Stevie said:
No, that's being a snowflake demanding whites to not use a word. No matter how you twist and turn it, it always boils down to freedom of speech, in this case also coupled with racism.
The thing is, UNLIKE many other white countries, in America institutional racism was reality, a couple of decades ago. There were laws limiting blacks freedom, considering them slightly above animals in many situations. So I would not use "whites" as broad word, it is solely about America, but also I think is okay penalizing the word, a tiny fix after what these people had to live through.
Now I disagree with minion when he considers being called fa**ot as hate. Sometimes it can be, indeed, but I woulds say in the majority of situations people just want to insult you, so they choose the one they think it damages the most. I've been called hundred of times fa**ot in heated discussion yet I have no idea how looks an anus from close view.
dammit, sal. ya snaked me... and after reading your last sentence, i realize that might not be the best choice of words.
@ artu:
i understand what you're saying; i get the other side of the argument. and you're right: the word is not illegal. but that doesn't mean that people aren't getting fired, or losing credibility or whatever, over using it. there are consequences, where none should exist, over the simple use of a word. context no longer applies, when it doesn't matter HOW the word is used. people are still catching hell for it; and it's ridiculous. it's one thing to be racist; it's another to just use a word at will. if i use the word "scalpel", or "forceps", or even "stat", does that make me a doctor?
same applies for the n-word. i use that word all the time; it doesn't have any racial connotation attached to it. i called my sister's white cat the n-word in front of her black boyfriend while i was trying to fish it out from under a recliner, so it wouldn't get caught in the hinges and under-mechanisms. my sister's boyfriend knows i'm not racist; he damn well knows i couldn't give a snow less, what color anyone is. same thing with the f-word for gays: i use that word all the time, and i have no problem with homosexuals whatsoever. i don't care WHAT people snow, let alone WHO, as long as they're not procreating; and it's consensual. people could snow watermelons that they paint black and call the n-word, and i couldn't give less of a snow. it's their perogative.
and that's the issue: when you're attempting to control someone else over the use of a WORD, you're wrong; no matter what. telling me what i can and can't say(especially being, that it's directly against a snowing AMENDMENT in our constitution), is outrageous. if people think i'm callous for using whatever language, then let them think that; maybe i AM callous(and i don't give a rat's ass if i am, tbh). but i'm NOT racist, OR homophobic. and yet, people want to control what i and others say, because they judge me based on what i say, and by my skin color, and by my sexual orientation.
THAT is what's racist and/or discriminatory; NOT the use of words.
chris rock is ok, but you should check out doug stanhope. he's my go-to for comedians. bill burr comes in a close second, but only because he apologizes for some of the stuff he says(trying to find a medium in mixed crowds). doug stanhope? he's off the rails. he's the only comic i know of, who can say whatever he wants, because the snow he makes jokes of, will offend most people. which tends to keep the wussy snowflake bozo's away.
fred, seriously, NO ONE cares about what you call your sisters cat when you are pissed - as no one cares whether I call my neighbor'd dog subhuman.
But when I greet SAL with, hey, SUBHUMAN - because he comes from Romania and is not Aryan - things become a twist, and while I CAN say it (of course), as you can call someone the n-word, things might get ugly this or that way, and for good reason: the guy you called the n-word might have living relatives who (look at what artu said), and Sal might have relative or know people who had them who ended up in concentration camps or gas chambers or died in the war or were killed in some way in relation to that.
Things - and words - have a HISTORY. I mean, think about this: In German Gentleman is "Herr" and Lady is "Dame". There are adjectives "herrlich" and "dämlich", and herrlich means wonderful and dämlich means stupid/silly.
No one thinks about that when using the words, but they STILL have a history and the picture they draw isn't too cool.
That doesn't mean you can't use them. It's just an example, that a word isn't just a word, and the n-word certainly isn't one. There are lots of those and - sure, use them.
But don't complain when you find yourself lying on the floor or in court, when you do, because life in a society isn't just about YOU and YOUR rights, but also about everyone else and THEIR rights.
jj, no one cares regardless. no one who matters, anyway. if anyone wants to get physical over my use of a word, it'd be their mistake. i wouldn't be the one "lying on the floor", is what i'm saying. because i carry a gun, cupcake. and enough ammo to handle a group of people, if need be. but that's worse case scenario, and the chances of that happening is next to moot; because i haven't had a confrontation on foot in over a decade.
lastly, "going to court"? how would i go to court, if the words in question aren't illegal? you forget, PEOPLE'S rights are covered in our Constitution. that some dumbasses are giving people a hard time over their use of words(and that people are giving in to these ridiculous demands and actually HELPING to give people a hard time over the use of words; not to mention the companies that are throwing the Constitution out the window in favor of these bozo's, and all in the name of PROFIT), is the issue. NOT anyone using the words themselves. THAT'S the problem; that you don't get that, tells me your head isn't screwed on straight. give it a couple turns, then get back to me.
