Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So you have no desire to tell people what they can think, but you will judge their reaction and tell people about it. That’s gibberish.

Seriously? The only reason I would ever voice an opinion on a subject is to control people?

How am I supposed to even communicate with you when you make up your own rules, ignore what I say, deliberately misinterpret, and generally refuse to act in good faith?

Your personal experience and indifference to racial abuse doesn’t invalidate other people’s reactions. It is just that simple.

It's hard to know how to respond, when I've already done so, numerous times. You don't like to read, you just like to say what you think.

As I said, people are entitled to their own emotions. I am neither interested in, nor capable of, controlling their emotions. I've already said this, but you elected to ignore it.

What I do feel entitled to, is an opinion on the appropriateness of people's emotions. I'm sure we can agree that some reactions are appropriate, and some are not. We both make those judgements based on whatever criteria we deem best.

You need to take a deep breath, and settle down before you post.

Wow. HOW DARE YOU try to control my thoughts? I read your incredibly thoughtful posts, and I was OUTRAGED by how frustratingly super-cool they were, and now you're trying to OPPRESS my reaction.

Or maybe not. It's sorta awesome that you managed to manufacture a false reality, and then STILL be a hypocrite in your own false reality.

When I wrote that post, I was not upset. I was thinking, as I am now, that you're simply unwilling to hear anything that undermines you argument, so I just decided to be as flip and unhelpful as you are. I was mirroring your debate style. I see you enjoy it just as much as I do.

Good job, Phryxis. Really, really good job.

Dude, what in the WORLD has given you the impression that you're even slightly credible? You're getting all put off that I don't take you seriously, when all you've done for a half dozen or more posts, is ignore what I'm saying, deliberately misread what I'm saying, and fabricate false viewpoints for me.

Now you're going to act shocked and offended that I think you're full of it?

Don't demand respect, earn it. Read ONE thing I say and respond as if you actually understood it, and see if you don't find my posts more respectful.

I’ll tell you right now in any workplace I’ve ever been in, if the boss was overheard saying ‘we just had trouble from these two bitches at the front counter’ there’d be the exact same reaction as the one given by the OP.

It's funny, I gave a recounting of EXACTLY the comparison I'm talking about, and you elected to ignore it, and instead find some other piece of the argument to pay attention to.

I described a situation at my workplace where men and women good naturedly mocked each other based on the common stereotypes of men and women.

I then asked the reader to consider what would have happened if a joke was made about black people eating fried chicken, or some other similarly banal racism.

I gave the context of my comparison, and you feigned confusion with what I could even mean. I repeated myself, and you decided to go back to an earlier post and talk about that.

But, because it's really not at all hard, I'll tailor things JUST for you:

Imagine your boss is on the phone with a difficult customer. He mutes the phone and says "hey, Sebster, I've got this bitch on the phone giving me problems, can you go make sure the warehouse is stocked up on strawmen?"

Compared to: "hey, sebster, I've got this n-word* on the phone giving me problems, can you go practice up on not reading what people post?"

Are you telling me that you'd be equally offended by both? Are you further telling me that you think the average Australian citizen would be equally offended by both?

* Please note that this was meant to be the actual n-word, but it gets filtered.

Listen, Einstein once said that the only cure for rascism is knowledge.

You can't just sue people to get them to correct their rascist ways.

I had an uncle in Milwaukee who was a rascist, well back in the 70s he say two black guys walking across a bridge in the opposite direction than he was. He said to them "Oh snowball, who gakked on you?" at which the two black guys threw him off of the bridge, this was during the winter, but the ice was thin enough to break when he hit it. He got hypothermia and guess what, he's still a rascist.

You can't fix this guy by suing him, bu suing him, you will prove a point in his mind about black people.

Another example in a vice wersa circumstance.

A white friend of mine was riding a public bus and trying to sleep while a black guy was watching "The Boondocks" on a portable dvd player at a high volume. Now, if you've ever seen or read this cartoon you know how often they do say the n word and this offended my friend who hates that word as well as me.

He asked him to turn it down and the guy began to get angry and called him a "white devil". The bus driver who was also white kicked off the bus.

This didn't fix the rasicsm this guy had, it only worsened it as he now has confirmation that "white devils" will kick him off of the bus.


And don't you dare bring up that slavery thing against me, my family dates back to the revolutionary war and lived in the north. My ancestors fought and died to free this country and later the slaves while slavery is practiced in other countries in africa where it originated.

