I didn't say otherwise. But all racism isn't alike, just as cussing is always objectionable, but not all curse words have the same weight.
They don't share anything like the history and weight/impact of N....., but I could do without them.
Trad, do you dislike black people?
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. I believe wrong is wrong and sin is sin, and just because i might 'understand' something - it doesnt magically move it into the other category.
So its ok for a black to practice racism, but not a white person. How is that just again?
We aren't disagreeing on that point. But you're just not going to tell me that you think if someone calls you a...mule and someone else throws the dreaded C word at you that you're going to find them equally offensive. Or if you do, you're unusual. With most humans, sexual profanity carries more shock and weight. So, "Go to hades" will offend, but not on the level of "Go enjoy congress with yourself".
Just so, cracker (the more offensive between honky and the like) just doesn't have anything like the weight of the N word. When I was a kid if some little cracker wanted to upset another little cracker he'd drop the N bomb, not "cracker". Cracker would get you a shrug on the order of "whatever". The reason is sort of obvious. Now redneck might cause a guy to bristle, but that was a class thing.
All crimes aren't of the same weight and all insults aren't either. History and usage is contextual and impacts the impact.
Literally nothing I've ever written will lead you to that conclusion.
I disagree, when it comes to word crimes. If its racist to say ******, its racist to say cracker, no matter how much weight you want to place on it.
Anything else is a double standard.
Again, you keep saying the thing we agree on as if we don't and not addressing the second point. Why?
Then you need to rethink and repose some of the things you've said about weight, because the only discussion you responded to of mine, was that a black saying cracker to a white man is as much racism as a white man saying n ----- to a black man. So yes, your discussion led to the conclusion that sometimes its ok.
Weight and understandability has nothing to do with it no longer being racist.
Wrong is wrong is wrong no matter who does it.
glassjester
Well-known member
Does the mere existence of greater crimes, in any way excuse those committing lesser crimes?
I would, but I've now said, and repeatedly, that we agree on the idea of a sin being a sin, a crime being a crime. I've been fairly explicit in illustrating the distinction I'm talking about as to weight as well.
I don't know how to be any clearer or why anyone should by this point be in the least confused on the point.
Well, when I say it does you can take me to task...mostly it feels like I'm being take to task for a thing I haven't actually said or even inferred, which is peculiar.
Right. Undisputed and agreed to repeatedly by me.
What I've added is that not every wrong is of the same order and if someone says, "Hey, that black guy got bent out of shape because I called him a N... but I don't get upset when someone calls me a cracker" he's being obtuse and disingenuous in implying the weight of offense is on par.
No. But we don't put people to death for jaywalking and we respond and feel about rape far differently than we do speeding.
Which has nothing to do with my point or question to you.
Go back please and read it again, its a cut and dry one.
There wasn't a single question in that post.
I've responded on two points. All sin is sin/crime is crime and objectionable. And the second that you don't care for, which is that not all crime or insult carries the same weight.
So, don't sin, don't commit crime. But if you commit a rape I'm not going to say its somehow on the same level as the other guy who picked a pocket.
I think you mean you dont care for it, because you are trying to equate to less or more, instead of wrong and wrong.
Were talking about racist words, saying ****** isnt the same as rape nor is cracker the same as picking a pocket, and you know it.
You know they are the same thing reversed, unless you have selective morality, period.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Gossiping again, glory?lain:
And by obfuscating glory means anything that can't be deciphered by someone suffering from Asperger's.
In your rush to sound clever, you are disparaging those who actually do have Asperger's Syndrome.
Do you have a fancy name for those who make fun of handicapped people, Town, or will BIGOT do?
:mock: Town the BIGOT
No, I've clearly said the action is wrong. I've been equally clear that not every violation, either of law or conscience, carries the same weight, which is why some curse words are worse to hear than others.
It's an illustration of a principle and nothing more than that. But the parallel is aimed at cracker and the N word. Rape and theft are similarly related. Each is of a kind, a crime, but the degree is significantly removed.
Thank you, then you agree that a black man calling a white man a cracker, is as racist as a white man calling a black man a n ------..
No. One of the limitations of people who suffer from Asperger's is a difficulty in understanding inference. You appear to suffer from the same limitation, if without the understandable excuse.
I'm not making fun of people with Asperger's. And as it pertained to you I mean it, literally. Your response to my scripture about lust was a fine illustration of precisely what I'm speaking to.
You're adorable.
glassjester
Well-known member
When you compare the white-on-black racism to black-on-white racism, it isn't really like saying rape is worse than theft.
It's more like you're saying stealing from a black man is worse than stealing from a white man.
And that's racist.
No, it's not, but I didn't do that anyway. I compared the expressions being used as racially derogatory insults. Different animal. Racism is ugly in anyone. But not every expression of it is equal.
- Status