. It's right above my post #10

Quotes are from a jjtss post. Right above my post #10.

The one that gives equal weight to the "n word" the "k word" and the "c word.

[DrWeird]

110. Hit alert on that kind of thing.

Jesus.

[iverglas]

107. right up above!

Post 10.

Missed the thread of which you speak. Directions?

[DrWeird]

112. You couldn't miss it.

400+ posts.

[iverglas]

117. ah

I am an infrequent GD reader, and they've usually hit the big numbers before I even see them, at which point reading feels like trying to sort out WWI, and jumping in feels like one of those cartoon fights look ... but I'll look for that one.

As for alerting on the now defunct post ... personally, I don't see it as any different from the things said at DU about women all the bloody time, so I generally prefer not to lend my own support to the "nigger bad, bitch good", "racism bad, misogyny just dandy" paradigm by taking formal offence at the one and not at the other.

[DrWeird]

118. Hit alert on those too.

But personally, I think the difference between the words "bitch" and the word "nigger' are as substantial as the differences between the word "cracker" and the word "nigger."

But that's probably best saved for another thread.

[ultraist]

125. LMAO!!! Your paradigm names are freakin' hilarious! good ones!

But, more often than not, all forms of oppression are part of the same worldview. It generally comes down to a level of moral reasoning.

This is not to say, they are all 'exactly the same', 'there are no gray areas,' or 'talking about one form of oppression means another does not exist,' as some here claim.

This thread happens to be about racism, not sexism. I think it's good practice to call out (or alert on) any ism including homophobic remarks.

[iverglas]

130. and that's why

This thread happens to be about racism, not sexism.

... I chose not to reply to comments I see in this thread that fall into the "nigger bad, bitch (or: insert other intentionally offensive and necessarily intimidating term used against a member of any other oppressed/exploited group by a member of the oppressor/exploiter group) good" paradigm.

[ultraist]

137. That's cool

I don't always reply either. I try to make a point to call them out or alert, but I by no means am perfect about this. I also don't read every post on every thread.

My point was, that you likely would not see a lot of misogynistic remarks on this thread, since the focus is racism.

[HamdenRice]

17. YAPOWPT -- what a great label!

You are absolutely right, LOL! This is part of a long list of recent DU threads that ask ludicrous questions about racial issues, the underlying theme always being that the real racial issue this country faces is not institutional discrimination against people of color, especially African Americans; -- no it is Asians using the N word or black discriminating against whites, or white girls being called cracker, etc etc etc etc etc etc...

Do you really think that the random Asian using the N word or Shaq making an Asian joke is an example of the racial issues this country faces?

How about rolling back the Voting Rights Act through voter suppression in Florida and Ohio? Do they really compare?

How about the administration's claimed authority to round up Muslims and middle eastern men, detain them without trial, and torture or deport to countries that torture? How does that compare to Shaq making an Asian joke?

How about states that have been found by state courts to routinely, grossly and consistently underfund schools in minority districts, and that resist implementing remedies with foot-dragging tactics worthy of Mississippi of the 1960s? Is that on the same level as two children fighting over a ball, and one calling the other a cracker?

Many DUers trivialize and distort the issue of racism with these YAPOWPT threads.

[CTLawGuy]

19. those things you listed are important

and we talk about them all the time, but what is wrong with asking the questions I did? Surely these situations do come up, correct?

Or are you just annoyed because they cause your way of thinking about the world to fall apart?

[ChairOne]

20. No, we're annoyed because....

... some people purport to be on our side, but to all appearances want nothing more than to tear the world apart with their bare hands.

I guess I shouldn't speak for others - that's one thing that annoys ME at any rate...

[CTLawGuy]

22. we are both on the same side,

as hard as that may be for you to believe.

We butt heads so much because we perceive the world differently.

You view the world in terms of social groups vying for social power.
I view the world as a group of individuals with prejudices, powers and flaws.

I recognize racism and its history. I know about slavery, poll taxes, redlining, blockbusting, DWB, the racist drug war and death penalty and felon disenfranchisement.

I blame those people who are actually responsible for promoting these things, the slave owner, the racist governor, the crooked cop, the bigoted landlord. I don't blame people who are guilty of nothing more than being born with the same skin color.

I believe it is no less wrong to be bigoted against white people.

[livinginphotographs]

30. No one is "blaming" people for being white (at least I'm not)

All "our side" is asking is that white people at least show a bit of understanding that their skin color does afford them privileges that they might not be aware of.

By the way, I'm white.

[ultraist]

81. exactly

What is do difficult to acknowledge: I am white and live in a white dominated society. Therefore, I have it easier than minorities.

That's basically all it comes down to.

No one can deny their race and they certainly cannot deny our society is a white dominated society and the systems cater to whites. Those are concrete facts. There is NOTHING abstract about that.

[hfojvt]

109. isn't it fair to say

I am a poor (or working class) person, and I live in a rich dominated society. Therefore, my white skin ain't all that. And to Chris Rock, yes, I would change places with you in a New York second.

[ultraist]

120. Discussing racism in no way diminishes the fact that classism exists

Racism exists therefore, classism does not exist.
Racism does not exist, therefore classism does exist.

Both ILLOGICAL statements.

This thread is about racism, not classism. Classism does not define people based on the color of their skin.

[Tomee450]

135. If you were

a poor black person in a white dominated society, you'd think differently. Take the judicial system. A poor white is much more likely to get fair treatment. Poor whites are not subjected to racial profiling or other forms of discrimination that blacks experience. If you think your white skin is not an advantage, you are very mistaken.

[ultraist]

139. Exactly, racism + classism

There are interlocking, exponential effects. This is clearly evidenced by stats and research.

