Skip to main content

Reply to "Teacher suspended for ten days, after calling student Nigga!"

You refuse to acknowledge I've constantly said any of the following, instead "arguing" by restating them as if they were an opposing viewpoint.

1) Yes, the teacher used a word innapropiate to the situation, I've said this several times, as have you. We agree, quit harping on the goddamn point.

2) I HAVE NO FUCKING PROBLEM WITH WHITES NOT BEING ALLOWED TO SAY "NIGGER!" NONE! ZERO! I'VE STATED THIS EXPLICITLY SEVERAL GODDAMN TIMES! QUIT HARPING ON IT AS A VALID REFUTATION OF WHAT I'VE SAID! IT ISN'T! I only disputed intent, NEVER punishment.

People feel shitty when wrongfully accused of something. I'd rather be called a dumbass then be called a racist (this is why I'm even offering my opinion for those of you who haven't clued in yet). The probability was that the guy was being a dumbass and not a racist, because of intent.

Intent IS irrelevant as far as the impact of the word goes. I've confirmed this SEVERAL times by agreeing that the teacher should be punished.

Intent IS NOT irrelevant as far as the label that this guy is going to have to live with for a good portion of time (the reason im posting). Check out my analysis (repeated below) to see why I think he's a dumbass and not a racist.

"As far as YOUR #1, that's IRRELEVANT!... So, no, you gets [sic] NOWHERE until you do that and, since you insist [upon it], analyze the Teacher's actual words, actions and behaviors to determine what was or wasn't his intent."

You completely missed the point that #1 was part of the analysis showing why I held my view. I cannot take the teachers testimony at face value, simply because I support his statement. I attach neither a positive, nor negative influence to it. To recap my analysis of the events which occured:

The analysis was only to determine objectivity concerning intent. We have 4 statements concerning intent.

1a) Student - the teacher used the word "nigga" when addressing me. I felt this word was used in a racist fashion (belongs to group #3 who states the word is always taken in a racist fashion from a white person to a black person, WHICH SHOWS IT IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE HE DOESNT FUCKING CARE WHAT THE TEACHERS INTENT WAS!)

1b) Teacher - I did not mean the word in a racist fashion

2) Student - from my personal experience with the teacher, he would not use this word in a racist fashion

3) Students - the word is always taken in a racist fashion when coming from a white person to a black person (no comment regarding intent), the student did not call the teacher a "nigga" first. Our peer group does use this word constantly (thus showing the teacher how it is used in a non racist way).

It is 1a's intention to nail this guy, stating racist intent will help his cause, not to mention the probability that he doesn't care what the teachers intent was.
It is 1b's wish to escape punishment, denying racist intent will help his cause (I left this out initially because it was so obviously a possible self-serving testimony).

After this we are at an equilibrium (neither statement is credible as far as intent is concerned).

It is 2's intent to offer his opinionon whether the teacher had racist intent
It is 3's intent to offer their opinions on the racist nature of the comment, NOT ON INTENT.

We have only one objective viewpoint as to intent, I'm siding with that guy, QED bitch, my opinion that the teacher was not a racist is viable.

It is interesting to note that if the intent was as I think, the teacher would not have used the word had it not been in common use by the students going to that school (no this isn't an excuse, its an explanation). That explanation is why I think the hypocracy exists, more specifically, the students protesting a situation they had a direct hand in creating (notwithstanding the teachers responsibility for his own actions etc etc).
---------------------------
More rebuttal

"If an official U.S. law was made that banned the N-Word and made it something that only Whites had to abide by (not saying it)... HOW WOULD WHITES BE HARMED??"

By the government officially setting a standard which made a distinction upon the basis of ethnicity. I would expect someone this vocal about racism to recognise that as a negative trend.

As far as the actual usage of the word goes, I personally wouldn't be hurt at all. Its nice to see we agree on a concept we've both repeated over and over again.

"["Bigotry" vs. White BIGOTRY and the DISCRIMINATION or Objective, Unfair and HARMFUL/DISADVANTAGING "Treatment" Against Whites vs. the clear history of measureable, significant and profound, material Racial Discrimination Against Africans/African-Americans.]"

Thats not what I was comparing. I wasn't comparing the extent of ALL bigotry against whites against the extent of ALL bigotry against blacks. I was simply stating that prejudicial intent existed in this specific situation, but not in the way most on this forum were viewing it.

"And what the FUCK was this? Stay on topic, deal with what is said and what is being contended with or STFU!!!"

I was expecting you to go off on a tangent about how the case of blacks is unique, thus showing blacks did deserve special treatment (unfair when not taking history into account) which is unique to them (as some do). I was simply pointing out that anyone would deserve this unique compensation, so you wouldn't link another 4 or 5 opinion pieces to "prove" me wrong. Looking back on it, it was silly of me to even presume you bringing up up such nonessential points to what I was discussing (intent) such as: that white people should not be allowed to say "nigga", or that the teachers comment was percieved as racist or that my contrasting of prejudices was incorrect on some levels because other blacks HAVE been racially discriminated against. I don't know what got into me, I should lay off the crack.

"WHO GIVES A FUCK what you do and don't support??"
You give a fuck, or else you wouldn't be bothering to respond. Fucking twit.
×
×
×
×