On May 03 2012 08:58 Aelonius wrote:
This discussion is worthless purely because the definition of racism is already flawed at it's core.
Aside of that it's really bothering me that some people can be so stuck up about an expression and pull it out of context just to shit on the person who said it. Look at Orb, he messed up and people started to shit on him for it. Really immature in my view.
Regarding racism, I like to quote the definitions on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism)
This would imply that we're basing our judgement off the "race" of an individual. Yet there is the following line a little while further:
So we're looking at a term (Racism) where we're not even clear about the definition of "race" and how this works.
This leads me to say one simple thing. You can only stop racism when you stop marking all comments that are a little edgy as racist. The more you stamp the "racism" sign on things, the stronger it keeps coming back.
This discussion is worthless purely because the definition of racism is already flawed at it's core.
Aside of that it's really bothering me that some people can be so stuck up about an expression and pull it out of context just to shit on the person who said it. Look at Orb, he messed up and people started to shit on him for it. Really immature in my view.
Regarding racism, I like to quote the definitions on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism)
This would imply that we're basing our judgement off the "race" of an individual. Yet there is the following line a little while further:
So we're looking at a term (Racism) where we're not even clear about the definition of "race" and how this works.
This leads me to say one simple thing. You can only stop racism when you stop marking all comments that are a little edgy as racist. The more you stamp the "racism" sign on things, the stronger it keeps coming back.
Well, you can use a more accurate term like "xenophobia", the idea remains the same : each person defines a certain group as his own and will reject those outside of it.
Also, NegroidZerg, I mean, what? Haha.
Other than that, the video contradicts itself because it empasizes context and claims that words are neutral although they carry a certain history, which is part of that context.
For example, we use the term "beotian" to qualify simple-minded people. Why? Because Athens, at the peak of her glory, looked down upon her weak pastoral neighbours among which was the region of Beotia.
Words don't appear out of thin air, they have a past, and it's often that past that gives them meaning, not the attitude of the person who uses them. If very polite lady told me that she saw "niggers" on the television, I would no doubt consider that she probably has a problem against blacks, even though she said if in a soft, polite way.
Not only that, but the topic was more on how peole can use "nigger" as an insult. If words are all neutral, than how come such a term is used and perceived as an insult?