The romans enslaved the greeks, the aztec enslaved the mayans, african tribes enslaved other african tribes, don't you dare use that whole "well your race wasn't enslaved so you couldn't understand" thing. For all I know my ancestors were at one point in time enslaved.

halonachos wrote:
The romans enslaved the greeks, the aztec enslaved the mayans, african tribes enslaved other african tribes, don't you dare use that whole "well your race wasn't enslaved so you couldn't understand" thing. For all I know my ancestors were at one point in time enslaved.

This is nonsense. Seriously, what are you thinking?

Don't you dare bring up the Holocaust, for all I know my ancestors may have been Jewish!

Be certain that you aren't inserting concepts into your language that are not necessarily evident from base text.

I feel confident that I am not.

Consider it from my viewpoint. I post things, repeatedly, sebster never once responds as if he actually read them.

You just posted something. You know what you meant. If I responded "so you're saying it's ok to kill black people!?!?!?" What would you take from that?

Would you HONESTLY say "wow, I must not have communicated my thoughts clearly..."

Or would you say "yeah, that dude's an idiot."

Cause I wouldn't blame you for assuming the latter. Sometimes peope just don't read what you write. And I'm not sure why you think anything sebster is saying has any basis in anything I've said.

That's a poor assumption. At best you should assume that your ideas are being attacked in an oblique manner.

You have a habit of saying things that are interesting, perhaps even thought provoking, but not overwhelmingly true.

If you're debating somebody, and they're floundering, it's a pretty good indicator that you're correct.

Certainly, it's PROOF of nothing. But it's a pretty good indicator.

It might be that you're just so damn annoying, they've lost their composure. It might be that they're distracted by a frustrating argument they had with their parrot, and can't concentrate on the debate. It might be, as I believe you're suggesting, that they're simply attacking your argument at a point you didn't anticipate...

But more likely, they just don't have an answer. For all the flaws in his reading and debate styles, sebster doesn't strike me as being stupid. I think that if a decent argument was available, he'd have found it by now. The fact that he hasn't implies that there isn't one.

Notice that's "implies" not "proves." But don't tell sebster. We're still telling him I've proven him wrong.

Don't you dare bring up the Holocaust, for all I know my ancestors may have been Jewish!

Well, are you involved with any international banking conspiracies? That's how I found out. I was attending a Bilderberger function, sipping a martini and laughing about my manipulation of the Greek financial crisis, when I said to myself, "in the name of Abraham, I must be Jewish!" Everyone laughed and patted me on the back. Even Mel Gibson.

Dogma, you missed the point I was trying tomake entirely. I never used the holocaust to invoke sympathy!

But seriously, I'm tired of that argument. A enslaved B so A owes B compensation even though its actually A's descendents who never enslaved anything.

The past is the past and I'm not sorry for slavery or the holocaust because I never owned a slave or ordered the mass extinction of a race of people.

I remember these events and I don't praise them or worship them, they fall under my "that sucks" catagory but I'm not going to apologize to someone who never suffered what they want to be compensated for. Its the same way I will never congratulate anyone who's ancestor did some amazing feat, I'll apologize for slavery when someone thanks me for freeing the slaves and fighting off the english.

That's the point I'm trying to get at, I thank a veteran for fighting in a war and I hate the criminal who murdered someone. I don't thank the vet's kid and I don't hate the criminal's kid. After all they didn't do anything.

Phryxis wrote:Seriously? The only reason I would ever voice an opinion on a subject is to control people?

How am I supposed to even communicate with you when you make up your own rules, ignore what I say, deliberately misinterpret, and generally refuse to act in good faith?

No, there are lots of reasons to voice opinions that are not in order to control people. You’ve gotten confused. I said the primary method of controlling people’s reactions is our judgement of their reactions. You misread this as me saying the primary goal of voicing opinions is to control others.

Go get a piece of paper and draw some Venn diagrams. It’ll become clear to you in short order.

What I do feel entitled to, is an opinion on the appropriateness of people's emotions. I'm sure we can agree that some reactions are appropriate, and some are not. We both make those judgements based on whatever criteria we deem best.

Yes, and saying that you don’t react the same therefore they shouldn’t, even though your family has a history of suffering racial bigotry, is a poor criteria.

Wow. HOW DARE YOU try to control my thoughts? I read your incredibly thoughtful posts, and I was OUTRAGED by how frustratingly super-cool they were, and now you're trying to OPPRESS my reaction.

No, the problem is you were presuming my post meant something it didn’t, then leaping three steps ahead and declaring my point obviously wrong. It’s something people tend to do when they get overly excited by a thread. Typing in capitals is another symptom of the same thing.

Look, I’ve done it before. We all have. It isn’t the end of the world, and it’s no discredit to you that you have. What you want to do is up to you, if you want to keep going, we’ll keep going. If you want to take a step back and post again tomorrow, then that’s cool. If you want to can it, that’s cool.

