Skip to main content

Slurs often adopted by those they insult

Racial slurs such as "spic," "dago" and "mick" still are considered offensive by many people of Hispanic, Italian and Irish descent. But the words also are acceptable slang to many within those ethnic groups.

Use of derogatory words by the defamed group is not unusual, some linguists say. Dr. Philip Herbst, author of The Color of Words, says some disenfranchised people believe that taking ownership of offensive words saps them of their power.

In his book, Dr. Herbst says the n-word can sometimes be used within the black community to indicate solidarity or affection. However, he adds that African-Americans' attempts to demystify the word have not worked very well over the years.

....Garlinda Burton, author of Never Say Nigger Again: An Anti-Racism Guide for White Liberals, says no other racial slur is as derogatory as the n-word is to African-Americans.
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.
I did read your whole post, but this is the major disconnect that your having...

quote:
Originally posted by Jaco:
Intent IS irrelevant as far as the impact of the word goes.

The impact on the student has nothing to do with the intent of the teacher. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It has nothing to do with whether or not the teacher is punished. Whatever damage that was done is already done. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the teacher's intent was. He can control his intent, but not the effect. Coincidently, and especially, because he is a teacher, he must be mindfull of the effect he has on his students!

quote:
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.

No one cares if he's racist or not. His actions were racist, even if his intent was not.

quote:
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!)

Bingo!!! You said it this time, not one of us. Now, re-read that statement until it makes sense to you.
I wonder if the teacher thought he could and would have a better relationship with his Black students if he used the N-word. I feel the teacher should have known better protest

I don't use the word nor do I like hearing anyone use it. Some try to say the N-word is a word to show affection to another African American. I feel it's a disrespectful word that was created to demean our people for years. I have always been told that you can't polish up SH!+, you can try to buff it, you can also try to shine it - but it's still SH!+. That is what the N-word means to me.
quote:
People feel shitty when wrongfully accused of something.
Dude, you didn't come here under the pretense that you were presenting a WHITE PERSPECTIVE. You tried to feign objectivity. Now make up your fuckin' mind what your approach is before you open your mouth.

First, you haven't, can't and won't be able to detail how the teacher was "WRONGFULLY ACCUSED". You've went about this predetermined process of GIVING HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT which heavily prejudiced every Got-Damn thing you said. You have taken this teacher's side with no just cause. You have never been objective. PERIOD!!

quote:
Intent IS NOT irrelevant as far as the label that this guy is going to have to live...
SHUT THE FUCK UP!! A fuckin' adult with any amount of gray matter would know the consequences and modify his/her behavior, speech and actions accordingly. The fact that this teacher didn't doesn't afford him any sympathy points or any pre-granted Benefits Of A Doubt (as you have bias-ly done here).

quote:
Check out my analysis (repeated below) to see why I think he's a dumbass and not a racist.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!! You have proven you don't know what the hell you're talking about and, consequently, how your definitions and distinctions are skewed by your own predetermined and prearranged CIRCULAR REASONING whereby you are fitting your "analysis" to a conclusion you arrived at before doing a substantive, honest and realistic analysis of the ACTUAL situation.

Calling the guy a "DUMBASS" is no consolation. The dude is a DUMBASS because of his RACIALIZED views. Remember... He was trying to relate and feel [more] comfortable with (*ahem*) BLACK STUDENTS. Not White... Not Hispanic... Not Asian... Not Arab/Middle Eastern... BLACK STUDENTS. Now, by your own definition, since it is a situation where ONE "RACE" is singled out... that's "RACIST."

Now, I wished you'd stop HATIN' on yourself...

quote:
I'd rather be called a dumbass then be called a racist
WHO GIVES A SHIT!! Who cares? That's a PERSONAL PROBLEM you have which is IRRELEVANT to this situation even if the teacher feels the same way.

There is no Pick & Choose options. That is antithetical to objective analysis. Stop perpetrating and just say you're coming from a purely biased WHITE PERSPECTIVE and be done with it. You will note how that WHITE PERSPECTIVE was not solicited here. You decided to give your input (under false pretenses) without an invitation. As such, your silly little biased opinions have been effectively un-invited. NO BULLSHIT WANTED.

