[Mr. November]

for the record, i do agree with easyskankin, to an extent.

Yes you could say something like "that female" and mean it with the same malice as "that bitch". Intent does matter, but not everyone is going to agree with you on that, and you shouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't. Also if intent is everything when using a word than is it really that hard to substitute a word that most of society would see as vulgar or hateful with something much more acceptable?

[zion the lion]

God this was a clusterfuck

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by EasySkankin

And you sound like you hit people when you strongly disagree with them. Of course you're lesbian, of course.

Way over the line. Way, way, way over the line.

[David87]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

Way over the line. Way, way, way over the line.

Not only that, he missed the perfect opportunity for a Chris Brown joke

[EasySkankin]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

Way over the line. Way, way, way over the line.

She did essentially the same thing. The quoted text was for demonstration, not my actual thoughts.

Originally Posted by Derka Derka

for the record, i do agree with easyskankin, to an extent.

Yes you could say something like "that female" and mean it with the same malice as "that bitch". Intent does matter, but not everyone is going to agree with you on that, and you shouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't. Also if intent is everything when using a word than is it really that hard to substitute a word that most of society would see as vulgar or hateful with something much more acceptable?

I'm not surprised. If someone is angry because I say niqqa, that's their prerogative. If they think that makes me racist, then that's ignorance and oversensitivity on their part (not to mention irony, imo).

In professional settings, obviously I wouldn't use it, not because of its perceived racial connotation, but because of the informality (But outside of work, my boss and I can say anything to each other, cause daz mah niqqa). For everyday use though, trying to conform people's language to fit what is PC to some is Orwellian, to say the least. I for one think the way we use these words is a sign of progress that should informally be promoted. The racial tag is trying to slip off the word, but the only ones keeping it on are these PC nazis.

[caveBEAR]

this thread in the past two hours.

[ChaplainTappman]

Originally Posted by EasySkankin

She did essentially the same thing. The quoted text was for demonstration, not my actual thoughts.

I'm not surprised. If someone is angry because I say niqqa, that's their prerogative. If they think that makes me racist, then that's ignorance and oversensitivity on their part (not to mention irony, imo).

In professional settings, obviously I wouldn't use it, not because of its perceived racial connotation, but because of the informality (But outside of work, my boss and I can say anything to each other, cause daz mah niqqa). For everyday use though, trying to conform people's language to fit what is PC to some is Orwellian, to say the least. I for one think the way we use these words is a sign of progress that should informally be promoted. The racial tag is trying to slip off the word, but the only ones keeping it on are these PC nazis.

Do you even know what Orwellian means? Unless anyone in this thread is a member of some omnipresent oppressive regime, the term doesn't really apply. There is a stark difference between members of a society objecting to the use of slurs and a totalitarian regime that forbids dissent.

The racial tag is not being kept on by "PC Nazis" (again, you're using a term that doesn't apply here at all). If that was the case, then the well-documented cases where black men use the N-word amongst one another but get offended at white person using it wouldn't exist.

The argument that the words should be allowed to evolve out of their current meanings is a valid one and one I, personally, think has a lot of merit. But throwing around words like "Orwellian" and "Nazi" because people don't like it when words that (currently, whether you like it or not) have racial or homophobic connotations get thrown around like nothing is not doing you any favors and just makes you look silly.

[crackedthesky]

"The things I say don't necessarily reflect my own thoughts nor what the words actually mean."

-EasySkankin

[birdman]

I tried looking for a clip of that scene from Matrix Revolutions when he is in the train station and that program explains how he loves his daughter and Keanu was like "whoa" and the program explains that love is just a word, it is the meaning behind the word that makes it powerful or something to that effect.

That movie sucked.

[birdman]

In any event, I don't use words like the n-word or the f-word because I can't think of a situation where it is necessary to talk like that, not because I am afraid of offending people.

If I feel that strongly that I need to use a word like that to hurt somebody then that is a problem I have to deal with.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by EasySkankin

And you sound like you hit people when you strongly disagree with them. Of course you're lesbian, of course.

All the lesbians I know are quite kind. I haven't heard of any epidemic involving violent lesbians, did I miss something?

[birdman]

Originally Posted by iseethesun123

Lol EasySkankin probably thinks the Holocaust was justified.

I was at a friend's house a few years ago about to watch the season premier of Lost. There were a bunch of people there including my girlfriend at the time. Anyways, he tells me that there was this kid coming over that I had never met, and that he has very strong opinions regarding whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.

This surprised me because this group I was hanging out with consisted of relatively smart individuals so I couldn't understand why they would hang out with someone so stupid. Here is how that conversation went:

Friend: "The thing about Todd is, he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened."

Me: "Oh, so he didn't go to school or something?"

Friend: "No, he went to school."

Me: "Why are you telling me this? Do you think it is likely to come up tonight?"

Friend: "He has very strong opinions about it."

Me: "So he's dumb or something? Or is this the thing he does to get attention?"

Friend: "He's actually a really nice guy."

Me: "I don't care, I already don't like him."

My Girlfriend at the time: "You haven't even met him, don't judge."

Me: "I don't need to meet him, I'm just gonna go ahead and judge him."

My Girlfriend at the time: "That's sort of dick"

Me: "I'll sleep fine tonight"

The kid never came over, but WTF!!! I can't judge people like that?!?!

[crackedthesky]

I wouldn't judge his entire person based on it, but it would leave a VERY bad first impression, and you know what they say about first impressions.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

But, you are missing a key component: It is not simply the power dynamic between you and me, for example, but between me, you and the societal racism that can be traced back to the founding of our country. Your formulation leaves a vacuum, whereas what I am proposing explains why it is that the power dynamic between you and I exists, how it is reinforced in the discursive norms that are considered acceptable and so on.


