Trad, do you dislike black people?

[Town Heretic]

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 ------..

Racism is racism. The difference is in impact/weight. Cracker came up as a means of insulting poor, rural people. It's use as a racial insult didn't arrive until the 60s. It was used by people with no real power over the white majority and no means to really marginalize, dehumanize or restrict their rights. So it's a weak sister of an insult as those things go.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Oh, yeah, a "limitation" which you use to attack a person on an internet forum and PRETEND like you are sincere about it. That makes you both a Bigot and a Hypocrite. A hypocritical bigot. A pompous hypocritical bigot. :banana:

Unfortunately for you, Town, I see through your PRETENCE.
Quite the sham to try and pass of your pretentiousness as inference. A shyster in the truest sense of the word. :thumb:


By the way.....you don't think I'm adorable at all. You are so mad at me you could spit, and it's written all over every single one of your posts to me. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

No, it's not, but I didn't do that anyway.

Of course you didn't do that, Townie. You never do.

 

[Crucible]

Racism is racism. The difference is in impact/weight. Cracker came up as a means of insulting poor, rural people. It's use as a racial insult didn't arrive until the 60s. It was used by people with no real power over the white majority and no means to really marginalize, dehumanize or restrict their rights. So it's a weak sister of an insult as those things go.

When did it become 'dehumanizing' to refer to black people as n_____?

I can guarantee you it didn't have it's roots as being such. It was an archaic way of describing African people in general.

The whole 'dehumanizing' thing is well after the fact, and is on the same tier as what black people slur towards whites.
Sensationalism, political correctness, liberal guilt, etc. all culminated into a finishing product that is coming out of you right now- 'they aren't as guilty of it because...'.

No matter what, just like feminism, LGBT, and every other specialty group, it is rigged to where white people and, particularly, hetero white men, are simply silenced and chained while they all press on them.
It's a problem, and people need to recognize that problem- not continue the same rehashing of an outdated and problematic bias.

 

[patrick jane]

Oh, yeah, a "limitation" which you use to attack a person on an internet forum and PRETEND like you are sincere about it. That makes you both a Bigot and a Hypocrite. A hypocritical bigot. A pompous hypocritical bigot. :banana:

Unfortunately for you, Town, I see through your PRETENCE.
Quite the sham to try and pass of your pretentiousness as inference. A shyster in the truest sense of the word. :thumb:


By the way.....you don't think I'm adorable at all. You are so mad at me you could spit, and it's written all over every single one of your posts to me. :chuckle:

:rotfl: You never miss an opportunity to put your foot in your mouth

 

[Town Heretic]

Oh, yea...PRETEND...Bigot...Hypocrite...hypocritical bigot...pompous hypocritical bigot...PRETENCE..sham...pretentiousness....shyster...mad...:chuckle:

Just thought if you're going to post like him (or did you give him your account?)...you know.

I suspect that's how you have to see someone who pokes fun at you, but no. I marvel at your tenacity and hostility, at your puzzling inability to understand the inferential and your consistent indifference to your own double standards, but I'm not mad at you. If I was going to be angry with someone it would be someone more like Trad, who I absolutely know has the capacity to understand his error and alter it, but for God knows what reason will not move on the point.

You...I think being angry with you is like being angry with rain. And that would be silly.

 

[Town Heretic]

When did it become 'dehumanizing' to refer to black people as n_____?

A politician in the Colonies once sued over being referred to as one (he was white and running for office). There were variations not offered as offense, but it quickly became one because the word was used to describe a class of people who were regarded as property, animalistic and without either right or recourse before the law.

By the 1900s the nature of the usage is well established. "Writing in 1904, journalist Clifton Johnson documented the "opprobrious" character of the word ******, emphasizing that it was chosen in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "colored."

Sensationalism, political correctness, liberal guilt, etc. all culminated into a finishing product that is coming out of you right now- 'they aren't as guilty of it because...'.

Rather, your above in no way encompasses what I've written. It doesn't reflect my words or position. In point of fact, I've repeatedly said that sin is sin and crime is crime and all racism, racism.

My distinction has been that while all racism is odious, not all racist rhetoric is equal in weight, just as there are curses that have more power by nature of their association. For a number of reasons owing to history and the weight that gives, no slur aimed at whites carries the strength and ability to offend that N... does.

