Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mayor's Income, TN
    Posts
    8,989
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    I think you misunderstood my point. I don't really care about what the bigots think. I care about their ability to use things to further their bigotry. It is not about appeasement. It is about not validating their claims. Having a word that is considered racist when some people say it be considered familiar when said by other groups, justifies their claims of double standards.
    Yeah, I get what you're saying. We just disagree. That the "double standard" bigots concern themselves with along lines of race is the in-group v. out-group social appropriateness in the use of a word is enough in itself to invalidate taking them seriously.

    That this is the racial "injustice" they focus on and get worked up about tells you everything you need to know. And not that I'm making an argument about the appropriateness of in-group usage (it's really sincerely not my place to say or debate to have, IMO) , but the leveraging of this argument by people has a remarkable way of burning through all the subterfuge quite quickly and clarifying where someone stands.
    Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    16,145
    Quote Originally Posted by PopeyeJones View Post
    Sincerely curious: What is it about that line that makes you think he should be punched in the face? What is it that you're interpreting it to mean, particularly in the context of the verse?

    The "n*****" in that line is being used to be synonymous with "people." In the context of the verse he's just saying that he couldn't have imagined he'd be wealthy enough to be paying other people to do yard work for him.

    It's a dime-a-dozen observation in rap lyrics, and really doesn't stand out in any way at all.
    If you want to contort yourself in those mental gymnastics, go ahead.

    I give you a 7

    “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” -Gandhi

    Rational skepticism is not the same thing as being a conspiracy theorist.

    Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream. -Muggeridge

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,430
    Quote Originally Posted by PopeyeJones View Post
    Yeah, I get what you're saying. We just disagree. That the "double standard" bigots concern themselves with along lines of race is the in-group v. out-group social appropriateness in the use of a word is enough in itself to invalidate taking them seriously.

    That this is the racial "injustice" they focus on and get worked up about tells you everything you need to know. And not that I'm making an argument about the appropriateness of in-group usage (it's really sincerely not my place to say or debate to have, IMO) , but the leveraging of this argument by people has a remarkable way of burning through all the subterfuge quite quickly and clarifying where someone stands.
    A couple of points.

    1. The issue isn't really about the bigots per se. It's about how the bigots are able to shape the debate. I'm not referring the hood wearing racists here. I'm talking about the garden variety bigot of which there are many. And I am referring to how the influence the overall discussion and how it affects the perspectives of others. I don't think it is smart to simply discard them and say "Who cares what they think?" because lots of people do. Many of these people hold positions of influence.

    2. I don't understand why you think it is not your place to say or debate this subject. This isn't some paternalistic finger waving exercise. It's a discussion about the impact of language on society.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mayor's Income, TN
    Posts
    8,989
    Quote Originally Posted by tyke1doe View Post
    I agree. When blacks use it in a commonplace fashion, it makes some whites feel more comfortable using the term.
    Do you mean impossibly dumb white teenagers trying to be cool, or people with actual hate in their hearts? For the former I have no doubt that this happens, but for the later, they've been using the term since long before any AA ever tried to reappropriate it, and if that changes I'd be SHOCKED if they weren't using it for long after.

    FWIW I can see the argument both ways: as a word that demeans AAs that they shouldn't use, and as a usage that saps the word of its power (like women lovingly calling each other b!tch, LGBTQ folks using f*g and queer as terms of endearment, etc). Wouldn't advocate for either one being "right" (in any of these cases), but I can at least understand where both sides of the argument are coming from I guess.
    Last edited by PopeyeJones; 02-12-2014 at 02:33 PM.
    Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mayor's Income, TN
    Posts
    8,989
    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    If you want to contort yourself in those mental gymnastics, go ahead.

    I give you a 7

    Or you could just answer the question...

    Out of all rap lyrics, what in the world about the line stands out to you and makes you want somebody to punch him?
    Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    43,621
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    It's a discussion about the impact of language on society.
    Right, and rightly or wrongly, the concept is to 'own' the word. So, forinstance, there are now annual 'slut' walks. They want people to feel uncomfortable using the word. They want to rub societies' face in the word.
    "the blade itself incites to violence." - Homer

    --

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - Kung fu Monkey

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,430
    Quote Originally Posted by PopeyeJones View Post
    FWIW I can see the argument both ways: as a word that demeans AAs that they shouldn't use, and as a usage that saps the word of its power (like women lovingly calling each other b!tch, LGBTQ folks using f*g and queer as terms of endearment, etc). Wouldn't advocate for either one being "right" (in any of these cases), but I can at least understand where both sides of the argument are coming from I guess.
    But there is a difference between the use of the N bomb and b!tch or F@g. Neither of those terms carry nearly the same societal weight as the N bomb. Terms that more closely approximate that term would cvnt and f@ggot. and the fact that the only one of those terms that's treated like it has some sort of evil magical power and cannot be uttered by non-blacks is the N bomb.

    And beyond that those terms are not used ubiquitously by those groups. You won't see a gaggle of women tossing around the word b!tch as a handle to talk to each other. They use it precisely because of its power when used maliciously. The same with gays using f@g.

