|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 23 2016 07:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
One word originated as a racist term. It was literally conceived to distinguish people based on their race.
The other as a name for an actual animal in the animal kingdom. It happens to make a very good insult because the animal itself is more human-like than any other animal, but still stupid and animalistic. I can call someone acting stupidly and crudely in a very broad sense a 'fucking monkey' or 'acting like a fucking monkey' and it fits very well. Is it dehumanizing? Sure, that's the fucking point. The person I'm insulting is acting like an animal.
Notice how I got through the second one without any mention of race at all.
You're welcome
You are not calling Jews rats because the nazis used that term even if you see them eat cheese. Just because monkey is not a name only used as a racial slur against people of colour does not mean it should be used as an insult to black people. The same way you are not calling a woman a bimbo even if you actually just wanted to say she is not talented (cough, trump). Or a gay person a faggot. If you do, you have to expect people to interpret it in the commonly used term.
Also, if you argue that monkey describes the behaviour, how does vermin describe behaviour? Vermin is just a term for a group of animals associated with no economical reason who should be killed whenever encountered. So which kinmd of vermin does vandalize and torture/beat up other specimen?
Omn a sidenote, the german Spiegel published in regards to your shootings today, that the number of people shot by the police in Germany in 2015 was 10. Maybe you should just ignore BLM and address your 704 deaths in 9 months. Most of them are white, so just call out the police for that and politely ignore the people that also see a racial component. Everybody wins. You don't have to defend yourself all the time and there is a consensus that something needs to be done.
|
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist?
|
On September 23 2016 06:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 06:38 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 06:30 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2016 06:25 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2016 06:01 Rebs wrote:On September 23 2016 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2016 05:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2016 05:54 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
None of the liberals here brought up race. Your friend GG did. To be fair Plansix gets baited pretty easily and then it just rolled from there.
If you are going to accuse people of doing something get your facts in order. People brought up race instantly saying that he wanted to call the rioters monkeys but couldn't beacuse then people would know hes a racist what are you talking about. Yep. This situation is a good example of why I try to limit my interactions with people who fail at basic reading comprehension. It just isn't productive. You must be so proud of your trolling here. You used the term 'vermin' specifically so that there would be a flame war on it. That's kind of childish for a smart guy, but hey, whatever. Yeah at this point its not even subtle. Its just baiting and sitting quietly looking for a circle jerk to latch onto. On September 23 2016 06:01 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2016 05:54 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This is what's so hilarious. It's the liberals who make everything about race. My comments have been completely race neutral, yet here we have the usual suspects trying to contort what I'm saying into a racist attack. This is why the PC left is so intellectually bankrupt and why the assault upon them by the alt right has been so successful and will continue to be so. You said BLM are vermin. I don't know if you're unaware what the B in BLM stands for. Perhaps you were referring to the Bureau of Land Management. Actually, you know what, I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're a racist. Finally. Of all the things GH and I disagree one. This is our common ground. I'm just surprised it to everyone else so long to get here. Frankly i would still be giving him the benefit of the doubt because he didnt specifically say BLM. But I suppose at this point you can say you know what he meant,. No, he did specifically say it. "mayors where BLM is wreaking havoc needs to grow a pair and clear the vermin out." BLM were quite clearly the vermin being referred to there. Indeed. There is quite a difference between saying those people are "acting like" vermin and literally calling them vermin. I'd say that's all the difference when it comes to dehumanizing. And anyone complaining about safe spaces might want to re-read TL Commandment #1. So when Hillary chose a basket of deplorables instead of their actions, that was when you also decided it was dehumanizing when she said it. The difference for me is if you excuse one group for their politics. I would not exempt either. But I'm a little undecided and somewhat uninformed on this, but I think this "deplorables" term is something they Trump & his supporters (half?) adopted for themselves*, a la "Les Miserables": a movie about the french revolution. *Trump played one of the songs from Les Miserables at one of his entrances recently. I don't really know. Deplorable is a term that applies to humans, it does not dehumanizing because it is addressing a human with a human term. Unlike Monkey or Vermin. (this is totally separate from whether you think deplorable is an acceptable term to use when talking to the supporters of your opponent).
The definition, or in some dictionaries I'm sure alternate definition, is to rob them of the complexity of what moral beings humans are. Google would first respond "deprive of positive human qualities." Note if I call you deplorable, you ARE a static bad thing, worthy of condemnation inside your identity. Which is why good schools would teach students to call actions deplorable not people. Deplorable, being a sharp derogatory word, robs the subject of their essential nature, and is undeniably a dehumanizing insult. I know I'm getting into nuances unsuited for a "Racist? Yes/No" debate here. But that's the long and short of it. Maybe the few nonaligned nonpartisans still reading will have a better understanding of the totality of Hillary'a insult that she was right to pull back later.