Idiot isn't a forbidden wort either - you just can't call people that way. If people feel offended, they can sue you, especially in the paradise of suing, the US of A, and especially when it's a clear case (witness) and you use the n-word.
It's simply case closed.
Of course, if you shoot a guy, who was understandably upset by you calling him the n-word and wanted to beat you up for it, your case of self-defense will suffer from a severe provocation blow (use of the n-word).
just drop it. i'm never going to agree with you on this, because you're wrong. no matter what you say regarding this, or how you try to word your racist and sexist pov's on everything we ever discuss, you're still wrong. there is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise, because you're wrong. get it through your head, jj. just like i will never reach you with common sense and logic, you will never reach me with your feelings.
How racism/equality (or the use of related words) is handled nowadays has long gone past the point of actual social justice in many cases. It's not about common sense anymore, but about how these arguments are used to move the balance point to ones favor.
Salamandre said:
The thing is, UNLIKE many other white countries, in America institutional racism was reality, a couple of decades ago. There were laws limiting blacks freedom, considering them slightly above animals in many situations. So I would not use "whites" as broad word, it is solely about America, but also I think is okay penalizing the word, a tiny fix after what these people had to live through.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. The level of ignorance in this thread. It really does show how much work you need to do.
There was 100% institutional racism in France right up to the 20th century. Any Arab in your army was a 2nd class citizen but a lot more than in just your army. France is one of the most racist countries in Europe (and definitely more racist than the United States). Trump is a setback but we at least don't have our heads in the sand about it. You most certainly do.
Today, Finland might be the most racist towards blacks in Europe, although self-reported polls can be difficult:
I wonder whether you are too stubborn or too dumb to understand that there IS such a thing as offensive language and that offended people should have a non-violent option to get compensation.
If there wasn't, things would derail to name-calling fast.
That said, arguing with the likes of you, fred, is a waste of time anyway and I should simply avoid that.
JollyJoker said:I wonder whether you are too stubborn or too dumb to understand that there IS such a thing as offensive language and that offended people should have a non-violent option to get compensation.
If there wasn't, things would derail to name-calling fast.
That said, arguing with the likes of you, fred, is a waste of time anyway and I should simply avoid that.
derail to name calling? you mean like calling me stubborn and dumb?
no, jj, arguing with the likes of you, sir, is a waste of time. your kind don't even see your own unthinking hypocrisy(and it is so VERY unending!); so how in the hell are you supposed to see from anyone else's pov? if you truly want to reach people, then try seeing from THEIR pov for a change. but you won't; you'll just parrot whatever narrative is popular in colleges, ghettos, and websites/blogs, where the offended butthurt is at an all-time high. i wish you could sit back and observe yourself and others like you, the way i and others like me, observe your kind. we are vastly different, you and i. and while you'll say that was a good thing, i would say the same, myself.
BB, there is no french or European equivalent to Jim Crow laws. There are no french laws, this or past century, making any distinction between human races, please show me one. I wonder why are you so eager to ridicule yourself. Is not for peanuts that "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" is the motto originating from the French revolution, then Human rights Declaration from 1789 is the first document setting equal rights to all citizens, regardless gender and race, and solely based only on their abilities, virtue and talent.
As for "most racist" countries being in Europe, please, is not like the most bloodthirsty ethnic cleansing are not actually fought in Africa, with full scale genocides - Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Congo and so on. Or Maghreb countries where if you don't bow to Allah, the law prohibits you to marry who you love.
When you have hundreds of millions of blacks striving to join and remain in white christian countries (42% of 25-40 yo Africans declared they want to move to Europe), the racism narrative you and yours alike constantly push to show us how virtuous you are, make no sense whatsoever and remain a fantasy.
My gosh. I literally feel like I’m talking to a child.
There isn't an exact equivalent to Jim Crow laws in Europe because Europeans were the SELLERS in the Triangle Slave Trade and they were the COLONIZERS in building wealth. Belgium didn't need Jim Crow laws when they could just commit genocide in Africa from a safe distance.
The descendants of slaves and the remnants of Native Americans LIVE on American soil. That is why American history has been unique and it also contributes to inequality and violent crime.