It's not just an unsupported opinion.

[ChairOne]

34. LOL - I'll choose my own sides, thank you very much....

And you ain't on it.

Given the falsehood of your claim that we're on the same side, you are right in a certain sense: there are a lot of falsehoods that are a LOT easier to believe. For example, that the sun revolves around the earth.

It's easy to see that we're not on the same side, because, just to take one example, I don't believe in false moral equivalences.

Among other things: even if, contrary to fact, black people *were* bigoted against white people, um, they have a bonfide reason to be. Even counterfactually, there is no symmetry.

(I fully realize that some people, aside you, won't care for that example - cest la vie.)

[CTLawGuy]

38. blacks have a *reason* to be bigoted?

ok, maybe we aren't on the same side, as you say.

What are you after, equality, or the narrow self-interest of black people?

I happen to like equality myself. No one has a right to blame me for slavery because I happen to be white.

[DrWeird]

41. one could argue...

that oppressed people everywhere have just cause to be angry at their oppressors.

[CTLawGuy]

45. who is their oppressor?

a black man has a right to be mad at a racist landlord who tells him an available appartment is not for rent.

But the black man does not have the right to be mad at me, because my skin color is the same as the landlord's.

It's fine to be upset at people who are actively causing discrimination, and to try to change them. But it's not ok to lump everyone who has the same skin color in with them.

that's how racism started in the first place, judgements on skin color.

[HamdenRice]

47. No it isn't

You wrote: "that's how racism started in the first place, judgements on skin color."

Actually it started in an institutional and economic setting -- slavery -- not because individuals made judgments.

[DrWeird]

48. White racists.

i.e. republicans. And since most white men vote republican...

[ultraist]

65. They are some of the main perpetrators but...

I, as a white person, am a member of the power holder group and I have been granted advantages due to the color of my skin. Therefore, I am complicit on some level, (unless I have lived isolated from society).

It's not an either/or situation. There are varying degrees, gray areas, a number of power dynamics, and generally, there is more complexity to this issue than some seem to be capable of understanding.

I have come to the conclusion that both the "reverse discrimination" argument and the overly simplistic "racism is racism and it's equally bad regardless who is discriminated against" argument are fine examples of pre-conventional reasoning.

[ChairOne]

55. Utterly ahistorical PoV. How you could think.....

.... we were on the same side is beyond me...

[CTLawGuy]

61. what do you want me to say

that I caused slavery and racism?

I don't get it.

[ChairOne]

70. It's true - you don't. See post #16. /eom

[ultraist]

133. Try this one on

You apply for a bank mortgage for a home loan. You are approved. A black man, with the same income and credit history applies for a loan for the same amount and is denied.

Does it seem reasonable that the black person may have some resentment against those who hold the power and reap the benefits of the powerholders because of their membership in the powergroup or their complicity?

I think it does. Do you resent Bush and Repukes because they are power holders and active participants in this particular power group?

BTW, the bank loan example happens frequently. This example was based on factual info on the inequities blacks face obtaining bank loans. The term for this is: "red lining" Stats are readily available on this, if you care to factcheck it.

Keep in mind, that owning property is the main vehicle in which people transmit wealth (be it a large or small amount). Blocking an entire race from this opportunity has multigenerational effects.

When landlords break Equal Housing Opportunity laws, it's generally called, "steering."

[CTLawGuy]

141. good post!

it IS reasonable that black people would resent those who denied him loans. But it is not reasonable to resent those who are only getting the fair consideration that everyone deserves, including the black people.

I resent Bush because of what he believes and what he does. I don't resent Ann Richards simply because she is also from Texas, or because she is also white.


Racially based denial of loans is a problem, I agree, and it is wrong. but I don't hate people who DO get loans, just because others don't. I hate people who CAUSE THE PROBLEM.

[ultraist]

149. You don't resent those that benefit from Bush's policies?

You are really missing the point.

Have you ever considered the terms: 'accessory to a crime,' 'harboring a criminal,' 'obstruction of justice' and what the spirit behind these are, the idea that being complicit does matter?

[CTLawGuy]

153. I resent those who are complicit

not those who are loosely tied to the criminals by an immutable characteristic.

In order for me to resent someone who did something to me, they have to actually DO something, not be an innocent bystander.

[DrWeird]

155. People who want to scrap Affirmative Action...

are complicit with the crime of institutionalized racism.

[ultraist]

159. Those who are complicit, like those who accept the loans and keep

the institutionalized racism alive by being the benefactors? Those that are members of the power group? If the power group didn't have supporters, they would lose their power.

Along those same lines, "A leader is not a leader if there are no followers."

[CTLawGuy]

167. you're right

we should not accept loans from racist banks. But you can't blame people if they don't know what is going on.

[ultraist]

169. You've just stated that the benefactors are complicit

for the record

Ignorance is an excuse to be racist?

[CTLawGuy]

171. benefactors who aided

a racist bank, which they knew or had reason to know was racist.

However, everyone who gets a loan is NOT complicit.

[ultraist]

189. So...

By your logic, ignorance is an excuse to break the law.

To reiderate what you said: If a benefactor knew the bank redlined, then they are complicit. But, if the benefactor didn't bother to educate himself, he is not complicit.

Okey dokey! I'll keep that line of "reasoning" in mind, next time a cop pulls me over. Do you think he will let me out of a ticket for an expired tag, if I plead ignorance? "Gee officer, I didn't know that I was supposed to renew my tag." :eyes:


BTW, people don't take loans involuntarily.