On September 23 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2016 06:58 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2016 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2016 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 06:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2016 06:49 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 23 2016 06:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Honestly, what I expected to catch some shit on was that there's a bit of a stink of advocating police brutality/excessive force in my original post. It didn't even occur to me that the rabid PC crowd would go all in on the bullshit "xDaunt is a racist" angle. I guess my expectations for this thread were a little high. We're going to go all out on your trolling. For the sake of logic, we are going to remember that "politically correct" isn't a logical argument against something. So instead of saying that we are pc, we are going to determine how we are illogical, or wrong. Make the argument against the position expressed in this thread, showing that it's incorrect, or irrational, as opposed to "politically correct". Go ahead. I'm not using "politically correct" as an argument. I'm using it as a label. And the labeling really has nothing to do with my arguments anyway -- all of which makes your appeal to logic amusing. Certain posters (yourself included) certainly haven't shown any hesitation in relentlessly misrepresenting my point, so don't let logic get in your way. So there's nothing wrong logically with our position? Oh no, there very clearly is something logically wrong, which is why I mentioned your "relentless misrepresentation" of my point. So can you please demonstrate it, as I asked you, instead of just labeling it pc? I already have, as have others. All of my statements were racially neutral, yet they have been repeatedly impugned (and I have personally been impugned) as being racist. And the only way to get to "what xDaunt said is racist" is to add content to my statements that aren't there. That is what we call a misrepresentation. If you want people to stop calling you a racist maybe ease up on the racist rhetoric. Just an idea. It's the same as when GGTemplar is burning crosses on the lawns of a black family and cries out "no, actually I burn crosses on the lawns of white and black people all the time, you can't infer anything from this". If you're upset about people thinking you're a racist perhaps stop using the word vermin to describe black people. Of course we all already think you're a racist but maybe when you're meeting new people you could try and hide it. I'm not upset at all that various posters call me racist. It lets me know that I've won. He has reached is final form. It took Trump, but he got there. Full blown, doesn't need to hide it any more, racist upper middle class dude. 2016 people. The year we will never forget.
The full meta-Trumping. Two people have intense disagreements on values and identity. One decides the disagreements are not based on the nature of the disagreement, but how Trump has been causing everyone to sacrifice their principles and logic. Leftists in 2016, lemme tell you.
|
On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:34 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:21 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:14 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Monkey is not a racist term. Let me get this straight. You've never heard this term used in a racist context? If not, are you sure you live in the US? Do you get out much?If so, I think you might want to take a look in the mirror when you say "intellectually dishonest". Oh I have. ... So you do see how someone might think you're racist when you use it to describe black people, seeing as how that's how it's been used pretty much every time they've seen it in that context in the past? Just trying to clarify communication. I understand. This entire debate sparked over posters commenting that the black people in the video were acting like animals/vermin/thugs. I understand why some people might think that sounds racist. It's not exactly something I fault them for or consider irrational. What I consider irrational is not considering or accepting the possibility that it wasn't racially motivated. Even arguing that it had to be racially motivated because the words were being used against black people. I considered this irrational. I mocked how they were being picky-and-choosy with the insults they cared about 'going too far' as dehumanizing. I focused on the obviously charitable position that any rational person ought to consider. These violent criminals were being called animals/vermin/thugs because they were acting like animals/vermin/thugs, not because they were black, which is what multiple posters seemed to be incapable of grasping. That is when I decided to say fuck it and called them monkeys, and specifically stated I am calling them monkeys because they were acting like monkeys and it had nothing to do with their race or skin color. As you can tell, this confused some of the PC posters in this thread who irrationally rejected the idea that such an insult could be used (against a black person) without being racially motivated. I consider this highly irrational. GH actually picked up on the point I was making extremely early on in the debate, and noted that it's possible for it to not be racist if 'monkey' was being used as a sort of synonym for 'stupid'. The thing is, everyone using these phrases made explicit multiple times that they were insulting these people because of their behavior, not because of their skin color. I even noted how I've probably called more white people 'fucking monkeys' to myself when i considered them to be behaving like animals. I would think the discussion would have immediately turned to the historical context discussion that we are at now if the posters were more intelligent, but rather it turned into several posters arguing that "no you're only doing it because they're fucking black you racist". So you're telling me why I'm calling someone stupid is because they are black after I've literally told you I am calling them stupid because they behaved stupid. That is how I saw the past 10 pages going down. I'm just saying that maybe you can avoid such confusion by using different terminology. I'd prefer we didn't have this socially taboo list of names you aren't allowed to call this group or that group. How about we as a society focus on progressing past these things that hold us back from culturally moving past this and focus on more productive things? Take away the power from these words and they lose meaning. It's literally Lord Voldemort vs 'he-who-must-not-be-named' but instead of one word we've got fucking dozens we're trying to censor. Some of them I understand, others like 'vermin' or 'thug' or 'monkey' make no fucking sense. It comes down to the idea that just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they have to stay that way. Whatever though. I will not call black people, or white people, or asian people, or anyone a monkey in this thread again (even if they're acting literally like violent animals).What other words should we censure as insults? Vermin? Thugs? Deplorables? Cucks? SJWS's? Alt-right? Hillbillys? Shills? Trumpets? Where do you want to draw the line. It's just ridiculous to me but whatever
Pretty sure black people and all minorities would love if there were not bigoted insults out there. But there are, because there are bigoted people. A gay man isn't born disliking being called a fag. That is a word that was used to harm and insult him. So when the word is used by someone as a casual insult, if offend him because it was deeply hurtful in the past.