Either you can make real objective points and maintain an objective posture or spare us the BULLSHIT!

quote:
It is 1a's intention to nail this guy, stating racist intent will help his cause
NO BULLSHIT WANTED!

There is no objective standard used here by you in gauging the INTENT of Chavers. You have subjectively, very subjectively and prejudice-ly, ascribed a motive to Chavers that you cannot establish and maintain as an objective treatment and consideration of what Chavers actual INTENT is.

Take your WHITE BULLSHIT on down the road.
quote:
he doesn't care what the teachers intent was.
And, obviously, your biased ass doesn't care what Chavers INTENT was... You have and you will just assign one to him without an honest analysis.

NO BULLSHIT WANTED!

quote:
my opinion that the teacher was not a racist is viable.
NO IT IS NOT!

Hmmmm.... Funny how you placed a "positive" value on Mr. Underwood's statement without knowing that critical information. With that said, Mr. Underwood's statement is about as pertinent as Ricky Jones' (the Pan-African Studies chair) or, more comparably, SHAREKA MORROW'S. Now, how come you didn't list her statement as #4 or something? How come didn't give equal weight to her statement?

You have not answered for your SELECTIVITY and blatant BIAS.

quote:
We have only one objective viewpoint as to intent, I'm siding with that guy
NO! You have not objectively weighed his viewpoint. [1] You don't know whether he was an actual WITNESS of the incident; [2] You haven't identified the possible prejudices he has (just because he's had "positive" experiences with the teacher does make his experiences a negater of Chavers' experience); and [3] There is MORROW'S viewpoint that you continue to not account for, individually. Her's was a viewpoint separate from #3.

You have done nothing but employed CIRCULAR REASONING, Picked & Chose what fits your predetermined conclusion. NOTHING from that type of process is "viable".

quote:
if the intent was as I think
Telling... NO BULLSHIT ALLOWED!

quote:
the teacher would not have used the word had it not been in common use by the students going to that school
This is BULLSHIT! And BULLSHIT is not allowed. THERE IS NO HYPOCRISY unless it's hypocritical, in this case in particular, to hold teachers and ADULTS to different standards that students/kids are held to.

This is the utter LUNACY of your "explanation." There is a "double-standard" in how Teachers and Students are "treated"... But you have no beef with that. Until it conflicts with your idiotic WHITE PERSPECTIVE.

quote:
the students [are] protesting a situation they had a direct hand in creating
Thanks but NO BULLSHIT ALLOWED.
Blaming the "Victim"... is so utterly retarded here. You're back to that "HE SAID IT FIRST" juvenile BULLSHIT! And that's the basis of your argument...

Now that says a lot about you and your "analysis."

quote:
I was expecting you to go off on a tangent...
And this shows your RANK prejudices. Those things you ASSUME without reason. And yes... that shit, too, is RACIALIZED. Expect me to check your BULLSHIT at every point. That's what you can expect. Other than that, stop showing how incredibly ill-equipped and PREJUDICED you are.

And you can read BOLD PRINT:
HOW ARE WHITES HARMED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY "NIGGER"?

quote:
"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.
NO THE FUCK I DON'T....

Expect me to check your BULLSHIT at every point. There is no other correlation. But such is your pre-school level of logic. You come to this forum but you presume what you say and think to be important because you came to this forum??

Get the fuck out of here!

Expect me to check your BULLSHIT at every point.
quote:
I wonder if the teacher thought he could and would have a better relationship with his Black students if he used the N-word.


JACO?? Put up or SHUT UP!


HOW ARE WHITES HARMED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY "NIGGER"?

Put up or SHUT UP!
You called it "hypocrisy", you invoked the Civil Rights Movement et al... Answer the question.

quote:
I was simply stating that prejudicial intent existed in this specific situation
What the FUCK does that mean?

HOW ARE WHITES HARMED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY "NIGGER"?

"ALL" my azz! Answer the question.
quote:
This is despite their own use of the word, infering that despite civil rights movements, the colour of your skin does matter as far as objective treatment in concerned.
What is the "OBJECTIVE TREATMENT" in this whole WHITES CAN'T SAY THE N-WORD thingy that amounts to anything worth mentioning in the same conversation as the Civil Rights Movement?