[Tomee450]

91. But what you seem not to

understand is that much of what you perceive as bigotry of black people is a reaction to the sustained discrimination that they continue to suffer. You really seem to think that black people should not be unhappy with having to endure many indignities simply because of their skin color. Sometimes they react out of anger. Why make such an issue over a slur utter my a member of a minority group, when members of that group are having to endure not only racial slurs but much more. You need to really think about what you are saying. Perhaps if you read David Shippler's book A NATION OF STRANGERS, Taylor Branch's PARTING THE WATERS, RACE MATTER by Cornel West, DEATH AT AN EARLY AGE by Jonathan Kozal,or some of Stud's Terkel's books your eyes would be opened. I mean no disrespect but you do seem to need some enlightenment on the issue of race.

[CTLawGuy]

126. I believe people must be held to the same standard of

conduct if we are to convince people that blacks and whites should be considered equal. Anything less than that undermines that idea.

[ChairOne]

196. Of course - ahistorical unaccountable white folks typically agree...

... now that an entire race has been brutally subjugated for 100s of years, we should just call it "pau" and let everything continue.

I suppose Jesse Jackson had the most picturesque example:

Where is the fairness, in a 100m race, if one person has weights on his feet, and you take them off 1/2 way thru, and let the race just go on?

But that's *precisely* what (lots of/most) white folks want to do.

In case my usage of the word "ahistorical" is confusing, consider the "darboy response": But the weights are off *now*, so what's the big deal?

And the example assumes, just for the sake of argumnent, that the weights in fact *are* off.

White folks have an interesting notion of "fair".

[ultraist]

143. Kinda like the "happy" dancing mimes who had to paint their faces white.

Or the "well kept slaves" who lived in the big house. (Both are examples of the insideous yet powerful forms of denial that are typically seen in an argument that employs a lower level of moral reasoning).

That is exactly the undercurrent I detected in his argument too but I couldn't place my finger on it!

[HamdenRice]

23. No we don't

Actually there is relatively little discussion on DU of the serious racial issues -- voting rights, educational inequality, criminal justice. And almost no discussion with participation by people of color with first hand experience, which tends to be shouted down or outright censored by the moderators.

By raising these trivial issues, you are helping to confuse the issues of prejudice, which is lamentable, with racism. One involves individuals unenlightened views or behaviors; the other involves systematic societal discrimination, injury, exclusion or oppression.

And what on earth would cause my way of thinking to fall apart? You have no idea of what "my way of thinking" is.

[CTLawGuy]

29. your way of thinking

hinges on relative social powers of the different racial classes.


Blacks can't be racist toward whites because whites have all the social power -correct?


But what happens when you lok at racism and sexism and homophobia together? How do you measure social power when you combine social groups around such issues together?

When a black hetero woman calls a white gay man a "fag", does she suddenly come into league with heterosexual white men to wield social power, whom she also is at odds with?

Or does the offensiveness of "fag" depend on the race or gender of the person saying it?

[HamdenRice]

44. Well, that's a relief ...

You have demonstrated you have absolutely no insight into "my way of thinking". The entire idea that you can size me up like that is, in itself, insulting, but what the hey, the entire thread is obnoxious.

Can a black person be racist? In an black run institution that discriminates against a white employee, yes. But you can see that the opportunities for this will be rare, compared to the converse.

And I agree with ChairOne that we are not on the same side. I cannot imagine anyone who believes that there are not social forces and alliances and classes that benefit from social structures being on my side.

It's like believing that the environmental crises, such as air pollution and global warming are caused by individual who don't value the environment rather than by economic institutions and organization.

Your ideology will dictate solutions that cannot actually address the problem. For example if all racial problems are a result of individual choices and prejudice, then you cannot justify statutes like the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, or any other of the heretofore successful civil rights measures that took history, present institutional practice and social and political organization into account to promote change. I suppose that to address voting disenfranchisement, you would have to talk to each county voting registrar to discuss his individual prejudices. Absurd.

[CTLawGuy]

52. umm

"Your ideology will dictate solutions that cannot actually address the problem. For example if all racial problems are a result of individual choices and prejudice, then you cannot justify statutes like the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, or any other of the heretofore successful civil rights measures that took history, present institutional practice and social and political organization into account to promote change. I suppose that to address voting disenfranchisement, you would have to talk to each county voting registrar to discuss his individual prejudices. Absurd."

You can regulate individuals as a group. We do it all the time. There's a difference between believing a group is a singular entity and believing it is a collection of individuals though.


Example, there is one murder law. If a person commits murder, he is punished, not his entire social group. Just because the law doesn't punish his enitre social class, doesn't mean it's impractical.

Similiarly, you can tell election workers not to disenfranchise blacks. If any one of them do, they are breaking the law, and that person is held accountable, not EVERYONE in his or her social class.

My way of thinking does NOT make civil rights laws impractical. Whether I talk to people about indivdual prejudices doesn't matter, you can't break the law, and if you do, you get punished.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

58. A murder is on a small scale, that is comletely different.

A murder is a crime against one person committed for a specific purpose against that one person. It's a one time thing. It lasts a moment. How can you seriously compare that to the plight of the black community???

[CTLawGuy]

63. Im not comparing it at all

please read carefully before posting.

Im explaining how laws can be applied to a group of individuals rather than an entire social class.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

67. Ok, then to be precise, it is an invalid example.

That is like trying to tell me you can survive a 1000 foot fall because you once saw someone fall off a step. The ability of one to be done does not in any way mean the second could be done.

[CTLawGuy]

101. I'll bite

how are laws punishing individuals for murder different than laws punishing individuals for discriminating against black people?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

104. Because discrimination happens a million times a day, and sometimes

people aren't even aware they are doing it. Tell me, how do you prove someone who chose the white man out of two equally qualified candidates discriminated? Or hell, even if the black man was more qualified, how would he know he lost the job to a less qualified white man? He just gets a call that says "no thanks".

