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.

I'm surprized that (I assume) boot camp was the first place the OP heard it being used in this way. Anyone who cares to see just about how often it's thrown about my neck of the country (A northern state mind you) just needs to hit-up the Craigslist Rants and Raves for Buffalo, NY (This is a rediculously offensive site, even for CL, make sure your parents and loved ones aren't in the room).

Really around here though it's lost all meaning, it's about as enraging as calling someone a ka-ka head. You will probably be beaten up for it but that's more because you're identifying your self with a hate group by using it toward a black person then actually offending someone.

As for the black calling black situation? It's the same as when your friend calls you a slow or a homo. They know they can get away with it because they are your friend and they do it so that people around them give them a moments attention. Otherwise there's no "Racial Struggle To Disempower This Ultimate In Offensive Terms!!!" they're just being immature.

Gailbraithe wrote:

It's a process called "reclaiming." When young black men use that word amongst themselves, they are "reclaiming" the word -- taking it way from white people, and making it their own.

It's not the word itself that is offensive, its the context, because no combination of sounds can be offensive without context (except perhaps going "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" ala Dumb & Dumber). When a white person uses that word, it is assumed to mean "Hey you, the inferior third or even fourth class citizen over there, yes you, now listen to me or I and my white friends will grab a rope and string you up from that tree over yonder." Because for over a century white people both used that word to refer to black people, and engaged in the more or less legalized murder of black people via lynchings*.

When black people use it amongst themselves, the assumed meaning is more like "Hey you, remember when we used to have to live in fear of white people and were third or fourth class citizens, and how far we've come, to the point where this horrible word they used to demean us is now our property and we can use it as a friendly greeting just to annoy white people, as well as demand they never use it under any circumstances no matter how friendly we may be to them?"

I'm quite aware of the historical context of it's use, which I alluded to in my original post. If I didn't make it clear I am against the word in any use at all because of said historical context and it seems to me that you're propagating it's use by the black portion of the population but not the white, which is the definition of discrimination. In case you were curious dictionary.com defines discrimination as, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

Gailbraithe wrote:

If you're white, the the n-word is like a test. A test of how conscious of race issues you are, and how racially enlightened you are. If you have even a shred of a clue what has occurred in this country over the last 60 years and are mindful of modern racial politics, then you know that it is never appropriate to use that word, and that complaining about black people using it marks you as definitely ignorant and probably a closet racist. Which means that if you (I am presuming you are white), turned to those black guys and told them not to use that word, they would likely have assumed that you are a clueless and probably racist white idiot who thinks that Jim Crow is still in effect and that black people have some obligation to defer to white sensibilities. It would not have gone over well.

Now, white people can complain, and insist that this is somehow racist, and generally make fools of themselves, but all the whinging [sic] is just a demonstration of ignorance. In modern American society, white people who oppose racism do not use the n-word and do tolerate black people using it amongst themselves. Additionally, racially sensitive white people know better than to try to argue that black people shouldn't use it, they don't cite black community leaders who decry its usage, and generally accept that "It's a black thing, it's not your job to understand, just leave it well enough to be."

* Next time you think this country is not racist, remember that the white people in question may have been your own grandparents, and that lynchings were still happening all the way up until the 70s. Seriously. At least a few people reading this will never admit it, perhaps not even to themselves, but know that their own parents and grandparents were part of the racist majority that voted in favor of segregation, Jim Crow, and engaged in lynchings. All those tens of thousands racists didn't just vanish off the face of the earth when the Civil Rights Act was passed.

I like how you turned my analytical question into a personal attack.

For the record, I went through several very good schools and I am aware of what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement and I loosely follow modern racial politics. I am well aware that is never acceptable to use such a word, and I don't, but I also find it funny how the first thing your mind jumps to is that I'm white, uneducated and a racist. And maybe they would have stopped because we work in a professional environment and under the military Equal Opportunity policy they're legally bound to knock it off if it makes me uncomfortable, just as I would be if I was saying something that made them uncomfortable or offended them.

I oppose racism in all it's forms, and I think the use of this particular word in a discriminatory fashion (either way in my mind) inappropriate and is used to separate people. Seriously, how can you argue that saying "I can use this word and you can't" doesn't automatically divide people? I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but I don't fall into the mainstream of "racially-sensitive white people" and I feel the need to question a practice that I consider discrimination.