What actually matters is what minorities are saying RIGHT NOW, and right now it is clear that your country has a lot of problems when it comes to racism, and part of that is because white French (and other white Europeans) have implicitly bigoted and racist attitudes and they always have had implicitly racist attitudes.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
Salamandre said:Is not for peanuts that "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" is the motto originating from the French revolution, then Human rights Declaration from 1789 is the first document setting equal rights to all citizens, regardless gender and race, and solely based only on their abilities, virtue and talent.
The human rights declaration was not a document enforcing laws, it was a philosophical set of principles set by some humanists of that age, who wanted to extend secularity and the French "enlightenment" to the rest of the world. Women could not vote after the French revolution and that revolution sent them back to their place if you will allow me the expression.
If it was a document with law repercussions, there would have been no France in Algeria starting 1830, with all the dead it hath brought.
Moreover, Napoleon reinstituted slavery and if it was not for the Blacks who revolted in Haiti, slave plantations would have started again on the western part of Hispaniola.
I agree that France had it sometimes easier with some people who were not French, but that remains a case by case approach. The British were chummy with the Egyptians and Omanians, yet the relationship between them and other colonies in Black Africa was a humanitarian disaster.
The real human rights decalaration is the one that came after WW2. That really changed some things.
____________ Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
I saw a great video on Youtube all about white fragility, this is a proven tendency of white people to get incredibly defensive and spam lots of generic tropes whenever they invite themselves to start discussing racial inequality, lol
Quote:In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they "were taught to treat everyone the same," that they are "color-blind," that they "don't care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted." They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more "salient" issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term "white fragility" to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged - and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it?
Blizzardboy said:What actually matters is what minorities are saying RIGHT NOW,
First you come and claim there is/was institutional racism in France, now that I challenged you to link such laws, present or past - YOU used the word "institutional", you back down to rumors as "what is being said" by minorities, and "it is clear". Well, is not clear to minorities as they continue to come. Is in your head, the reality shows the opposite.
And btw, I wasn't criticizing the racism in America, I was only explaining, and there are dozens of analysis from USA mainstream going in that direction, both left and right, that using the word n* is not okay, BECAUSE of Jim Crow laws and what was before. Thus is not a matter of freedom of expression, as there is a heavy context behind, unlike in other parts of the world. To which you jumped with France this or that institutional racism nonsense. The reality is that for any people on earth, of any color, the optimal place to have the best opportunities, jobs, future and destiny, is actually in those white countries you bash out of hate. And they know it.
We didn't see many jews immigrating and becoming famous into the 3rd Reich, right?
I had some uni work to do, so I couldn't listen to it with the due attention, though I admit it was an interesting listen, I actually agree with her a lot on some issues, since I too started to question how denying our racism is actually effective.
It's something that I always considered when trying to avoid offense by calling black people as "People of color", as if white is the right color, and they, the colored (which was actually another derogatory term during slavery I heard) have the wrong color.
Yet people don't perceive this as more racist than just saying brown or black, we don't take offense ourselves to being called white, so with a color, but at the same time we assume that describing another's person's skin tone is offensive.
While calling it white fragility is bound to irk people, it's not a farfetched concept, it's true, whitey fears being called out as a racist, whether he consciously is or not, hell, I fear being called one in a public setting despite being a massively prick (by today's societal standards) in my private life.
And I like how her critique isn't aimed just at the average American, progressives too suffer from this problem (and are the most affected) and she outright says it.
Too bad I'm not part of the audience it's aimed at, I already embraced my inner racist so I don't care about mending racial relations, I'll just treat each filthy barbarian on a case to case basis... Dunno if that qualifies as true prejudicial behaviour.
Still, thank you for the link.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
verriker said:I saw a great video on Youtube all about white fragility, this is a proven tendency of white people to get incredibly defensive and spam lots of generic tropes whenever they invite themselves to start discussing racial inequality, lol
And now I'm wondering...
So the point of proving this tendency leads to what? Well other then proving a point ofc and discussions on the matter? That whites should let go of this defensive mechanism which originates in their "head start" position (because European nations were the first to colonize most of the world) and change the dynamic so that other races can, like, take over? Let go in the name of what, social justice? I don't think anyone in this same position would want that... no one wants to let go of their privilages. If our world evolved in a different manner I think today we would be discussing something called, for example, "black fragility"
Besides, sooner or later Earth will start to overpopulate, and all of todays logic will be turned upside down.
People talking about "white fragility", when they want to stop people using a word because it hurts the feelings of fragile people who cry about anything. Oh, the irony.
This thread is pages long: 
posted February 08, 2019 08:04 PM