But if you weren’t angry, and you made that argument with a clear mind, then we might have a problem.

I described a situation at my workplace where men and women good naturedly mocked each other based on the common stereotypes of men and women.

I ignored it because it was a pointless comparison. Employees making good natured jokes towards each other is a wholly different situation to an employer using a racial epithet while angry.

When I was in local government they had this team building exercise, it was a finger painting thing, very lame but Planning Days always are. Everyone had to contribute, and a black co-worker, Jason, lined up and the lady doling out the paint smeared black paint over his hand. My mate asked how come Jason didn’t have any paint on his hand, he couldn’t see any paint on his hand. We all had a good laugh, especially Jason.

A joke, in jest, between two employees, is very different to a boss, in anger, calling someone a [see forum posting rules]. Do you understand the difference?

But, because it's really not at all hard, I'll tailor things JUST for you:

Imagine your boss is on the phone with a difficult customer. He mutes the phone and says "hey, Sebster, I've got this bitch on the phone giving me problems, can you go make sure the warehouse is stocked up on strawmen?"

Compared to: "hey, sebster, I've got this n-word* on the phone giving me problems, can you go practice up on not reading what people post?"

Are you telling me that you'd be equally offended by both? Are you further telling me that you think the average Australian citizen would be equally offended by both?

* Please note that this was meant to be the actual n-word, but it gets filtered.

In both cases I’d tell him right there and then not to use that language. In both cases, if someone else heard, was offended and wanted to take the matter further, I would be happy to sign a stat dec or testify that such language had been used, and was overheard such that it created a hostile work environment.

I expect the average Australian reaction would be about the same for both. That is, in most office environments in the city neither would be accepted. In a lot of country environments both would be accepted.

Again, though, because in amongst all the worrying that I was ignoring your post you seem to have missed my final reply to this line of argument, are you saying that because in your opinion it is more acceptable in society to say ‘bitch’ than it is to say ‘[see forum posting rules]’, that the answer is to make ‘[see forum posting rules]’ more acceptable? Surely the answer is that neither should be tolerated?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:You can't just sue people to get them to correct their rascist ways.

Sure. And you can't stop people's desire to murder by making it illegal. But you can discourage them from acting on their murderous desires, which has the real, practical effect of making life more pleasant for the rest of us.

Same goes for racism.

Actually, while the N-word is mainly meant as derogatory it is derived from the latin word for black. It's just that it was a popular word to describe black people at the time of slavery similarly to the way "negro" is used. Both of them derive from old languages (negro is black in spanish and niger is black in latin). They started out as definitions for black people, but the n-word later became negative.

Both are inappropriate in a professional setting, but may not necessarily indicate a hostile work environment. If an employer knows an employee very well then they may be more open in terms of their vocabulary.

Would you be offended if a person said "Man, I have this bitch who needs a sire." to you?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sebster, the point is instead of a rascist he'll just be a closeted rascist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the fact that people still commit murder doesn't say too much. The people who really want to committ murder are going to do it no matter what the law says and everyone who doesn't is going to obey the law. Laws don't necessarily do too much in this case.

Phryxis wrote:
Cause I wouldn't blame you for assuming the latter. Sometimes peope just don't read what you write. And I'm not sure why you think anything sebster is saying has any basis in anything I've said.

I think you're both talking past each other, and that you're both being needlessly aggressive. And that's coming from a drunk dude, because THE HAWKS WON!!!!

Phryxis wrote:
You have a habit of saying things that are interesting, perhaps even thought provoking, but not overwhelmingly true.

Things can't be overwhelmingly true. They are true, or they aren't.

Phryxis wrote:
If you're debating somebody, and they're floundering, it's a pretty good indicator that you're correct.

Certainly, it's PROOF of nothing. But it's a pretty good indicator.

Of victory, sure, but it does not indicate truth.

Phryxis wrote:
It might be that you're just so damn annoying, they've lost their composure. It might be that they're distracted by a frustrating argument they had with their parrot, and can't concentrate on the debate. It might be, as I believe you're suggesting, that they're simply attacking your argument at a point you didn't anticipate...

But more likely, they just don't have an answer.

Why are you dealing in probability when confronted with a specific instance? Why not just ask a question?

Phryxis wrote:
Well, are you involved with any international banking conspiracies? That's how I found out. I was attending a Bilderberger function, sipping a martini and laughing about my manipulation of the Greek financial crisis, when I said to myself, "in the name of Abraham, I must be Jewish!" Everyone laughed and patted me on the back. Even Mel Gibson.

Dog, don't get me started. After being made an honorary Jew by my Jewish roommate I was forced to suffer through many travails; ie. I suddenly became popular amongst the IA set.