Don't you get it? It is so embedded in our society, a law going after individuals can't stop it. A teacher constantly punishes a black child for doing the same thing a white child gets away with. Or she never calls on the black child because she assumes he is wrong. How do you prove that she did anything wrong? This goes on all over the country, hundreds of times a day. How can every case be looked at?

[CTLawGuy]

121. every case can be looked at

if there are many people watching.

Our task is to teach people WHY it is wrong to discriminate, and change their thinking.

You're right discrimination can be hard to prove, but it's not impossible.

We must push the prinicple that racial discrimination is wrong, that blacks and whites should be treated equally, and we must recognize what we have in COMMON as human beings, that we are all children of the same God (or nature if you prefer).

Society is a group of individuals. There are millions upon millions of white people, many of whom have NOTHING in common with other white people (besides skin color). They certainly don't function as a singular unit.

Racism hinged on individual choices, yes, those choices were spurned by societal pressures. but society does not bleed, or breathe, or sleep. Society needs its individuals to do their things. Society changes as individual people change their thinking, and then they change others, and then the new ideas spread. Society reflects the balance of ideas of its individuals. So, society may be split, not of one mind.

The key to changing society is changing PEOPLE and their actions.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

123. Cases against discrimination ARE filed when they can be proved.

But all the dirty looks and the hate speech? Even if you can prove that, you can't do anything about it. Or are we going to just do away with the first amendment?

[CTLawGuy]

127. sadly,

hate is going to exist. But it should be spoken out against and not given the force of law.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

129. What about the discrimination that goes on every day that can't be proven?

Or that is based on geographical problems? White families don't want to live near black families. What are you going to do? Force them?

[CTLawGuy]

the only way to take care of that

is education.

You can't force people to live where they don't want to, but you can help black people to get ahead.

You can encourage black entrepreneurship, and work to fund black schools, you can end the drug war to make our streets safer.

We have a responsibility as liberals to help people who need it. A more prosperous black community is a more prosperous America.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

144. So...pretty much black americans are out of luck until whites get educated

?

That sucks! Good thing you're not black, huh?

[CTLawGuy]

146. so whats the alternative

screaming at white people about how they are the evil oppressors?

Yeah, they'll listen...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

148. So...making whites uncomfortable v. screwing over black americans?

Hmm...

Think...think...think.

Yeah, that's a toughie.

[ultraist]

177. LOL!!! Yep! It's hard work...

I think we are dealing with an argument that employs preconventional moral reasoning.

http://www.elizalawson.com/uva/final%20CHAPTER%20II%20final.doc

Levels of Moral Development
Kohlberg articulated a stage theory of moral development that identifies three successive levels of moral reasoning: Preconventional, Conventional, and Postconventional (Appendix B). While some researchers take issue with Kohlberg's methodology and conclusions, challenging his criteria for ranking an individual on an ascending scale of moral development (see Gilligan, 1982, 1993; Langford, 1996; Skoe & Gooden, 1993; Walker, 1990), there is considerable evidence that individuals do progress through a universal and sequential series of moral development levels (Kohlberg, 1974; Rest, 1983; Turiel, 1966).

According to Kohlberg's theory, these three levels signify successive changes in an individual's understanding of concepts of justice. Moral reasoning can be described as the progression from an egocentric perspective (what is in it for me?), to an ethnocentric (what is in it for my people?), to a societal perspective (how does it affect everyone?) (Berkowitz, 1991; Narvaez, 1993; Parikh, 1980). From seeing oneself as the center of the universe, with one's own needs and safety paramount, Kohlberg believes that individuals make fundamental shifts in their perspective, causing them to (eventually) see others' lives as equal to or even more important than their own. Achieving the highest level of moral development involves a fully empathic understanding of others and a willingness to take one's legitimate place in relation to others. While movement through the levels of moral development is an invariant sequence, unaffected by culture, religion, or gender, individuals move through the stages at varying rates and may cease progressing at any point.

[DrWeird]

154. The ones who aren't closet racists listen.

Unfortunately, a good proportion of them are.

[CTLawGuy]

160. this process takes time

of course. With laws enforcing equal treatment and education, we can go on our way to an equal society.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

162. Yeah, they've only waited 400 years, what's 100 more, right?

[CTLawGuy]

170. what would you do about it

besides sitting around attacking me of course?

What would quick fix the problem?

Im waiting with baited breath.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

172. Well, I know that complaining that whites are persecuted isn't helping.

For starters.

And I know that trying to pretend white and black americans are on equal footing is counter productive.

For starters.

All that does is rally whites together into a "me too" thread, like yesterday's "My son blah blah blah" thread.

[CTLawGuy]

175. for starters

I don't complain that whites are persecuted

and I believe blacks and white should be held to an equal standard of conduct if we are to communicate the idea that ideally whites and blacks should be equal.

way to not answer my question :eyes:


What would you do, still waiting?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

179. I'd go back to Affirmative action as it was meant to be and was

for about 2 days before Reverse Racism cries rang loud.


And lol at the "way to not answer my question". How many replies did it take to pull the affirmative action response regarding Dr. Weird's question out of you?

[CTLawGuy]

180. because he wouldn't tell me what he meant by

"Affrimative action as it is practiced today."


I dunno why I talk to you people.

I guess Im masochistic :)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

182. "you people"?

Compassionate people? Empathetic? Realistic?

[DrWeird]

190. "race traitors"

usually.

[DrWeird]

165. Ignoring the problems won't help anything go faster.

This is one of those cases where you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution.