Seriously? What Civil Right is being violated when we say WHITES CAN'T and BETTER NOT SAY THE N-WORD?

What is the harsh, unfair and DISADVANTAGING treatment that's being visited/imposed on Whites by making the N-Word off limits?


Prejudicial my azz!! The teacher's use of the word was PREJUDICIAL. It was RACIALIZED. He picked out ONE RACE. There is no info. about him trying to "feel more comfortable" with any other racial/ethnic group of students.

And you didn't just call the student(s) protests "prejudicial" you call them RACIST - "BIGOTED".

quote:
If people look at the color of someone's skin before deciding whether to take offense at a remark, all it shows is that they are at least as racist... Don't feed me that crap, bigotry is bigotry.
STOP HATIN' ON YOURSELF!!
Those were your words. So what happened when I pressed you and EXPOSED your BULLSHIT?

NMAG:
Now, let's see you demonstrate how the two are comparable in ACTUALITY. So, yes, let's here you detail how the two are equally or similarly "bigoted" in real life use, impact and effect.

JACO:
Frown I'll admit that there are differences between the two Frown


Now you know why I say NO BULLSHIT ALLOWED.

quote:
quote:
I was simply stating that prejudicial intent existed in this specific situation
And you're simply telling a BOLD FACED LIE!

You said:
They are at least as racist..."



Expect me to check your BULLSHIT at every point.
From your last post you repeated the question "HOW ARE WHITES HARMED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY "NIGGER"?"

The post before it I answered
"By the government officially setting a standard which made a distinction upon the basis of ethnicity... 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."

You didn't bother reading my post. Nor the posts where I said I didn't think the word nigga was appropiate. Nor the posts where I said I agreed with the teachers punishment. I have a hard time believing you thouroughly read any of my posts before vomiting out your preconcieved rebuttals to what you assumed I was saying.

"Dude, you didn't come here under the pretense that you were presenting a WHITE PERSPECTIVE."

Racist as hell. Perspectives are situational and based upon personal experience. They don't come as a package deal with the colour of your fucking skin.

"QTY, what I wanted to say is that there is this perverse desire where WHITE PEOPLE WANT TO CALL BLACK PEOPLE "NI@@ER" and so this becomes an issue for them."

Racist. What kind of dumbass comes across the idea that all white people having the perverse desire to call black people "nigger." Answer, a racist one.

"Remember... He was trying to relate and feel [more] comfortable with (*ahem*) BLACK STUDENTS. Not White... Not Hispanic... Not Asian... Not Arab/Middle Eastern... BLACK STUDENTS. Now, by your own definition, since it is a situation where ONE "RACE" is singled out... that's "RACIST."

Then the use of the word "nigga" is racist in any situation, yet you condone its use among blacks. There is a conflict of cognitions there, one that is apparently not new, looking back at your conversations with Frenchy. You are a racist, and a confused one at that.

Whats more you come across as an ignorant sack of shit. I'd respect your opinion more if you actually read my posts rather than assuming what they might contain. The racism doesn't help much either.

In closing, you have no intention of productive discussion, go fuck yourself you ignorant and obstinate son of a ruptured bitch. You can have the last word now you goddamn troll.
quote:
The post before it I answered
"By the government officially setting a standard which made a distinction upon the basis of ethnicity... 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."
Ummmm.... That was an answer to a different question. And the question was NEVER about you "personally."
quote:
  • HOW ARE WHITES HARMED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY "NIGGER"?

  • 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??
  • See!? You faked like you answered THE SECOND ONE. HOW WOULD...? HOW ARE...? = Different questions. And, again, NEITHER asked about you "personally."

    But, thanks... Now it's all clear that all your talk about the thing with the teacher being "JUST AS RACIST" and it being "BIGOTRY" is/was nothing but BULLSHIT!!

    quote:
    You didn't bother reading my post. Nor the posts where I said I didn't think the word nigga was appropiate. Nor the posts where I said I agreed with the teachers punishment. I have a hard time believing you thouroughly read any of my posts before vomiting out your preconcieved rebuttals to what you assumed I was saying.
    I read all of that. And all of that is IRRELEVANT! You're still speaking about you "personally." My question wasn't "personal" to you. So what you think, "personally", is IRRELEVANT.