You said:

So you have no desire to tell people what they can think, but you will judge their reaction and tell people about it. That’s gibberish.

Then you said:

No, there are lots of reasons to voice opinions that are not in order to control people. You’ve gotten confused.

Wow. You're so clear, how could I possibly have gotten confused?

Your first post implies it's gibberish to voice an opinion if you don't mean to control. Your next post says there are many reasons to voice an opinion besides control.

I'll have to appeal to dogma, drunk as he may be, to confirm that you make no sense.

Yes, and saying that you don’t react the same therefore they shouldn’t, even though your family has a history of suffering racial bigotry, is a poor criteria.

Allow me to repeat myself, as I so often do when talking with you. It was not presented a criterion, it's a demonstration of consistency.

I don't believe, for various reasons, that somebody many generatios removed from an event should feel traumatized by that event. To demonstrate that I hold myself to that same standard, I cited an example.

But, as I write this, and stop to consider it as a criterion, it's also not a poor criterion. It's actually a primary criterion. How should somebody feel in a given situation? Step one is to ask "How would I feel?" That's how empathy works. Perspective taking.

What criteria would you suggest that are better?

I ignored it because it was a pointless comparison.

The reason I framed it that way is to calm the situation down. When somebody is angry at a customer on a phone, they're already fairly far out of line. When they're using charged, aggressive language, they're already fairly far out of line. It's hard to calibrate when things are already so charged.

It's like asking if it's more out of line to stab a woman and say "bitch" or to stab a woman and say "take that!" Which is worse? I don't know, both?

So there's a reason I did it, and it's precicesly because I do understand the difference between jest and anger.

But then you say this:

My mate asked how come Jason didn’t have any paint on his hand, he couldn’t see any paint on his hand. We all had a good laugh, especially Jason.

I'll have to concede to your genuine Australian experience. Perhaps things there just aren't like they are here.

But I can tell you that this would probably not fly in the US. 9 out of 10 people would laugh it off, but there's always that 1 in 10 who REALLY took the programming, and they'll be off to the management to complain about the racism, and management, terrified of the race police, would probably do something to punish or "train" the "offending" speaker.

There's no question, Americans are flying rodent gak crazy about race. I just thought we'd imposed that insanity on the rest of the first world, especially those ideologically closest to us, which (I'm sure it offends you to say) would be the Australians.

Surely the answer is that neither should be tolerated?

My only goal to this point has been to establish that racist comments, especially against blacks, are held as far "naughtier" than sexist comments. I will have to defer to you on the Australian attitude on this. I'm surprised at your conclusions, but I can certainly assure you that the situation is different in the US.

From there, I would say that the level of tolerance, whatever it is, should be similar.

When it comes to setting that level of tolerance, I will defer to society in general, both because I have no say, and I don't really care.

Personally, I tend to like to leave people alone as much as possible, so if people want to say racist or sexist things, I tolerate it without too much concern. If I find the person irritating to listen to, I just won't spend much time talking to them.

Oh, I do love a good scuffle. Neither of you have been especially illogical, but you have both depended on aesthetics, which explains the entirety of your dispute.

dogma wrote:Oh, I do love a good scuffle. Neither of you have been especially illogical, but you have both depended on aesthetics, which explains the entirety of your dispute.

Dogma, this is the internet, and this way of debating should not be allowed on the internet.

halonachos wrote:Actually, while the N-word is mainly meant as derogatory it is derived from the latin word for black. It's just that it was a popular word to describe black people at the time of slavery similarly to the way "negro" is used. Both of them derive from old languages (negro is black in spanish and niger is black in latin). They started out as definitions for black people, but the n-word later became negative.

The journey of language is a strange one. While words have strange and often fascinating origins, it is a mistake to assume those origins have any relevance to their use in modern times. What matters is the context and shared meaning of the word in the environment in which it is used.

It would be ridiculous for a black American to take a job at a paint store in Spain and tell other staff they can’t call black paint by its Spanish name, negro. It would also be similarly ridiculous for a man in the US to call his black employee a negro, then explain that it isn’t offensive because the word derives from the Spanish word for black.

Both are inappropriate in a professional setting, but may not necessarily indicate a hostile work environment. If an employer knows an employee very well then they may be more open in terms of their vocabulary.

Given the level of distress of the OP, would you agree that the language in that situation was not appropriate?

Would you be offended if a person said "Man, I have this bitch who needs a sire." to you?

I would take it in the context of a person attempting to use obviously archaic language to gain some kind of reaction. I wouldn’t be offended. That has nothing to do with the language used by the OP’s employer.

Sebster, the point is instead of a rascist he'll just be a closeted rascist.

Which is a better state of affairs.