Well, the "hymie town" incident occurred before I was born and I was only six when Sharpton made his anti-semitic comments. If you are asking if I find those views repugnant, then yes; however, neither Sharpton, nor Jackson, hold any special place in my heart by virtue of the fact that they are "black leaders". In my mind, their political careers, while once progressive in a given the state of black America, have now degenerated into mere outgrowths of the DNC. By throwing their lot in with that mainstream political party, they've essentially given up any hope of substantively addressing the problems that afflict the black community. They forgot that it was Clinton who contributed most significantly to the expansion of the prison industrial complex with his tough-on-crime laws, that, in a system so built on anti-blackness, the parties that uphold that system cannot fundamentally redirect its priorities; anti-blackness, for the system and them is ontological, therefore that party is diametrically opposed to the visions of Sharpton and Jackson.

Ah, I've gone off on a tangent. That's my bad and what is worse is that we keep interrupting more relevant conversations are going on in this thread. Perhaps we should take this to the "Daily Racist Experiences" thread.

But before we do that, I feel the need to address anti-Semitism. And I do not want to engage in an oppression Olympics between blacks and Jews. As for antisemitism, it is a terrible ideology and should be rejected by any serious leftist. We should, however, take note of the fact that, after WWII and the Holocaust, Jews essentially became white; that is to say, the dominant culture subsumed them and they were conferred the benefits of white-skin privilege. They had to overcome a great deal and sacrifice many things that were once culturally significant, but they've done it.

Done. Quote me in the thread about racism, so we can stop derailing this thead.

Kind of skirts around the question, but whatever. As for the bolded, that is a pretty absurd statement considering Jews are still discriminated against all around the world. Maybe in the US Jews have succeeded, but why do you think that is? You would say it is because their skin is white. I say it's because they came here, educated themselves, busted their ass, and made a life for themselves. They didn't stand around complaining and blaming all of their problems on someone else.

[Love As Arson]

Originally Posted by imnotapunkhero

My logic: if it doesn't have racist intentions and the user isn't using it to be racist then it can't be racist. And gay originally stood for happy, not homosexual so using it does not make you a homophobe.

Other logics on here: gay was originally for happiness but it was allowed to change to ONLY be homophobic and if you say it, you have to be homophobic. But yet, other words such as the N word can't be changed and even if someone isn't using it for racism it still makes them racist.

Originally Posted by imnotapunkhero

This isn't my experience but my friend's. He puts words into his own meaning and doesn't use words for the same reasoning some others do. Anyways, he was at burger king and he uses the N word to refer to his friends in a jokingly way as being lazy or dumb. He isn't referencing them to blacks, he is just referencing them to lazy people (sort of how some use the word 'gay' to describe something stupid). His food was ready and his friend was supposed to get it but he just remained sitting down so my friend got up and jokingly said "you're such a n*****" and he went to get the food. A black guy over heard him and asked him who he was calling the N word. My friend replied that he was calling his own friend that. The guy then asked him if he thinks it is funny to be racist. My friend replied "I use the word to describe lazy people such as my friends, if you want to think I meant black people when I obviously was not talking to a black person then it seems to me you're the racist one, accusing me of trying to label it as a race other than jokingly label it as my friend". The guy got mad at his remark and punched him and they are not allowed at burger king.

Quote:

As a Privileged Person®, it is natural that you would feel excluded and frustrated by the recent spate of Marginalised People "reclaiming" historically negative words to refer to themselves.
Not only do these Marginalised People™ kick up a great big ole stink by making it "politically incorrect" for Privileged People® to use these words - even going so far as to have some of them defined under 'hate crime' legislation! - they take the insult one step further and use them freely amongst themselves!

This is very perplexing and annoying for Privileged People®, who can only stand on the outside, gazing wistfully in, wishing it were a simpler time when it was totally okay for everyone to call women whores, Mexicans spics, Trans* folk trannies, gay men ******s and people of African descent the n-word.

After all, who do those Marginalised People™ think they are, taking ownership of language traditionally used to oppress them! That just isn't playing fair!

But take heart, because there is a way you can worm around this one - where there's Privilege®, there's always a way!

First of all, you must feign utter cluelessness about the ins & outs of reclaimation and behave as though you were under the impression that in these 'post race/sex/sexuality/gender/etc times' that we had all evolved into a new era where 'words don't mean anything' and it's totally okay for everyone to use offensive slurs and then... well: use them.

When a Marginalised Person™ calls you out on it, become indignant. Express confusion. Demand an explanation. Say that you just don't understand - if you people use those words to refer to each other, why can't I?!

You see, you're implying that they're being hypocritical. That if they are going to use abusive & oppressionist language aongst each other, they simply have to accept that they're employing a 'double standard' by preventing the Privileged® from using them.

What this enables you to ignore is the reality of the power dynamic involved. Language reclaimation is a means by which Marginalised People™ gain back some power they are traditionally denied by taking control of words used to demean and discriminate against them. When these words come from Privileged People®, there is a long and very serious negative history behind them that cannot be divorced from the words themselves. Thus, when Privileged People® employ these words, they are perpetuating that history and the psychology behind the word. They are exercising oppressive power that have become inherent to those words - a power Marginalised People™ seek to subvert and dismantle when they use them.

Pretend not to understand this. Just continue to imply hypocrisy and pout that it isn't fair.

It also ignores the fact that, from within Marginalised Groups™, discourses around abusive language are actually not simple and there are many divided and varied opinions on the subject. Treating Marginalised People™ like a hive mind is always a great way to further subtly insult them and since the point of this entire debacle is to come out with as many notches on your belt as possible, you want to make sure you slip in as many knocks below their belt as you can manage.

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/