    You DO see that among a subset of African-American youths. Their pervasive use of the word turns into a meaningless handle to interact with each other.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,430
    Quote Originally Posted by CalgaryHawkFan View Post
    Right, and rightly or wrongly, the concept is to 'own' the word. So, forinstance, there are now annual 'slut' walks. They want people to feel uncomfortable using the word. They want to rub societies' face in the word.
    I'm all for that. But that isn't what is going with the use of the N bomb. There are effectively two entirely separate meanings of the word*, depending on who said it and what their skin color is. One is an every day word used in normal conversation by one group and the other is a word word so hostile that it can create violence. IMO, this deepens the racial rifts in this society rather than weakens them.


    * - Obviously there are more than just two meanings for the word depending on tone and inflection and context but all of those meanings still fall into those two broad categories.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mayor's Income, TN
    Posts
    8,989
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    A couple of points.

    1. The issue isn't really about the bigots per se. It's about how the bigots are able to shape the debate. I'm not referring the hood wearing racists here. I'm talking about the garden variety bigot of which there are many. And I am referring to how the influence the overall discussion and how it affects the perspectives of others. I don't think it is smart to simply discard them and say "Who cares what they think?" because lots of people do. Many of these people hold positions of influence.

    2. I don't understand why you think it is not your place to say or debate this subject. This isn't some paternalistic finger waving exercise. It's a discussion about the impact of language on society.
    1. Not everyone need be taken seriously. Even not every person in a position of power need be taken seriously. If, on the topic of racial inequality, someone is TRULY worked up about the "inequality" of it not being socially appropriate to use a word that that wouldn't use anyway, then whatever. Fugg 'em. How many layers of kids gloves does it take to play stupid enough and gently explain to them how friends get to say things to each other that strangers don't, and that basic social decency is predicated on not using deliberately hurtful terms to belittle people about their background? It's just dumb and I personally think the game of taking it seriously is a distraction, not something to cater to. If someone insists on playing stupid, I'm totally fine with treating them as such. I dunno.

    Part of my stance on this is also predicated on the belief that 99/100 people who leverage this bumper sticker talking point DON'T actually care. They're just playing stupid. On the internet we call that trolling. This too is just trolling. And the same lesson of not feeding trolls applies offline and online.

    For my money the clue is in that no amount of facts, figures, data, peer reviewed findings, government reports or interdisciplinary consensuses will EVER convince these people that racial inequality seriously effects life chances. They're simply too bigoted or disinterested to care , and this talking point ain't much more than a boilerplate expression of that disinterest. It's like the white guy who, to derail the conversation, feigns as if he was truly hurt and made to feel socially, politically, and economically inferior by that black comic whose name he can't remember who used the word "cracker" on Def Comedy Jam 25 years ago. It ONLY ever comes up to derail a conversation about stuff that actually matters, and never once has been brought up as a grievance that's worthy of talking about in itself. It's just distracting b*llsh*t, and IMO is best treated as what it is.

    2. Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to imply you were finger-waving at all. I'm just stating a personal stance, not trying to argue that my personal stance is the morally just or right one. My take on that word is that it's kinda none of my business what AAs choose to do with it or how they choose to police it. When I taught HS I didn't allow it because it fell under our rule of thumb for all language in the classroom ("this is the place where you learn the skills to be ready for a job interview, and practice being on a job interview"). That's in the role of a teacher, though. Basically, as it's not "my" word I don't think it's my place to say, the same way me and the rest of my community of Jewish friends would tell a non-Jew to go fugg himself if he tried to lecture us on being self-hating for messing around with each other and making yid puns or whatever (although of course if it was an older Jew who lectured us we'd be apologetic and horribly embarrassed; not because we agreed with him, but just because we respect him and as a Jew he has the right to have some skin in the game of how younger Jews interpret and express their Judaism). I dunno. Not saying everyone should feel that way, but does it make sense how someone could feek that way?
    Last edited by PopeyeJones; 02-12-2014 at 06:06 AM.
    Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mayor's Income, TN
    Posts
    8,989
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    I'm all for that. But that isn't what is going with the use of the N bomb. There are effectively two entirely separate meanings of the word*, depending on who said it
    Which could also not be more true for b!tch, slut, f*ggot, c*not, kyke, homo, *****, etc., etc., etc.

    Do you think in-groups reappropriating these words also causes rifts on society? I'd argue that the rifts were and are caused by people using these words hatefully and to discriminate, not by people who have been targeted for that hate flipping them into in-group terms of endearment.

    Of course not saying this is or is not the optimal strategy ;) (IMO within each affected community folks have to decide for themselves) but I just don't think this form of coping/reappropriating/what have you CAUSES discrimination. Basically, me and my buddies hanging out and making yid puns doesn't CAUSE antisemitism, antisemitism exists regardless of what Jews do (we can NEVER be good enough to satisfy the antisemitic, regardless of what we do). Instead this is our RESPONSE to antisemitism: we'll love each other with that thing they've tried to hurt us with. And f***, even as a Jew with the occasional sophomoric yid pun among other Jews I don't know if we're doing "right."

    (just an acknowledgement that I'm using a sh!tty example, as being a U.S. born Jew of my generation I can count my personal experiences with antisemitism with one hand, and I'd be quite surprised if it ever affected my life chances as it did for my mother's and granparents' generations).
    Last edited by PopeyeJones; 02-12-2014 at 06:11 AM.
    Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    37,619
    N*gger.
    "There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything."

    - Richard Von Weizsaecker

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.