Also, the fact that people still commit murder doesn't say too much. The people who really want to committ murder are going to do it no matter what the law says and everyone who doesn't is going to obey the law. Laws don't necessarily do too much in this case.

You don’t think the law against murder reduces the murder rate at all? Even just a little bit?

Phryxis wrote:Wow. You're so clear, how could I possibly have gotten confused?

Your first post implies it's gibberish to voice an opinion if you don't mean to control. Your next post says there are many reasons to voice an opinion besides control.

No, my first post doesn’t imply that it’s gibberish to voice an opinion unless you mean to control someone else’s. My point was that it makes no sense to say you don’t wish to control something, then say you simply want to use the primary means for controlling it.

Especially when use of that thing exerts a control whether you want to or not.

I'll have to appeal to dogma, drunk as he may be, to confirm that you make no sense.

If you’ve got trouble figuring my posts out then good luck with Dogma’s.

I don't believe, for various reasons, that somebody many generatios removed from an event should feel traumatized by that event. To demonstrate that I hold myself to that same standard, I cited an example.

As I alluded to, though, it isn’t enough to reduce it down to simply those specific events, generations ago. You have to look at everything since, and look at the socio-economic conditions of the different groups today. An ethnic group that still has very high levels of unemployment and much lower average incomes is obviously going to be more sensitive to racist comments than a person from a socio-economic with high employment and high incomes.

But, as I write this, and stop to consider it as a criterion, it's also not a poor criterion. It's actually a primary criterion. How should somebody feel in a given situation? Step one is to ask "How would I feel?" That's how empathy works. Perspective taking.

What criteria would you suggest that are better?

No, empathy involves understanding their emotion, and taking on part of that. It doesn’t matter what you’d feel in that situation, what matters is what they actually feel.

It isn’t empathy to say ‘if I were him I wouldn’t feel hurt, therefore he should not’. It is empathy to say ‘he feels hurt’.

Now, I agree that there are situations where one can comment that a person who feels hurt really needs to suck it up and move on, not every emotion needs to treated as legitimate. But in determining what emotions are legitimate and what aren’t, it isn’t very useful to simply think if you’d have that emotion in their situation, and then decide if it is valid or not.

Are you actually saying that the OP was wrong for feeling the way he did?

So there's a reason I did it, and it's precicesly because I do understand the difference between jest and anger.

Then you understand that a sexist or racist joke is very different to a boss calling a troublesome customer a sexist or racist epithet, while staff can overhear him?

I'll have to concede to your genuine Australian experience. Perhaps things there just aren't like they are here.

But I can tell you that this would probably not fly in the US. 9 out of 10 people would laugh it off, but there's always that 1 in 10 who REALLY took the programming, and they'll be off to the management to complain about the racism, and management, terrified of the race police, would probably do something to punish or "train" the "offending" speaker.

There is a chance a thing won’t fly. You have to know your audience, and your audience needs to be comfortable that the comment was in jest. In that situation it was a small council, everyone knew everyone very well. I wouldn’t recommend the same thing in a larger workplace, because someone might not take it well.

Personally, I think it is a good thing that people limit risqué jokes in the workplace to groups they know well.

There's no question, Americans are flying rodent gak crazy about race. I just thought we'd imposed that insanity on the rest of the first world, especially those ideologically closest to us, which (I'm sure it offends you to say) would be the Australians.

I’d also like to point out we’re flying rodent gak crazy about race as well. In different ways than yourself, but we are absolutely crazy. Did you read the thread where I pointed out Australia was spending around $600 million a year on border protection, to stop what ends up around 200 or 300 illegal entrants, we spend more than 2 million a pop on making sure people don’t enter Australia. Well, actually, we don’t stop them, we stop them off the coast, sinking their boat and bringing them into detention camps, verify 95% as legitimate refugees and freak out about the remaining 2 or 300.

The recent Federal budget kicked this amount up by a hundred odd million a year. We are crazy too.

When it comes to setting that level of tolerance, I will defer to society in general, both because I have no say, and I don't really care.

Society, by your perception, appears to have set the level of tolerance as different for the two. If you have no opinion then this won’t bother you.

But it clearly does bother you, so in effect you’re saying that you have a strong desire that the tolerance for racism and sexism to be equal, but have no interest in the actual level of tolerance for them. That seems like it’s a bit contrived.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma, this is the internet, and this way of debating should not be allowed on the internet.

D->I
d/->I
D->I->i->A
A/->D->I
/I->D

Actually sebster I do not believe that the laws reduce the murder rate, it just means we attempt to punish those that do. The whole reason I haven't murdered someone is because I don't care to, it just isn't in me.