[kwassa]

138. Are you a libertarian?

The great error in libertarian thinking is that society is all individuals. Society is as much groups as individuals, as we humans are social animals. Most of us live in families, or other social organizations. That is a group, and that is a functional unit. White people function as a singular unit when it comes to privileges enjoyed by being the default and dominant culture.

Racism does not hinge on individual choices, but group dynamics, with one group oppressing another, and all its members required to go along. I am sure that few Southern whites felt it safe to individually oppose slavery in the 1850s. Fewer and fewer blacks felt it safe to vote after the Compromise of 1877, even though they recently got the right to vote.

[CTLawGuy]

140. what about the

quakers who helped slaves escape on the underground railroad? And how do you explain how the abolitionist movement started if society is so powerful and individuals so powerless?


and yes, I have libertarian leanings. I believe in solving problems by empowering individuals, and I believe that government has a role in doing so.

[DrWeird]

158. Quakers and other abolitionists were the vast minority.

Most whites, including Lincoln, were perfectly happy to accept slavery in return for a Union, even after the war broke out.

What that has to do with anything, I haven't the foggiest.

Looks like that false dichotomy thing again.

[CTLawGuy]

168. then they were a POWERFUL minority

because slavery was eventually gotten rid of..

you do concede that there is no more legal slavery in america, right?

[DrWeird]

173. Not really.

Freeing of the slaves was almost an afterthought to the Union. It almost didn't happen.

[CTLawGuy]

178. then how the HELL did slaves get freed???????????

NT

[kwassa]

183. 600,000 men died, that's how the slaves were freed

I don't even understand your Quaker argument.

The war was started by Southerners who overreacted to a false concept of the power of the abolitionist movement in the North.

[DrWeird]

187. His argument...

is the false dichotomy that either white people are horrible, or white people are wonderful. Since white people freed the slaves (nevermind who enslaved them for 250 years) that means white people are wonderful.

[kwassa]

191. I think his argument is a libertarian one, that we are all individuals

and through free will and our personal volition we are not responsible for anything but our own actions, and have no responsibility as members of a group.

This is a classic libertarian argument, and is totally false, as we are all members of groups and make various compromises in our personal desires and needs in order to remain members of these groups, with the benefits that association with these groups bring.

This is why Darboy is hammering so hard against treating white people as a group, because of his libertarian leanings, I think.

[kwassa]

193. duplicate post

[DrWeird]

186. Plenty of them ran for it.

Others got free when the North beat the South, and part of the surrender deal included a freeing of the slaves.

Of course, the North wasn't fighting the South over slavery, so the slaves got lucky.

[ultraist]

192. HOW DID THE SLAVES GET FREED? OMG!

You think they freed themselves? OMG, haven't you ever heard of the Emmancipation Proclamation?

Dude, you need to brush up on your high school level US History.

The Emancipation Proclamation
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

[ultraist]

185. No, the white power holders eliminated slavery

Not only did they need more soldiers to fight on their side during the Civil War, there were economic implications. They wanted to maintain their status as the economic center and needed to disempower the South economically. The best way to disempower the South economically was to eliminate slavery.

This way, the North could create their union and not be threatened by the little ole, economically disempowered southern states.

The Slaves did not free themselves. The Emmancipation Proclamation was written and instituted by the white male power holders, and not because they were afraid of abolotionists or slaves uprising and gaining power. In fact, there were very few slave uprsisings in this country.

Did the slaves rise up, gain power, and free themselves? What revisonist history book did you read that in?

PRECONVENTIONAL MORAL REASONING

[kwassa]

181. Quakers are a GROUP of people

and who ever said individuals are powerless? Individuals are far more powerful when they align with a group that shares their interests, like say, the Democrats, or the Classic Ford owners, or their industry lobby, or their church or their sports clubs.

But group oppression is real, and group responsibility is also real, regardless if your family never held slaves, white families held black slaves, and whites as a group have a responsibility that derives from that.

[ultraist]

166. Not to mention institutionalized racism or insideous forms of racism

[ChairOne]

60. LOL - that's actually one aspect of current day racism....

... If a black person commits murder (better: is convicted of murder), the entire race IS punished. Not so with white folks.

It's not symmetric.

[HamdenRice]

66. They are not comparable, and your response proves my point

For example we are not investigated for murder unless there is a murder. The Voting Rights Act places certain restrictions and rules on voting authorities whether they have been judged guilty or not. Similarly the Fair Housing Act regulates behavior regardless of whether the person has been individually adjudged to have violated it or not.

Your position does not recognize societal discrimination -- only discrimination by individuals. Your ideology would not enable us to take pro-active measures to change group behavior because you yourself said you don't recognize the existence of group behavior.

[ChairOne]

71. Nice way of putting it...

Dovetails nicely with the ahistorical point of view.

[CTLawGuy]

131. murder laws most certainly place restrictions on those who aren't

judged guilty of murder,

those laws bar them from murdering people! It places restrictions and rules on people's conduct (whether they can murder or not) whether they are guilty or not, just like the fair housing act does with discrimination.

[ultraist]

108. It's the preconventional argument: reverse discrimination

that omits power dynamics.

[Tomee450]

73. Yes, indeed

and it's sickening. A black person hurls a slur. That's wrong to be sure but it has no effect. On the other hand, a black hearing the word "nigger" coming from a white person has reason for great fear. Even today, in some small southern towns an African American who is called a nigger by an angry white person knows he may be in a lot of trouble.

I've been called a nigger and so has almost everyone in my family. We were taught to not make an issue of it, to ignore the slur. Imagine the level of racial tension in this country if black people were getting as enraged as some here every time a white person called them that slur.