Okay, we've all read the history books and know all the bad things that happened in the past, and bringing them up constantly isn't an avenue for progress. Also, who cares if my grandparents were racists? I'm not and I won't stand to be judged by anyone's actions other than my own. I'd like to think that we've become a more tolerant, progressive nation and that any nation who would elect a black president (who I voted for, by the by) has come a long way since the rampant racism of the 60's.

So. like, if I'm a white person from a country with no history of enslaving black people, is it cool if I use it?
No?

@ IAmTheWalrus: Bah you suck! I forgot to mention that I thought you were half-black otherwise a minority or distinct ethnic group (technically white but you identify as italian, sicilian or other sub-division), I'm certain you aren't black yourself. Although the form of cold-reading I was taught isn't very useful in determining race, it's more concerned with Economic background and determining real intelligence for bull*******.

kronk wrote:
Islamic doctrine teaches them to control, conquer, and kill non-muslims. Saying it ain't so doesn't change anything.

How many copies of the Koran do you own?

IAmTheWalrus wrote:I'm quite aware of the historical context of it's use, which I alluded to in my original post. If I didn't make it clear I am against the word in any use at all because of said historical context and it seems to me that you're propagating it's use by the black portion of the population but not the white, which is the definition of discrimination. In case you were curious dictionary.com defines discrimination as, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

Look, there's discrimination, as in the ability to discriminate between things, and then there's harmful discrimination historically engaged in to ensure the dominance of the white culture and white ethnic group at the expense of people of color. The first kind of discrimination is harmless and necessary to function in the world, the second kind is a tragedy crying out for justice. Conflating the two is just dumb. It's important to maintain a sense of perspective and, as always, history.

Pretending that there isn't a black community in America with it own take on the issue of racism is silly. It's pretty darn obvious that there is a black America, which includes both black urban poor and the black middle class, black artists, black entertainers and a black intelligentsia. We can recognize that, scientifically speaking, race is a fiction and also recognize that there is a black community and culture, and hence that there are black people. And black people are aware of themselves as black people, and their blackness forms a significant part of their identity. Pretending that black people are exactly the same as white people in all regards is not overcoming racism, its blithely ignoring the reality of other people's existence. Its approaching other people as platonic ideals, ideas about people, and not recognizing

And what are you going to do, deny that there is a history between white people and black people that, when considered in its full, gives black people little reason at all to trust white people at all? As it stands right now, the primary effect of "colorblindness" is our failure to recognize that racism continues to play a huge influence in the lives of people of color -- and to ridiculous assertions like the one you made above. If you really understand the historical context of the n-word's usage, then how can you claim that it has the same history when used by black people? You're completely ignoring perhaps the single most significant factor in that historical context: the race of the oppressor and the race of the oppressed.

Gailbraithe wrote:I like how you turned my analytical question into a personal attack.

I was using the generic you, not addressing you in particular. But if the shoes fits...

For the record, I went through several very good schools and I am aware of what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement and I loosely follow modern racial politics. I am well aware that is never acceptable to use such a word, and I don't, but I also find it funny how the first thing your mind jumps to is that I'm white, uneducated and a racist.

I assume you are white because only a white person would post this stuff. I assume you are uneducated on race issues because, hey, you're displaying your ignorance for all to see. And I assume you are racist because you live on Earth and are alive. Pretty much everyone is racist.

I oppose racism in all it's forms, and I think the use of this particular word in a discriminatory fashion (either way in my mind) inappropriate and is used to separate people. Seriously, how can you argue that saying "I can use this word and you can't" doesn't automatically divide people? I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but I don't fall into the mainstream of "racially-sensitive white people" and I feel the need to question a practice that I consider discrimination.

Dude, people are separated already. People have been separated for hundreds of years. Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people. Black people wish white people would actually pay attention to them like they were real human beings.

Demanding that black people not use the n-word isn't going to promote racial harmony. It's just going to communicate that you aren't paying attention. Black people have collectively decided (by that unknown process by which societies make decisions) its not okay for white people to ever use that word, but are in disagreement about whether it is cool for them to use it. And they don't care about white people's opinions on the subject. Since it costs you nothing to give up the word, and it makes black people feel like they have social power to exert influence on white behavior, which in turn makes them feel more connected to the larger group.

That is the point of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." It means white people surrendering the useless tokens of white supremacy, like racial slurs, in deference to centuries of othered groups having no role in social discourse. It's essentially a pointless point of racial ettiquette, but like minding your manners, it shows respect. And you kind of have to be a clod to argue strongly that its not fair that black people can use the n-word but you can't. There's no way to go there without either arguing that you should get to use it or nobody should, or doing as you've done, and basically ignore that black people actually exist. For realz.