I would say that this is similar to making firearm possession illegal, all of the law abiding citizens would listen, but not any criminals. The doesn't prevent anything, it just makes sure we punish those that do.

Actually, that language is in no way archaic. If you want a pedigree dog they will often look at the bitch and the sire, both being the accepted terms for dog breeding in this day and age. Dame is also another word used in place of bitch sometimes.

And no a closeted rascist is NOT a better state of affairs. Keep anything hidden long enough and it will erupt, the employer may end up feeling actual hatred not only to the race, but to his employees which can end up with them all losing their jobs.

Also, the first amendment right is an amazing thing in the united states. You are free to say anything you want(unless inciting a riot), and here's the catch, anyone can verbally respond in any way back.

Americans are guaranteed the right of speech and threatening the employer because he was expressing this right is unconstitutional. Now, if the black employee responded in kind, then that is also allowed. However, if the black employee struck physically that would be crossing another line.

Seeing as though he did not call the black employee that word specifically nor did he provoke violence, he was well within his first amendment rights of speech.

The employer was also speaking only to his managers, if another employee overheard then it can almost become an invasion of privacy issue.

There is one thing I would like to question though, what is the response of the black employee when a black person says the same word.

I am genuinely appalled by its use no matter who says it and anybody who says it is a moron in my books, but that is one thing I hate; just because someone else is saying the word doesn't change the meaning of the word.

The n-word is still rascist if a black person calls another black person that word and its still rascist if a white person calls a black person that word.

To say that the last statement is not true means that you may be just a bit rascist yourself. Just because the color of a person's skin changes doesn't mean the definition of the words they say change.

halonachos wrote:
Americans are guaranteed the right of speech and threatening the employer because he was expressing this right is unconstitutional.

Nope.

Explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are saying that we are not given this right? Or are you just saying that he has no rights in this case?

If I recall, it is a privately owned business in which case PC is mostly thrown out the window. Now, if this is a chain store then he can be in trouble, but most smaller businesses are unfazed by this kind of thing. I would say that this is similar to the case of the boyscouts of america and their ban on homosexual leaders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dogma, no "wall of text" please a simple explanation of your thought will do just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, it's well past my bedtime and I need to go to sleep because I have work tomorrow. I'll pick up on whatever you post and reply tomorrow.

I really do enjoy these talks we have.

halonachos wrote:Actually sebster I do not believe that the laws reduce the murder rate, it just means we attempt to punish those that do. The whole reason I haven't murdered someone is because I don't care to, it just isn't in me.

Really, do you think that applies to all crime or just to murder? Is there no disincentive for punishment at all?

I find your claim very puzzling when just above that you said laws against racism just make people quiet about their racism, so it has some effect in those cases, but not with murder?

Actually, that language is in no way archaic. If you want a pedigree dog they will often look at the bitch and the sire, both being the accepted terms for dog breeding in this day and age. Dame is also another word used in place of bitch sometimes.

In dog breeding it isn't archaic. In terms of people it is. Because context matters. Which we both know. Come on, dude.

And no a closeted rascist is NOT a better state of affairs. Keep anything hidden long enough and it will erupt, the employer may end up feeling actual hatred not only to the race, but to his employees which can end up with them all losing their jobs.

So we should let people be overtly racist, because that way they won't erupt and hate someone of a race they're bigoted against. Oh for the simple pleasures of apartheid South Africa, where people where free to be overtly racist and no-one let racism boil up inside them until they hated the race they were bigoted against.

Also, the first amendment right is an amazing thing in the united states. You are free to say anything you want(unless inciting a riot), and here's the catch, anyone can verbally respond in any way back.

If he'd responded back however he pleased he'd get fired. Your desire for absolute free speach completely ignores the very obvious power differences that exist in society, and it is why the law doesn't actually work like you're pretending it does.

I am genuinely appalled by its use no matter who says it and anybody who says it is a moron in my books, but that is one thing I hate; just because someone else is saying the word doesn't change the meaning of the word.

As has been mentioned countless times in this thread, context matters. You earlier noted that the word derives from the Spanish word for black, and I pointed out it isn't this which gives the word its meaning, it's the context in which it is used. Similarly, if the word is used in the context of an angry boss complaining about a troublesome customer, it is very different to two fellow employees using the word in a friendly sense towards each other, whether both, one or neither are black.

Context. Context. Context. It's a big thing that people like to ignore to make political points, but it really is the core of the issue.

To say that the last statement is not true means that you may be just a bit rascist yourself. Just because the color of a person's skin changes doesn't mean the definition of the words they say change.