[ultraist]

194. Not just small southern towns

My black son knows to be on alert when he is called a "nigger" in that in he may well be in immediate danger. Any one with an ounce of environmental awareness, street smarts, whatever you want to call it, understands this. It's code for: 'step back, know your place or ELSE...BAD things may happen.'

That word carries a lot of power.

[ClassicDem]

21. Yes it would be ok for anyone to use racial slurs.

Bigotry is a fact of life and people need to get over it, because it's not going anywhere.

[CTLawGuy]

24. bigotry is hard to get rid of

but we have a moral duty to try the best we can. We know bigotry's destructive power, and we should not perpetuate it.

[ClassicDem]

28. it's impossible to get rid of

because it runs deeper than skin color, religion or sexual preference. bigotry is also based on ideology and as long as people disagree it will exist.

[MsTryska]

26. would it be okay

for a black infantryman to call iraquis sand n*ggers?



my opinion is NO.



why are we having this discussion exactly?

[CTLawGuy]

31. I am trying to explore and

challenge the way of thinking of some people by expanding the issues.

Some people guage offensiveness based on the relative social power of the perp and victim. But what happens when you combine dimensions?

[MsTryska]

32. offensive is offensive

but i think it's one thing when you're among friends and y'all go back and forth and revel in the offense, and another thing when someone you have no history with is doing the talking.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[merh]

36. Taking offense to referring to Gannon as a gay prostitute

is the same thing as folks calling dems that opposed Condi's nomination as racists or anti-feminists.

Yes, she is black and a female but that was not why she was opposed. She was not qualified for the post. Gannon solicited gay men and he is not a journalist, but a shill planted by the admin and the GOP.

Stop twisting the issues.

[CTLawGuy]

39. huh?

I didnt say anything about gannon or condi? How am I twisting the issues?

[LynnTheDem]

40. No.

Racism means ANYONE insulting ANYONE ELSE'S race.

It doesn't mean only whites insulting blacks.

It includes blacks insulting whites, Asians insulting blacks, and little green martians insulting the man in the moon.

Period.

[ultraist]

49. Racism includes: xenophobia and POWER asymmetry

The POWER component is critical to consider.

Without the power differentiation, there would not be oppression. If racial groups had equal power, one group would not have control over the other.

Racial slurs are never "good" or "right" but when the power holders use it against the disempowered, marginalized group, it carries more weight and a different message.

This dynamic of power differentiation is also within the architecture of sexism, classism, and homophobic based oppression.

[CTLawGuy]

57. im interested in what you think

of my third scenario where the straight black woman calls a gay white man a "fag".


would the word be more hurtful if it were a white hetero woman? What about a black hetero man?

[ultraist]

74. Yes, there are gray areas, you are not considering the power dynamics

If the perpetrator is a member of the power class (whites, straights, males) the dynamics are different and yes, the word would carry more power and meaning.

Power dynamics in one on one social interactions and on a societal level are very relevant. For instance, if you lured and talked a 12 year old into having sex with you, (an asymmetrical relationship), you would be charged with a crime. But, if you talked a 22yo into having sex with you, you would not be charged with a crime.

Or consider a psychiatrist having consensual sex with his patient. This is not only unethical, it is illegal due to the asymmetrical relationship. POWER, symmetry or asymmetry, DOES MATTER.

[CTLawGuy]

115. good thoughts

but you aren't suggesting adults and children should be treated equally, and you aren't suggesting doctors and patients should be treated equally, are you?

If you are suggesting that people of different races should be treated equally, you must do so, otherwise you reinforce the idea that they are UNEQUAL. I realize the history faced by black people, and they have every right to be mad at hearing the N-word, to be mad at being treated unequally. But, unless we emphasize treating whites and blacks equally, (holding them to equal standards of behavior) we will never reach that ideal in reality.


here's an example of why equal treatment is a good idea despite history...

There are two sisters, one married an abusive man, and the other married a loving man. The abusive man beat his wife continuously and senselessly. The loving man treated his wife like a queen.

Now, is it less wrong to beat the woman who had never been abused by her husband, than to beat the woman who was constantly abused?

Does the woman's history of abuse matter in calculating the morality of beating a woman? Or is it just plain wrong to beat women, period?

[ultraist]

195. Reverse discrimination argument: preconventional moral reasoning

Black and white thinking that does not going beyond an egocentric viewpoint or allow for gray areas; disallows for complex analysis.

I was emphasizing power dynamics in relationships since you seem to refuse to acknowledge these exist. This has nothing to do with children's rights issues. Your attempts to confound the issue are not working.

Equal power between blacks and whites does not exist. (Racism does exist).

And to answer your question about the one on one relationship, yes, it would be more damaging to the abused woman to be beaten again. Have you ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Your comparison is apples and oranges though. The man is the perp in both examples. Set it up with the man as the perpetrator in example A and the woman as the perpetrator in example B. See what you get.

Regardless, yes, both cases of beating are "wrong" but there are gray areas and varying degrees of damage.

Sorry, things are not that black and white or absolute. There are complexities and gray areas.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

54. Why would this come up except on a very limited scale?

Are you trying to say an Asian calling a black man a nigger is as bad as a white man doing the same? Asians are not the majority holders of power, and they have no ties with that word historically.

Why are you keeping this discussion going, by the way. Nothing is going to change from yesterday. THis will be just another flame war.

[Tomee450]

111. Exactly!

[Tomee450]

62. I am African American

and I am beginning to wonder about the motive of people who keep creating these type of threads. It almost seems as if some people want to find justification for slurring black people. Bring in Asians, Hispanics, Whites, none of the slurs hurled at such people have the power to hurt as the word "nigger."