If it's so offensive, why use it at all? I don't like double standards when it comes to language.

Stormrider wrote:If it's so offensive, why use it at all? I don't like double standards when it comes to language.

That is fully explained in Galbraithe's posts above.

I could care less if black people call each other [see forum posting rules] or whatever. What would I be mad about? Being left out of the super special club? Different social groups will have different cultures, thats a given. And if you want to complain about the double standard, look at the double standard that existed in this country since the slave trade started.

That N word describes personality, not color these days.
This has been confirmed and approved by a real person of color.

Gailbraithe wrote:And I assume you are racist because you live on Earth and are alive. Pretty much everyone is racist.

Abstract discrimination and racism are not the same thing. You can eat an apple, or you can eat pieces of an apple in a pie. You can make an apple cake, you can also make a salad with pieces of apple in it. Apple pie, apple cake, and apple salad, are not apple. Apple is not Mac, and a Big mac is style of hamburger.

Everyone can be racist. That in no way suggests that everyone IS anything but naturally discriminatory, while not necessarily being literally racist.

Dude, people are separated already. People have been separated for hundreds of years. Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people. Black people wish white people would actually pay attention to them like they were real human beings.

Contrast is fun when you ignore all the shades of gray.

There are several views on any given subject within any given community.

Demanding that black people not use the n-word isn't going to promote racial harmony. It's just going to communicate that you aren't paying attention. Black people have collectively decided (by that unknown process by which societies make decisions) its not okay for white people to ever use that word, but are in disagreement about whether it is cool for them to use it. And they don't care about white people's opinions on the subject. Since it costs you nothing to give up the word, and it makes black people feel like they have social power to exert influence on white behavior, which in turn makes them feel more connected to the larger group.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMAND TACOS.

Look, I actually agree with you on a great deal of what you have said and would appreciate if you could be just a bit more specific. Problems facing different communities should be dealt with in a manner that suits their needs. I believe that accepting the fact that racism still exists in many forms is no less than a requirement of any healthy society. On a national scale many issues concerning race get blurry and extremely difficult to fight against. Localized issues tend to be ignored for a larger idea, which doesn't necessarily have any impact on much of anything directly.

Recognizing that a given word is simply not appropriate is the important part. Using that word is a personal choice and may arrive with consequences, including those that involve getting punched in the face. If a Neo-nazi wants to say something stupid, I feel they should be allowed to do so. How people react does not only concern free-speech when other parts of the law are brought into a dispute. People are free to say many things that sound as stupid as they please, although, not on this forum.

That is the point of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." It means white people surrendering the useless tokens of white supremacy, like racial slurs, in deference to centuries of othered groups having no role in social discourse. It's essentially a pointless point of racial ettiquette, but like minding your manners, it shows respect. And you kind of have to be a clod to argue strongly that its not fair that black people can use the n-word but you can't. There's no way to go there without either arguing that you should get to use it or nobody should, or doing as you've done, and basically ignore that black people actually exist. For realz.

The argument is as strong as free-speech from either side can be. I fail to see how using a word in a context that would incite anger and possible reprisal, equates to ignoring the presence of a large population. Being black ≠ not existing, even if problems that the community and individuals may face could be seen to suggest it. Ignoring someone's problems isn't ignoring people, it is ignoring problems. I can't read minds, even though I can recognize existing ignorance ABOUT a generalized community. People know other people exist, some try to ignore it but reality tends to have a mean back-hand.

Being of color is not the problem, it is how society reacts to that fact. Different minorities face different issues and to really deal with racial tension it needs to be recognized that there is not a monolithic reaction to people of color by white people. Nor is there the same for black people. Both generic terms are lacking in actual substance. I would agree that there is a 'black' culture but I would be hard pressed to actually identify it as a nation-wide culture. It is multi-faceted and you will find that opinions vary for a great deal of reasons, regardless of an overarching concept of solidarity. I would question how unified opinion is within the generalized black population (U.S. specifically), my guess is that if not diverse as some communities can be, it would still have a great deal of diversity, regardless.

Gailbraithe wrote:
More importantly, black people didn't bring white people to America in chains, spend centuries keeping them bound in slavery, rape and kill them, all with a legal imprimatur that only ended within the living memory of a large segment of the population.