    Despite all those things you "personally" feel, you still maintain and have tried to defend the teacher. Despite all that you claimed the charge against him was "RACIST" and a form of "BIGOTRY." And that's exactly what my question set out to ascertain but you have pulled up lame and gone mum. You can muster anything intelligent or intellible that explains or justifies that BULLSHIT position of yours.

    quote:
    Racist as hell. Perspectives are situational and based upon personal experience. They don't come as a package deal with the colour of your fucking skin.
    BULLSHIT!! You are here speaking from a WHITE PERSPECTIVE. That's clear. Your position is noted and noted as completely biased towards the WHITE teacher who you clearly give/gave THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT because of your "personal" perspective which is laden with the way you view it as a White person. PERIOD.

    The whole time you have transposed and imposed HOW YOU FEEL and what you think AS A WHITE PERSON if you were in that situation as opposed to what the actual situation is. You have tried to forward the notion of being "FALSELY ACCUSED" because that's what your WHITE ASS thinks and that's your "pre-packaged", BIASED thoughts on the issue and not the result of an objective examination of the issue.

    Besides, your "personal experience" is IRRELEVANT to this case. It is not about you save for when you make logical errors when trying to bastardize the facts of the case as you have done.

    quote:
    Racist. What kind of dumbass comes across the idea that all white people having the perverse desire to call black people "nigger." Answer, a racist one.
    Ha! Ha! CRYING RACISM isn't going to help you. And there was NO such statement that declared that "ALL" WHITE people anything...

    PROOF THAT YOU DON'T READ:
    quote:
    And... NO ONE SAID THIS! STAY ON TOPIC!!
    Frown It is racist if you're assuming all white people want to be racist. Frown

    And, again, you pretend to be an authority as if what you say is so, just because you say so. Please stop smelling yourself and get off the low-tech BULLSHIT! No one said anything about ALL WHITE people. IDIOT!! This situation, when you want to talk about probability, can't possibly incorporate ALL WHITE people for ALL WHITE people aren't driven to trip over the so-called "double-standard" of who can use and who can't use the N-Word. So what are you talking about?

    Posted February 15, 2006 07:50 PM
    When you catch the fuck up, let me know.

    quote:
    Then the use of the word "nigga" is racist in any situation, yet you condone its use among blacks. There is a conflict of cognitions there, one that is apparently not new, looking back at your conversations with Frenchy. You are a racist, and a confused one at that.
    NO CONFLICT AT ALL... Those yours is properly noted.

    YOU CAN READ!

    Now, by your own definition, since it is a situation where ONE "RACE" is singled out... that's "RACIST."

    *Ahem*.... BY YOUR DEFINITION. You forwarded that definition, NOT ME! So it's all about your DUMB ASS and your DUMB ASS definition which, when applied across the board, cuts against you.

    You will note, I made no such determination. No such lame, anal, abstract (and lacking) definition. So there is no "Then..." that's applicable to me. It's your definition, not mine. So, in actuality, the CONFUSION and CONTRADICTION is all yours as that very quote of mine made clear.

    quote:
    Then the use of the word "nigga" is racist in any situation
    I have consistently maintained that it isn't. You, not I, have tried to define "racism" in such an inane fashion. That's why you can't answer my question responsibly, effectively:
    HOW ARE WHITES HARMED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY "NIGGER"?

    And you never even faked like you answered this:
    What is the "OBJECTIVE TREATMENT" in this whole WHITES CAN'T SAY THE N-WORD thingy that amounts to anything worth mentioning in the same conversation as the Civil Rights Movement?

    Seriously? What Civil Right is being violated when we say WHITES CAN'T and BETTER NOT SAY THE N-WORD?

    What is the harsh, unfair and DISADVANTAGING treatment that's being visited/imposed on Whites by making the N-Word off limits?