No, and if you think about the importance of context you'll quickly realise how silly the above point is. The word can be used by one black person to another, and it may not be racist in the right context (for instance, two friends making a point to a nearby member of the KKK, using the word in describing each other, to take power away from the KKK dude). The word may be racist, if an ambitious young black girl is studying hard, and a jealous black friend says she'll fail because she's 'that word', that's racist.

The word doesn't become racist when used by white people. It certainly becomes more problematic in it's use, though.

Context. Context. Context.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma, no "wall of text" please a simple explanation of your thought will do just fine.

X->Y

No, my first post doesn’t imply that it’s gibberish to voice an opinion unless you mean to control someone else’s. My point was that it makes no sense to say you don’t wish to control something, then say you simply want to use the primary means for controlling it.

Nope. Still not making sense. I think your karmic balance would be best served by just admitting you were talking nonsense on this particular point.

No, empathy involves understanding their emotion, and taking on part of that. It doesn’t matter what you’d feel in that situation, what matters is what they actually feel.

http://www.reference.com/browse/empathy

"Ability to imagine oneself in another's place and understand the other's feelings, desires, ideas, and actions."

There's elemnts of what we're both saying here. The act of perspective taking is key to empathy. It's not simply a matter of observing a person's emotional state, it'sa matter of imagining yourself in that person's emotional state.

That said, I understand your point, it's not empathic to imagine yourself in somebody's emotional state, and then decide it's a stupid, invalid emotional state.

But that's really not the point. I wasn't saying that I WAS being empathetic. I was saying that I was ATTEMPTING to be empathetic, and because I wasn't having all that much luck, I was judging the reaction to be invalid. One way to determine if a person's emotional response is "valid" is to put yourself in that person's shoes, attempt to empathize with them. If it's difficult to do so, and you don't feel that the issue is with your own emotional/intellectual makeup, then it's perfectly reasonable to use that as one of your criteria in judging the observed response.

Then you understand that a sexist or racist joke is very different to a boss calling a troublesome customer a sexist or racist epithet, while staff can overhear him?

Absolutely. But, as I said, my goal was to remove all the other baggage from the situation, the yelling, the aggression towards a customer, and reduce the situation down to the key elements I wanted to focus on: comparing reaction to sexist comments vs reaction to racist comments.

Society, by your perception, appears to have set the level of tolerance as different for the two. If you have no opinion then this won’t bother you.

Meh. Go reread it. I've whined enough about how you don't really read what I write, I'm starting to humiliate myself with it.

Americans are guaranteed the right of speech and threatening the employer because he was expressing this right is unconstitutional.

In our precedent based legal system, dogma is correct, there are already laws on the books that allow speech to be silenced. That doesn't change the fact that the laws restricting speech in this way SHOULD have been ruled unconstitutional, but it does mean that in our country, the law says dogma is right.

So, I agree with you in spirit, but in practice, you're wrong.

It's actually fairly interesting, because the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law," which doesn't actually prevent state and local governments from making the law.

I believe the fourteenth amendment is usually interpreted as prohibiting any state or local government from infringing upon the bill of rights, although I would guess that the courts do give local jurisdictions a little more leeway.

Also, I've read through the last few pages and I still have no idea what it is you guys are supposed to be arguing about...

Sebster, the word is rascist period, I don't give a flying baboon's arse about the context. That's what the word means, then that's what the word means. This is similar to how I call my friend a "cigarette" whenever we meet up, the word IS derogatory, but in between my friend and I we use it as a greeting. This doesn't change the definiton or context of the word, it just means we are more tolerant of calling each other said word.

Just because a black person calls another black person that word doesn't change the word at all, it just means that the other person is more tolerant of being called said word by another black person which in itself is rascism.

In terms of your context, if I called my black friend the n-word(I am white) in greeting, is that the right context?

I will tell you it is most certainly not because if I said that and any other black guys were around I would get my arse lynched simply for using "their" word. Again, just because the word is used by people of different skin colors doesn't mean the meaning of the word changes, nor the context, just the tolerance of whoever is saying it. The word is derogatory no matter what context you use and to say that context magically changes the derogatory manner of the word is foolish.

I would deign to argue the fact that the black employee and fitzz are also rascist subconciously(spelling) due to the fact that they both got mad that a white person used that word. I don't care about the context, the n word is and always was a derogatory term, its just that it originated from the latin word "niger".

However, the word "negro" is a lot less upsetting than the n-word because it was hardly used as a derogatory term, the word means black and when you use it to describe a person it means that the person is a black person, that is plain and simple.

Context does affect most of the language, but it doesn't affect racial slurs. No matter how you use them, people know what they mean.

halonachos wrote:You are saying that we are not given this right? Or are you just saying that he has no rights in this case?