Any time you think white people have as much to be angry about and offended about when it comes to "reverse racism," you're being a tool. History actually does matter. Try to remember that.

Just remember it was black people who captured and enslaved other black people and sold them to the whites to bring over as slaves.


I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.


On topic though, if a word is offensive then it should be offensive no matter who uses it. Now context would matter. If the N word has changed meaning to be a term of endearment between friends then it should be fine for anyone to say no matter their race. If the word is still used in a negative "you are a stereotypical black man who is a lazy stupid thug" type way then it should be offensive no matter who says it. Now the question is how do we feel about people being offensive. Regular profanities have made it into most peoples casual conversations. Do we care that more offensive terms are becoming more casual? Some people do and some people are also still offended when people say S**t and F**k.

NO... never. I think it's best to stay away from any word you have to ask if it's ever ok to say it.

Melanie

If there is a word or stereotype that is labelled that you are unsure as to whether it is offensive...

Just say word in question to a large, angry member of the group you wish to 'label'.

That will sort your confusion out quickly, anyway

Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.

i consider the N word, as well as "gay" in the derogatory sense hate speech and that is never right to say. It makes me sad how people sling 'gay' around like it's a descriptive term for things people don't like. I think people should be more cautious with terms like gay and the N word... you never know who you might offend/hurt/enrage.

Melanie

Wrexasaur wrote:Abstract discrimination and racism are not the same thing.

Thank you for the timely assist, Captain Obvious. I'm not quite sure what we would have done without you. Except, you know, carry on fine.

Everyone can be racist. That in no way suggests that everyone IS anything but naturally discriminatory, while not necessarily being literally racist.

Yeah, but pretty much everyone is racist. It's almost impossible not to be, because even if one recognizes that the idea of human races is scientifically falsifiable and factually incorrect, one still tends to notice other people's race. If you're a white person, then you're racist -- now before you react to that, let me explain what I mean: If you are identified as white by most people, that is because a) you have a low melanin count and b) most people are racist. If you accept this identification, if you believe that you are a white person, then you have embraced (almost certainly unconsciously, since we learn this stuff as little kids) the idea that white people exist, and if white people exist then race must exist, which means iptso facto if you think you are white, then you are a racist: a person who thinks of humans in terms of race.

Now, you can be a very enlightened racist (like me), meaning that you still see race just as society trains you to, but you also see that you've been trained, and you work to overcome that training and to raise the consciousness of others. But the hardest part about overcoming race is that a) almost everyone you talk to is a racist and won't even attempt to address that, and b) because of all of those unconscious racists racism is still having a powerful effect of oppressing people of color and privileging white people.

But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.

There are several views on any given subject within any given community.

Again, thank you Captain Obvious.

Look, there are clearly some people in modern American society who think having sex with eight year old girls is not a heinous crime (frex: pedophiles, 7chan users), but no one (with any damn common sense at least) is going to correct you if you say "Americans think having sex with eight year old girls is totally gross and heinous." Despite their being several views on any given subject within any given community.

Look, I actually agree with you on a great deal of what you have said and would appreciate if you could be just a bit more specific. Problems facing different communities should be dealt with in a manner that suits their needs. I believe that accepting the fact that racism still exists in many forms is no less than a requirement of any healthy society. On a national scale many issues concerning race get blurry and extremely difficult to fight against. Localized issues tend to be ignored for a larger idea, which doesn't necessarily have any impact on much of anything directly.

When it gets right down to it, racism isn't really an issue for politics, except to the degree that the Republicans (and Fox News) use race-baiting and race-based fear to win elections. There isn't much more the government can do. From here on out, it basically comes down to individuals choosing who they want to be, and how they want to face the remaining problem of racism.

The argument is as strong as free-speech from either side can be. I fail to see how using a word in a context that would incite anger and possible reprisal, equates to ignoring the presence of a large population.

That's not what were talking about. We're talking about a white guy turning around, intruding on a conversation between a group of black guys, and telling them to stop calling each of the n-word and justifying that action by asserting that there should be no double-standards. In this context, that essentially amounts to asserting that black people can't have their own opinion on the subject. When a white person makes the "people are just people" argument in order to support an action that amounts to telling a black person what to do, black people will tend to suspect what the white person in question really means is "people are just white people."