Many people here have pointed out to you and others that racial slurs are wrong. However you seem to think the word "nigger, one of the most demeaning slurs of all, is not more harmful than a different slur directed at members of another group. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. White supremacists use that slur when they attempt to intimidate black people. They also hurled it at the writhing and burning bodies of black people being lynched. All racial slurs are wrong. However, all racial slurs do not have equal effect.

We seem to have more and more threads in which some people feel whites are being put upon. I wish it was possible for such people to live as a black person just one week. At the end of that week they'd have an entirely different attitude about the life blacks lead in this country.

Despite the attempt to imply that oppression is meted out equally in this society, not one person who feels so put upon would want to change places with an African American.

[CTLawGuy]

64. not denying the

horrible experience of african americans, just exploring a point.

[ultraist]

197. Yes you are!

You are anti affirmative action, (as it stands), even though you DODGED Dr. Weird's questions on this and have been pushing this reverse discrimination argument on every thread that discusses racism.

Look, I know the white code language very well having grown up immersed in it, being white. You are not fooling anyone. I can smell 'me a mile away as can people who have the least bit of street smarts.

People who are pushing the reverse discrimination position should peddle their goods elsewhere because we are not interested in buying them. Let's just say, a fish smells from the head down.

Let's not forget that this is a Democratic forum.

[HamdenRice]

68. Tomee you are right ...

There are basically three purposes to this ludicrous kind of thread:

1. It gives certain white people license to use the word nigger -- but in a clinical, third person sort of way, such as, "can an Asian call a black person a nigger"?

2. It rallies a certain kind of racial conservative group to say, "poor, poor white people -- the tables are turned and reverse racism is sooooo bad."

3. It confuses prejudice with racism, thereby trivializing racism.

You may want to take a look at the commentary in the DU African American Group which has a kind of running commentary on this nonsense.

[Tomee450]

116. Thanks, I'll

take a look at that forum. I agree totally with your comments.

[ClassicDem]

69. If nigger is so offensive

why do blacks use it? I think your taking the stance that nigger is more offensive than other words because of your personal experience. If you lived in a village in Vietnam during the 60's and soldiers came and raped your women, murdered your children and napalmed your village I bet dimes to donuts you would think Gook was the most offensive word.

[HamdenRice]

72. I know this is terribly hard for you to understand ...

but we are not all the same! Isn't that a staggering idea? Yes, corporate sponsored rap thugs do use the term, but when was the last time you were having dinner in a black family's home when they started throwing the N word around?

Well, I guess I should have asked whether you actually ever had dinner with a black family.

[ClassicDem]

78. Fair enough

then why are you only focusing on white people saying the word nigger? I have not seen a single post of yours denouncing when blacks use the word.

[HamdenRice]

82. Show me one instance, just one ...

one these boards when black people have used the word? Remember, my criticism of the fascination white people have with the N word has been about the use of the word on these boards.

Just list one post where a black person has used the word in the way you are suggesting.

Oh, wait a minute! I forgot! You already know we use it all the time!

<edited>

[DrWeird]

89. It's not racist when black people say "nigger."

It is racist when white people use it.

Duh.

[ClassicDem]

90. thank you.

proves my point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

94. Yes, black americans always use that word to keep themselves scared and

oppressed...
dates back to history when the black slaveowner would....oh..

[DrWeird]

95. What point are you trying to make?

You're not being very clear.

[ClassicDem]

98. My point is it's not the word

that is offensive it's the color of the mouth it comes out of.

[DrWeird]

102. But it is the word.

If a white person says "African American" instead of "nigger", it's not automatically offensive.

Your argument, as evidenced below, is that "'nigger' is only racist, because black people are being racist against white people; they get to use it all the time."

And that, my friend, is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard ever.

[MXMLLN]

164. It is offensive, in part, ...

... because of the circumstances (slavery and oppression) in which it originated. It is a degrading word which was used against slaves by their enslavers and oppressors.

It's use, by the apparent descendents of slavers and oppressors ... brings to life those past scenes.

Blacks can get away with its use (to a greater degree) ... because their usage does not conjure up such past injustices.

[jeffrey_X]

202. You are certainly no "classic" dem...that is for sure....

Anyone looking to have a serious debate on this topic has respected the word with quotes or the like.

You throw it around with no problem, no quotes. It says a lot.

[ChairOne]

75. Why do white people seem to love this question so much?

The eternal dichotomy for white people: either black folks are fucking idiots, or else "nigger" isn't all that bad.

lol

Of course there just CAN'T be anything more nuanced going on...

btw - To exactly what does "ClassicDem" refer? A time period? If so, which?

[HamdenRice]

77. LOL nt

[ClassicDem]

80. My point is it's not the word

that blacks find offensive it's the color of the mouth it comes out of.

[HamdenRice]

83. Like the Irish don't ...

call each other Mick, but get insulted when others use the term? Or that Indians don't call each other Chaddah, but will fight you if you use it? Or Italians don't use the word WOP with each other?

Come on, you're not even serious about not understanding this issue.

[ClassicDem]

87. My point is it's just a word

not one is more offensive than another and for someone to stand up and say nigger is more offensive than gook, kike, mick, spic or wop is bullshit.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

92. Can you squeeze in any more racial epithets?

I still don't get your point.


Well, actually I do, I just don't agree with it.

[HamdenRice]

99. Hi Semi his point is

how many times can he use the N word in one thread!

[Tomee450]

128. But the

truth is that the word "nigger" IS more offensive because of the horrible history attached to it. Given that history, why would any white person want to use it? The fact that some misguided blacks use it should not even be considered. Most blacks do not use it, however, and frown upon its use by a few black entertainers. I wonder if the reason for pointing out that blacks use that slur is that some individuals really would like to use it and are seeking an excuse to do so.