    Obviously you don't/didn't have a pre-fab script that prepared you to answer that. Instead, you'll just make vain claims that it's "Just As Racist" and "Bigotry Is Bigotry"... though you can't produce a functional and objective definition of either term and certainly not one that would qualify what you're calling "racist" either in this situation or with your claims about me as some actual "racism", etc. that meets any serious definition that matches the connotation of the term you invoke.

    EQUIVOCATING and, as a result LYING... will get you nowhere.

    quote:
    Frown Whats more you come across as an ignorant sack of shit. Frown
    Ignorant of what?

    quote:
    Frown I'd respect your opinion more if you actually read my posts rather than assuming what they might contain. Frown
    Big Grin
    JACO SAID: "I was expecting you to go off on a tangent..."

    No SELF-RESPECT, huh? lol

    quote:
    Frown The racism doesn't help much either. Frown
    Yeah and I'm supposed to be fazed by your SUBJECTIVE and SELECTIVE definition and use of the term. As I have shown, you were not calling the TEACHER "racist" for his RACIALIZED activity whereby he singled out BLACK STUDENTS as ones he wanted to "relate" to and feel [more] comfortable with (because of something that's was obviously lacking in his experience and his mindset).

    So, you've already FUCKED THAT UP for yourself. Your selective application of the term renders your accusations MOOT!

    quote:
    In closing, you have no intention of productive discussion, go fuck yourself you ignorant and obstinate son of a ruptured bitch. You can have the last word now you goddamn troll
    Truth is, I've long since demonstrated that you have and never had any intention of having a "productive" discussion because of your noted BIAS. Your noted WHITE BIAS evidenced by you preferencing Underwood's statement to the exclusion of Morrow's...

    That WHITE BIAS of yours is also evidenced by you preferencing the teacher (at every turn). One major contradiction of yours you never reconciled had to do with you not considering BOTH PARTIES' PERCEPTIONS, objectively, in the communication. YOU SAID:
    Put simply... whatever the two parties involved in conversation perceive the meaning of a word to be, that's what the word means in that conversation.

    ... Yet the only party's INTENT or PERCERPTION you effectively explored was that of the WHITE TEACHER'S. You listed nothing but blatant, prejudiced and obstinate opinions about the student. Apparently, how he PERCEIVED things was irrelevant to you. You could just assign him a sinister motive without pause or consideration. Without any type of basis for doing so (save your prejudiced opinions) but you had all types of elaborate schemes/reasons for giving that WHITE TEACHER "The Benefit Of The Doubt."

    You even inserted yourself directly (without the mask) by saying:
    Frown I'd rather be called a dumbass then be called a racist. Frown

    But that's actually revealing. This has really been all about your AVERSION to the term "racist" when applied to someone WHITE. You've certainly have had no such aversion applying it indiscriminately to someone Black. And so, I continue to say NO BULLSHIT WANTED, NO BULLSHIT ALLOWED.

    Your subjective BULLSHIT was readily apparent from the start. What has happened here has been a process by which you couldn't keep the covers you thought you had on your ideas. Basically, you've been Stipped Naked and because of that you reflexive scream "RACISM".

    What an ironic turn of events! lol


    (And, yet again, a selective one to. YOUR DUMB WHITE EQUATION that calls any attention given to race "racism" was what came back to bite you. See...? When we take that lame, abstract and inane concept as the definition of "racism" then we have to judge the teacher as "racist" BY YOUR DEFINITION. Again, his attempt to "relate" to BLACK STUDENTS called attention to their "race". He effectively singled BLACK STUDENTS out and you had/have nothing to say about it. Which figures...)
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Not so fast, NAYO...

    I have and will still argue against those with ideas or rather undeveloped sentiments that say "Black folks should never say the N-Word." Not that I support saying it... Just that I, for one, am not that anal nor do I buy the lackluster arguments of most who argue against it.

    Just, FYI...



    So, just playing the devil's argument (for entertainment/cognitive muscle flexing), as opposed to having a pov that you actually support? ok. I'm good with that.