Gailbraithe wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:I'm quite aware of the historical context of it's use, which I alluded to in my original post. If I didn't make it clear I am against the word in any use at all because of said historical context and it seems to me that you're propagating it's use by the black portion of the population but not the white, which is the definition of discrimination. In case you were curious dictionary.com defines discrimination as, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

Look, there's discrimination, as in the ability to discriminate between things, and then there's harmful discrimination historically engaged in to ensure the dominance of the white culture and white ethnic group at the expense of people of color. The first kind of discrimination is harmless and necessary to function in the world, the second kind is a tragedy crying out for justice. Conflating the two is just dumb. It's important to maintain a sense of perspective and, as always, history.

Pretending that there isn't a black community in America with it own take on the issue of racism is silly. It's pretty darn obvious that there is a black America, which includes both black urban poor and the black middle class, black artists, black entertainers and a black intelligentsia. We can recognize that, scientifically speaking, race is a fiction and also recognize that there is a black community and culture, and hence that there are black people. And black people are aware of themselves as black people, and their blackness forms a significant part of their identity. Pretending that black people are exactly the same as white people in all regards is not overcoming racism, its blithely ignoring the reality of other people's existence. Its approaching other people as platonic ideals, ideas about people, and not recognizing

And what are you going to do, deny that there is a history between white people and black people that, when considered in its full, gives black people little reason at all to trust white people at all? As it stands right now, the primary effect of "colorblindness" is our failure to recognize that racism continues to play a huge influence in the lives of people of color -- and to ridiculous assertions like the one you made above. If you really understand the historical context of the n-word's usage, then how can you claim that it has the same history when used by black people? You're completely ignoring perhaps the single most significant factor in that historical context: the race of the oppressor and the race of the oppressed.

Gailbraithe wrote:I like how you turned my analytical question into a personal attack.

I was using the generic you, not addressing you in particular. But if the shoes fits...

For the record, I went through several very good schools and I am aware of what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement and I loosely follow modern racial politics. I am well aware that is never acceptable to use such a word, and I don't, but I also find it funny how the first thing your mind jumps to is that I'm white, uneducated and a racist.

I assume you are white because only a white person would post this stuff. I assume you are uneducated on race issues because, hey, you're displaying your ignorance for all to see. And I assume you are racist because you live on Earth and are alive. Pretty much everyone is racist.

I oppose racism in all it's forms, and I think the use of this particular word in a discriminatory fashion (either way in my mind) inappropriate and is used to separate people. Seriously, how can you argue that saying "I can use this word and you can't" doesn't automatically divide people? I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but I don't fall into the mainstream of "racially-sensitive white people" and I feel the need to question a practice that I consider discrimination.

Dude, people are separated already. People have been separated for hundreds of years. Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people. Black people wish white people would actually pay attention to them like they were real human beings.

Demanding that black people not use the n-word isn't going to promote racial harmony. It's just going to communicate that you aren't paying attention. Black people have collectively decided (by that unknown process by which societies make decisions) its not okay for white people to ever use that word, but are in disagreement about whether it is cool for them to use it. And they don't care about white people's opinions on the subject. Since it costs you nothing to give up the word, and it makes black people feel like they have social power to exert influence on white behavior, which in turn makes them feel more connected to the larger group.

That is the point of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." It means white people surrendering the useless tokens of white supremacy, like racial slurs, in deference to centuries of othered groups having no role in social discourse. It's essentially a pointless point of racial ettiquette, but like minding your manners, it shows respect. And you kind of have to be a clod to argue strongly that its not fair that black people can use the n-word but you can't. There's no way to go there without either arguing that you should get to use it or nobody should, or doing as you've done, and basically ignore that black people actually exist. For realz.

Word.

I have dropped the N-bomb amongst black friends. It is a sign of acceptance when it is tolerated, or even used with regard to a white person. In that sense, the answer to the OP's question is 'yes' but that 'yes' is heavily dependent upon context. It reminds me of other, similar slurs that are similarly tolerated when bandied about the Irish, Italian, and Jewish friends that most of us have had.

I have also used it with black friends, they even went so far as to instruct me as to it's proper use and what inflections to use in certain situations. I would definitely not use it around strangers though.

Also, GES, Ann Coulter is awesome. No one is that OTT, she's trolling the national airwaves and making fat cash off of it. God that's awesome.

BrockRitcey wrote:Just remember it was black people who captured and enslaved other black people and sold them to the whites to bring over as slaves.

Cluebrick: There isn't a person in the Americas who feels the need to bring that kind of nonsense up that isn't a white supremacist. Go back to Stormfront, and take your pointy white hate with you.