 

[glassjester]

no slur aimed at whites carries the strength and ability to offend that N... does.

Offense is in the ear of the beholder.

A word can only offend people as much as they want to be offended.
If "cracker" is less offensive to me than "neighbor" (sic) is to a black guy, it's because I choose not to care when I'm called that name.

 

[annabenedetti]

Offense is in the ear of the beholder.

A word can only offend people as much as they want to be offended.

Offense is in the mouth and intent of the speaker.

 

[glassjester]

Offense is in the mouth and intent of the speaker.

Tell me you've never had this experience: Someone says something to try to irritate or insult you, and you consciously choose to not let it bother you.

 

[annabenedetti]

Tell me you've never had this experience: Someone says something to try to irritate or insult you, and you consciously choose to not let it bother you.

Does my choosing not to let an offensive word bother me make the word intrinsically unoffensive?

 

[ok doser]

No. One of the limitations of people who suffer from Asperger's is a difficulty in understanding inference.

in a similar manner, one of the limitations of people who suffer from being retarded is that they make retarded posts


just saying

 

[ok doser]

Let's put it this way....Anna is special. Very special.

betcha she rides the "special" bus

 

[glassjester]

Does my choosing not to let an offensive word bother me make the word intrinsically unoffensive?

I'm not sure there even is such a thing as intrinsic offensiveness.


But if there is... then yes. Your choice to not be offended, rendered the word unoffensive.


I'll ask a similar question. If a black man hears his black friend use the word, did the word become intrinsically unoffensive?

 

[bybee]

betcha she rides the "special" bus

Does this pronouncement about another poster boost your ego?
Does it show to the rest of us how superior you are?
Is it not a smugly, patronizing comment on the status of those who, because of disabilities must ride the short bus?
Perhaps you'd reconsider these kinds of statements?

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm not sure there even is such a thing as intrinsic offensiveness.


But if there is... then yes. Your choice to not be offended, rendered the word unoffensive.

Does not being offended by a blasphemous word make the word not blasphemous?

I'll ask a similar question. If a black man hear's his black friend use the word, did the word become intrinsically unoffensive?

That's a question commonly asked by white people who don't see anything wrong with saying the n word, and I believe it's a question better answered by someone who's black. Are you a white person not bothered by the n word?

 

[patrick jane]

Let's put it this way....Anna is special. Very special. She must always be approached with caution. She's sitting under Town the Clown's tutelage, hoping to learn his obfuscation techniques, so you'll likely see more posts like that one she just made.

You just have to fan the flames don't ya ? It's the only way you can post.

 

[glassjester]

Does not being offended by a blasphemous word make the word not blasphemous?

Yes. If God wasn't offended by it, it wouldn't be blasphemy.

That's a question commonly asked by white people who don't see anything wrong with saying the n word, and I believe it's a question better answered by someone who's black. Are you a white person not bothered by the n word?

It speaks directly to the idea of "intrinsic" offense. For the purposes of this discussion, this question would be better answered by you.

I'll gladly answer your questions. I am white. I am not bothered if someone calls me a nagger (sic). I would not call anyone a knicker (sic) because (A) I don't call people names, in general, and (B) because they may choose to feel offended by it.

 

[glassjester]

Does this pronouncement about another poster boost your ego?
Does it show to the rest of us how superior you are?
Is it not a smugly, patronizing comment on the status of those who, because of disabilities must ride the short bus?
Perhaps you'd reconsider these kinds of statements?

Seconded.

Really, what was the point?

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes. If God wasn't offended by it, it wouldn't be blasphemy.

How do you know whether God is offended by a particular word or not?

It speaks directly to the idea of "intrinsic" offense. For the purposes of this discussion, this question would be better answered by you.

I can't speak for them, and I won't attempt to.

I'll gladly answer your questions. I am white. I am not bothered if someone calls me a nagger (sic). I would not call anyone a knicker (sic) because (A) I don't call people names, in general, and (B) because they may choose to feel offended by it.

You don't know what it's like then, to be a black person called the n word by a white person. You don't choose to be offended by a word that could never mean to you what it means to a black person, yet you want that they should find it as easy as you do to not be offended?