    My pov is that , the 'n' word needs to be obliterated. Since it cannot,and it serves as an excellent tool of institutionalized maintenance of white supremacy/racism, 'I' stand against it anywhere, and everywhere.
    quote:
    So, just playing the devil's argument (for entertainment/cognitive muscle flexing), as opposed to having a pov that you actually support?
    No. There are positions that don't rest at either pole or reside within absolutes.

    quote:
    My pov is that , the 'n' word needs to be obliterated.
    And I'm cool with that... BUT!!
    quote:
    it serves as an excellent tool of institutionalized maintenance of white supremacy/racism
    I don't buy that rhetoric. And beyond that, many of the very people who make that argument aren't so keen at recognizing or attacking actual material elements that function as "tools that maintain White Supremacy/Racism."

    I maintain that the focus on the N-Word is DWELLING ON THE SUPERFICIAL. The N-Word, at best, is symptom, not a cause. It seems to be pretty easy pickings while other more substantive and material things are either ignored or aren't addressed/attacked with the same type of vigor even when those things represent something much more alarming.

    So, no... I don't by that superficial rhetoric. And my position is not about Playing Devil's Advocate.
    ""don't buy that rhetoric. And beyond that, many of the very people who make that argument aren't so keen at recognizing or attacking actual material elements that function as "tools that maintain White Supremacy/Racism."

    I maintain that the focus on the N-Word is DWELLING ON THE SUPERFICIAL.
    __________________________________________

    I do'nt believe that we disagree entirely here. You assume that that is my focal/focus for all things 'white supremacist'--- 'the 'N' word'; that is patently false. I abhor the word because it simply, a loathsome word; full with historical significance as a throwback to the days of African American enslavement.
    ------------------------------------------------

    The N-Word, at best, is symptom, not a cause. It seems to be pretty easy pickings while other more substantive and material things are either ignored or aren't addressed/attacked with the same type of vigor even when those things represent something much more alarming.
    -------------------------------------------

    No argument here; just that because HIV/AIDS is running roughshod throughout the African American/Black community, and unemployment plagues African American youth, and ALL of the social, physical and mental diseases that continue to decimate the African American community are 'bulls in a china shop', still does not lessen the hideous connotative/denotative meaning of the 'N' word. No one is still permitted to call ME that; and not get an adequate response.
    quote:
    You assume that that is my focal/focus for all things 'white supremacist'--- 'the 'N' word'; that is patently false.
    No. I assumed nothing. I was clear in qualifying what I said (and feel) by saying:
    "...many of the very people who make that argument aren't so keen at recognizing or attacking actual material elements..."


    I was simply stating my position. Not attacking or assuming anything about yours for we have not had that type of discussion.

    quote:
    Just because of X, Y, and Z impacting the African-American Community still does not lessen the hideous connotative/denotative meaning of the 'N' word.
    That is not in contention. But those things mention as "Bulls In The China Shop" really don't speak to "tools" that function in a way to institutionalize and maintain white supremacy/racism."

    X, Y, Z are symptoms or products of White Supremacy/Racism or simply the Black Condition/Predicament in the USA. So right here we have lost sight of White Supremacy, what installs it and keeps it in place.

    I mean, you didn't intend to say Black Unemployment, AIDS and all types of diseases within the Black Community "serve as tools of institutionalized maintenance of white supremacy/racism"?? Did you?

    Your statement would only makes sense relative to mine if you did. But I don't think that's what you were trying to say. When I said what I did, I was NOT merely saying there are more important issues, other things to focus on.

    I charge plenty of people who are quick to associate the N-Word with White Supremacy with being incapable or incredibly lacking when it comes to identifying "more substantive and material" elements of White Supremacy. Talking about the X, Y and Z as you have, at least for the purposes of this discussion, shows that you aren't as keen in recognizing or identifying or attacking other things related to White Supremacy.

    That's why I call it rhetoric. It's a pretty popular thing to say... But certain things that aren't that "popular" and aren't that personal or that personally offensive or repulsive go unexamined.

    When I've pressed, few have been able to say what the existence of the N-Word has actual done to the Black Community... or what would happen if the N-Word magically disappeared.

    quote:
    No one is permitted to call ME that...
    That has never been the issue. People who are so personally repulsed by the N-Word want to control what other people say even when it's not directed towards them. That's the issue. Or, more precisely, those people want to be the grand interpreters of what the N-Word means to everyone else. And all that based on how they feel about it.