I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.

That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.

If a black person hates a white person because that white person is white, that is not racism. That is resentment, and it is a by-product of racism. In that case it is not the black person who decided he is black and the oppressing class is white, it is the white people who are benefiting from the oppression of black people who have defined the terms, who have introduced racism into the equation.

Address racism and the resentment will evaporate. Equating the resentment with racism? That's just a trick that modern racists pull in order to avoid dealing with actual racism, which is the oppression of people of color for the benefit of the dominant group (i.e. "whites"). It's why Fox News can make a huge deal about two dumb black guys calling themselves "Black Panthers" and acting like dopes in front of a black community center in a black neighborhood and intimidating exactly no one as "racism," but won't even begin to address the actual racism on display (namely their race-bating, white fear stoking coverage of the non-event).

On topic though, if a word is offensive then it should be offensive no matter who uses it. Now context would matter. If the N word has changed meaning to be a term of endearment between friends then it should be fine for anyone to say no matter their race. If the word is still used in a negative "you are a stereotypical black man who is a lazy stupid thug" type way then it should be offensive no matter who says it. Now the question is how do we feel about people being offensive. Regular profanities have made it into most peoples casual conversations. Do we care that more offensive terms are becoming more casual? Some people do and some people are also still offended when people say S**t and F**k.

No, you're wrong. But that's not surprising, since you are simply mouthing the language of the modern racist, with the colorblindness that erases black identity.

So it's racist to hold everyone to the same standard?

Why would that be?

Throwing around the word radical around too... Pot. Kettle. Black.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.

Put down Christopher Doob and slowly back away.

Because I'm white, I'm automatically a racist? Isn't that a racist sentiment?

Frazzled wrote:Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.

I've posted here for years and can think of very few posts I have ever agreed with Frazz this totally on.

Gailbraithe wrote:

I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.

That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.

If a black person hates a white person because that white person is white, that is not racism. That is resentment, and it is a by-product of racism. In that case it is not the black person who decided he is black and the oppressing class is white, it is the white people who are benefiting from the oppression of black people who have defined the terms, who have introduced racism into the equation.

Address racism and the resentment will evaporate. Equating the resentment with racism? That's just a trick that modern racists pull in order to avoid dealing with actual racism, which is the oppression of people of color for the benefit of the dominant group (i.e. "whites"). It's why Fox News can make a huge deal about two dumb black guys calling themselves "Black Panthers" and acting like dopes in front of a black community center in a black neighborhood and intimidating exactly no one as "racism," but won't even begin to address the actual racism on display (namely their race-bating, white fear stoking coverage of the non-event).

Gailbraithe:

While you make an eloquent argument, eloquence =/= being right, and american racial politics =/= the rest of the worlds' racial politics. Come down to my corner of the world, where there were never slaves. I mean, white people did some dastardly things down here for sure, but slavery was never one, and pretty much any african who's ever come here has come as a refugee or legitimate traveller. But saying that (for example) a chinese man can't racially discriminate against a maori man, or a tongan man can't racially discriminate against a white man, means that your head is so absolutely up your own ass that it's not even funny.

Frazzled wrote:Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.

Now would this apply no matter who was using the word?

I agree with that teacher in boondock saint link.

youbedead wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.

That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.

If a black person hates a white person because that white person is white, that is not racism. That is resentment, and it is a by-product of racism. In that case it is not the black person who decided he is black and the oppressing class is white, it is the white people who are benefiting from the oppression of black people who have defined the terms, who have introduced racism into the equation.

Address racism and the resentment will evaporate. Equating the resentment with racism? That's just a trick that modern racists pull in order to avoid dealing with actual racism, which is the oppression of people of color for the benefit of the dominant group (i.e. "whites"). It's why Fox News can make a huge deal about two dumb black guys calling themselves "Black Panthers" and acting like dopes in front of a black community center in a black neighborhood and intimidating exactly no one as "racism," but won't even begin to address the actual racism on display (namely their race-bating, white fear stoking coverage of the non-event).

BrockRitcey wrote:
Racism is discrimination based on race. A black person hating a white person because they are white is the same thing as a white person hating a black person because they are black. A black person can be racist against white people. It has nothing to do about whose ancestors were slaves. It is just as much a hate crime for some black panthers to beat up some white guys as it would be for some neo-nazi's to beat up some black guys.

QFT.