If I recall, it is a privately owned business in which case PC is mostly thrown out the window. Now, if this is a chain store then he can be in trouble, but most smaller businesses are unfazed by this kind of thing. I would say that this is similar to the case of the boyscouts of america and their ban on homosexual leaders.

Its not unconstitutional for a private citizen to bring suit against an employer if he feels that his work environment is needlessly hostile.

Phryxis wrote:Nope. Still not making sense. I think your karmic balance would be best served by just admitting you were talking nonsense on this particular point.

You haven’t actually advanced your argument there, and I really can’t be bothered repeating my point again. You either get it or you don’t.

But that's really not the point. I wasn't saying that I WAS being empathetic. I was saying that I was ATTEMPTING to be empathetic, and because I wasn't having all that much luck, I was judging the reaction to be invalid. One way to determine if a person's emotional response is "valid" is to put yourself in that person's shoes, attempt to empathize with them. If it's difficult to do so, and you don't feel that the issue is with your own emotional/intellectual makeup, then it's perfectly reasonable to use that as one of your criteria in judging the observed response.

Fair enough. I disagree, but am happy to concede that there’s no clear method to decide what is and what isn’t a reasonable method for considering a rejecting someone else’s emotional state as valid or not.

The issue was always more about whether bigotry in one’s own past was sufficient for someone to reject someone else’s feeling of persecution, and I believe my point there still stands.

Meh. Go reread it. I've whined enough about how you don't really read what I write, I'm starting to humiliate myself with it.

I think we’ve made our points. Fair enough that you want a level of consistency between sexism and racism, but I’ll repeat that is an odd claim that you have no opinion on what that level should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Sebster, the word is rascist period, I don't give a flying baboon's arse about the context.

If you refurse to consider context and declare words to have absolute meanings you’ll likely struggle to understand a lot of things about language over your life.

And the word is spelt ‘racist’.

In terms of your context, if I called my black friend the n-word(I am white) in greeting, is that the right context?

It would depend on your intent, of course. Even if there was no racist intent, it could be insensitive, depending on the tolerance of your friend and anyone else who overheard it.

I think you might be confusing insensitive use of the word with racist use.

Context does affect most of the language, but it doesn't affect racial slurs. No matter how you use them, people know what they mean.

That’s a ridiculous claim. A word is just a collection of sounds, given a meaning by the speakers of that language. That meaning is not fixed, nor is it absolute for all situations. The final meaning of the word in any situation can only be understood in terms of the context of the surrounding language.

halonachos wrote:Sebster, the word is rascist period, I don't give a flying baboon's arse about the context. That's what the word means, then that's what the word means.

That's not how the English language works.

What do you infer from the statement "Let's have a gay old time."?

Well it could mean that they are going to have a blast or that they are indeed going to engage in homosexual activities.

I would also like to see another definition for the n word if you have one dogma. Because "gay" has multiple meanings in the dictionary it does have context. so far I've only seen one definiton for the n word.

In African-American parlance it seems to be equivalent to 'dude' or 'bro', and in that context it isn't offensive.

The point I'm attempting to make here is that context is always relevant to meaning, even if all conceivable contexts point towards a singular definition.

It "seems" dogma, that is the operative word here. "Seems" does not mean "is", and while it may be used in a way similar to 'dude' or 'bro' does not change the meaning of the word. It's still a racial slur and it only has one recognized definition so context really does not affect it.

I was making the point that it is only "acceptable" if a black person calls another black person that word while it is "unacceptable" for a white person to call a black person that word. While in truth it is unacceptable for anyone to call anybody that word.

halonachos wrote:It "seems" dogma, that is the operative word here. "Seems" does not mean "is", and while it may be used in a way similar to 'dude' or 'bro' does not change the meaning of the word. It's still a racial slur and it only has one recognized definition so context really does not affect it.

Seeming is the thing which allows us to determine 'is'. If something seems one way on a consistent basis, then its likely that it 'is' that way.

Also, context does not require more than one definition for pertinence. If I slap my best friend on the back, and call him 'Sally', the meaning of my actions is distinct from the same set of actions carried out with respect to a stranger.

halonachos wrote:
I was making the point that it is only "acceptable" if a black person calls another black person that word while it is "unacceptable" for a white person to call a black person that word. While in truth it is unacceptable for anyone to call anybody that word.

Bill Cosby agrees with you, so that's good company, but I don't agree. I see it as a sensitive word which carries a great deal of baggage, but I don't think there are hard rules that govern its acceptable use.

If there are no hard rules that govern its use, then shouldn't it be okay for the boss the use it to define the customers?

Not if the people overhearing it take offense. Its the sort of thing you don't say simply because it is so charged. The lack of governing rules is actually detrimental in this sense.