    But, perhaps, you can tell me when and where those who say the "N-Word" (within the Black Community) have insisted on calling people who feel like you by that name. And, no, the music industry doesn't count. I think we can find a broad consensus against it when it comes to that.
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70259-0.html?tw=wn_index_2

    Actor Tries to Trademark 'N' Word

    By Rogers Cadenhead | Also by this reporter
    02:00 AM Feb, 23, 2006 EST

    The actor Damon Wayans has been engaged in a 14-month fight to trademark the term "Nigga" for a clothing line and retail store, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's online database reveals.

    Wayans wants to dress customers in 14 kinds of attire from tops to bottoms, and use the controversial mark on "clothing, books, music and general merchandise," as well as movies, TV and the internet, according to his applications.

    But, so far, his applications have been unsuccessful. Trademark examiner Kelly Boulton rejected the registration dated Dec. 22, citing a law that prohibits marks that are "immoral or scandalous." A previous attempt by Wayans was turned down on identical grounds six months earlier.

    "While debate exists about in-group uses of the term, 'nigga' is almost universally understood to be derogatory," Boulton wrote to Wayans' attorney, William H. Cox, according to the application.

    Cox and other representatives of the actor did not respond to interview requests about the registration.

    Wayans can appeal the rejection, but experts in trademark law differ on his chances for success.

    Lynda Zadra-Symes, a trademark lawyer in California, said Wayans may be successful. She compared "Nigga" to the successful registration of Dykes on Bikes. The San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent fought the Trademark Office for three years to overturn an initial rejection of a Dykes on Bikes trademark. The mark was published Jan. 24.

    "Because the application was by a group of lesbians it was eventually allowed to publish," Zadra-Symes said.

    "This is a great victory," the group proclaimed on its website. "It affirms our right to determine who we are and how we present ourselves to the world."

    However, Tawnya Wojciechowski, another trademark attorney practicing in California, compared Wayans' application to the ongoing legal case where Washington Redskins trademarks have been challenged by seven Native Americans. "They're going to have a really tough time," Wojciechowski predicted.

    The word "nigga" is ubiquitous in hip-hop music, where it provides half of a rhyming couplet radio listeners never get to hear in the Grammy-winning song "Gold Digger" by Kanye West.

    Ol' Dirty Bastard used the term 76 times in the 1999 album [Censored] Please, not counting repetitions in a chorus.

    In January, an episode of the late-night Cartoon Network series Boondocks was criticized for putting the word in the mouth of a fictionalized Martin Luther King Jr.

    The effort to commercialize "nigga" drew a sharp response from a black school official who participated in a forum about the word earlier this month at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro.

    "I don't care for it in any form," said Dr. Lonnie Williams, associate vice chancellor for student affairs. "Either way you pronounce it, spell it, anything associated with it -- I find it offensive."

    If Wayans succeeds in persuading the Trademark Office to permit the mark, he may have to deal with Keon Rhodan, a 29-year-old entrepreneur in Charleston, South Carolina, who has been using "Nigga" on a line of T-shirts, hoodies and other attire for six years in a part-time, trunk-of-his-car business.

    Rhodan attempted to register "Nigga'Clothing" as a trademark in 2001 and was denied by the Trademark Office.

    "They said it was disparaging," he said.

    Rhodan, who is black, said that he's sold around 2,000 of the shirts at events. When he began selling the shirts, emblazoned with the term "Nigga," he thought he would take criticism, especially from older people.

    "I was in the mall with one of the shirts on, and an old lady said, 'Where did you get that shirt from?'" he said, expecting the worst. "She followed me to the car and bought five shirts for her grandchildren."

    Rhodan believes that affectionate use of the term within the black community should make it an acceptable mark, but the Trademark Office has thus far has not been persuaded by that argument.

    "The very fact that debate is ongoing regarding in-group usage, shows that a substantial composite of African-Americans find the term 'nigga' to be offensive," Boulton wrote in rejecting Wayans.

    Though attempts to commercialize "Nigga" coincide with a generational shift in how the word is perceived, the clothing is still likely to test some boundaries, as Rhodan demonstrated in a phone interview.

    "You couldn't wear it," he said.

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×