[ChairOne]

85. Maybe that's what you *want* your point to be......

.... but that's NOT the point of the question "If "nigger" is so offensive, why do blacks use it?"

But as to your new claim (let me know when the goalposts stop shifting) - it's just false. There are a number of white folks out of whose mouths I would accept the word.

Just so there's no confusion - you're not one of them.

[ultraist]

199. Oh, right, blacks are racist against whites, that's the real problem

To restate what you said, Blacks are racist against whites, that's the real problem and that's what makes the word "nigger" offensive.

OKEY DOKEY!

As a white person, I have not found blacks to be racist against me. Socioeconomic data does not show whites to be the victims of racism.

[hfojvt]

134. see my post #84

and the Vietnam war, first of all, was a war, and second of all lasted maybe from 1960 until 1973. Slavery lasted from 1620 until 1863 and further involved aparteid-like conditions until 1970. Not much of a comparison is there?
And in my view, every time someone uses that word, or types it, that the hand of god has come down and stamped "moron" or "asshole" on their forehead.

[ultraist]

198. We don't live in Vietnam, do we?

What is your point? That cracker is just as harmful as "nigger?" Give me a break, especially in Cary NC, an 85% white community, 7% Asian & Middle Eastern.

Oh, right, blacks are just paranoid.

These threads are beginning to look like cyberlynchings. That cracker thread for instance was amazing. This is what went down: It's noted that a white boy PHYSICALLY takes a ball from a black girl, but virtually NO ONE mentions that this is inappropriate behavior, but the lynchers jump on the bandwagon to take down the black girl that reacted by using a vernacular word claiming it is a racial slur! LMAO!!! The same word that Lawton Chiles uses to describe himself. THAT is what happened on that thread.

Fortunately, there were some sane voices that posted.

[jeffrey_X]

201. Because it has a different "meaning" when used...

in different situations. Can you really not comprehend this???

If you call your friend dickhead when joking around, it is certainly different than a complete stranger calling you dickhead in a threating manner.

[LiberallyInclined]

100. 1. that's up to the black person to decide.

IMHO.

2.a) why would a black person call an Asian the N-word?
b) i'll have to abstain, since i'm not familiar with the incident.

3. a) sure, if there's a good reason.
b) not applicable.

[davidinalameda]

105. bigotry by any other name

still sucks

[CBGLuthier]

113. I find that the word asshole

Goes a long way towards describing people who I have a need to insult.

It's gender neutral, not insulting to any sexual preferences, and no reflection of race.

And I swear to god if anyone googles the word n***** (without the *'s) they are going to find DU becaus it has been used almost 100 times in the past two days.

How anyone can even force their fingers to type that fucking ugliest of words is beyond me.

And yes, nay-sayers, it is the most hateful of racial slurs.

[Riding this Donkey]

119. Why do threads like this get hundreds of posts? ex. The cracker one??

[oasis]

124. We'll see how many more pop up in the coming weeks and months.

[Karenina]

184. Darboy is back!

:evilgrin:

[eek MD]

200. Insults based on race, gender, orientation are wrong, period.

I don't care who you are, insulting someone because of what wrapper their body comes in is wrong. Anyone who believes insults of this type should be justified by anyone, let me know so i can ignore you......

You all can argue till you're blue in the face about which insults are "worse"......i'm gonna stay out of it......
I feel it's like asking "is it worse to hit-n-run a child, a middle aged adult, or a senior citizen".......
One may be hurt more than the other by the car, but they're all still hurt.......and hitting-n-running is wrong no matter which one you do it to......
=)

[kk897]

203. can I tiptoe in here to offer my own pale perspective?

My response to people who feel that white people can be affected in the same way as black people by various epithets or other forms of discrimination:

"Gee, payback's a bitch, ain't it?"

OK, so maybe I have white liberal guilt. So sue me. But I kind of think that white people today have a karmic debt to pay off to those who have been oppressed (and further, those who have been, institutionally, murdered in mass numbers without thought to their humanity).

After reading this whole thread and giving up on the "cracker" thread 'cause it's so darn long, a couple of analogies popped into my head. Take them as you will (or won't).

If you were offered the cure to a disease you suffered from, but it turned out that the cure was based on research that Nazi scientists carried out against Jewish people in concentration camps, how would you feel?

You like that delicious ribeye steak...how do you like it when you know that the cow was killed in a grizzly way sure to cause pain and suffering?

Whether we like it or not, our entire culture is built upon the tortured backs of millions. Whether we recognize it or not, white people DIRECTLY BENEFIT from this torture to this day. Damn right I feel guilty about it! Damn right I'm going to bend over backwards to try not to add to this horrible karmic debt! Damn right I'm going to do everything I can to never, ever forget the past so that I, personally, can work toward not repeating personal mistakes.

I hate having an unjust advantage, one that I don't deserve, one that comes because I'm pale enough to have it, one that comes as a result of hundreds of years of misery and anguish, one that comes because white people continue to not understand their advantage.

So, if a Black person insults me, if a group starts a riot and loots the homes of the wealthy, maybe my own home, yeah, that'd be a drag. But payback's a bitch. From a theoretical standpoint, I'm sort of a "burn, baby, burn!" kinda person, I guess.

Does anyone remember this commercial for house paint that was around in the early 70s when I was a kid? This is how I remember it. There's the paint salesman, and a couple comes in and says, "I want redwood," and the salesman starts mixing it up. An old lady comes in and says, "I want seafoam green." (don't remember exact colors). Then a Black man comes up and says, "I want black." The salesman says, "Black? Why do you want a black house?" The customer replies, "because Black is beautiful," and gives a Black power salute, modified.

[Moderator]

204. Locking

Lots of flaming in this thread.