You act like people just decide these words are bad without any real logic behind it. Black people don't like being called monkeys because racist people call them monkeys. Still do today. I don't know a black person who can say they went through life without being called every racist slur in the book at least once. If not more.
|
On September 23 2016 07:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
GH actually picked up on the point I was making extremely early on in the debate, and noted that it's possible for it to not be racist if 'monkey' was being used as a sort of synonym for 'stupid'. Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suppose if the person wanted to operate from the position that they were a ignorant moron, there may be nothing racist about it. I'm not sure that post says what you think it says.
You may be right. My initial interpretation was
"if the person wanted to operate from the position that they (the individual they were calling a monkey) was an ignorant moron, there may be nothing racist"
Which I think is perfectly reasonable.
Maybe he actually meant
"if the person wanted to operate from the position that they (the individual calling someone a monkey) was an ignorant moron, there be nothing racist"
Green which one of these did you mean? It's ambiguous. I was under the impression it was the former interpretation.
On September 23 2016 07:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:21 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:14 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Monkey is not a racist term. Let me get this straight. You've never heard this term used in a racist context? If not, are you sure you live in the US? Do you get out much?If so, I think you might want to take a look in the mirror when you say "intellectually dishonest". Oh I have. ... So you do see how someone might think you're racist when you use it to describe black people, seeing as how that's how it's been used pretty much every time they've seen it in that context in the past? Just trying to clarify communication. What I consider irrational is not considering or accepting the possibility that it wasn't racially motivated. This sentence, translated from GGTeMpLaR into english, means "I consider it irrational that people are not accepting my way of speaking english over the way of speaking english of everyone else".
You are pretty bad at translation.
I understood from the beginning that the meaning was controversial, which is why I explicitly stated the motivations for the insult.
Instead of being met with critiques over why from a historical perspective it was offensive, I was met with "NO YOUR MOTIVATIONS AREN'T X THEY ARE Y"
Like you're seriously telling me why I'm saying something after I just told you why i said it?
On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist?
This is literally what happened. It's not my favorite insult but it's one of the various terms I use to describe people I consider of low-intelligence behaving like fools
|
On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist?
yes
next question.
|
On September 23 2016 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:41 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
Nigger/coon/spook are slurs. Thug/vermin/monkey are words. We know there's no eyelid batting if someone were to call a white person, acting like a monkey, a monkey. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no sense. If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either. Doesn't mean "cunt" is a "word" and not a "slur". There is almost as much shock in polite society if you called xDaunt a cunt as if you called him a nigger (speaking academically, thanks for being a sport xDaunt) despite that he's not in the target group of either of those slurs. "Polite society"?
I'm not sure what you're asking. You said nobody would care if you called a man a cunt. That's not "real-world" true.
|
On September 23 2016 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist? yes next question.
That seems silly to me, you want to consider the historical context of the word but not the context in which the poster used it.
|
On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist?
If he was told that it is racist and doesn't stop calling people it, not caring that they are black and consider it racist, I would call him a huge asshole. But this assumes that he picked up the insult in a vacuum and keeps using it despite knowing it labels him as a racist.
|
On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist?
I use the equivalent for the word "retard" in french all the time, it's my go-to insult. In french it's "triso" so it's really reminiscent of trisomy as you can tell. Last year I worked at a place where there were mentally challenged people. Guess what, I didn't call any of them a retard. And if I had done it by mistake cause I didn't think about what I was saying, I would have then profusely apologized, I wouldn't have gone "No you don't understand, I use this word all the time so it's okay, I didn't mean you".
This shouldn't be hard.
|
On September 23 2016 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist? yes next question.
I could understand if you still wanted to say it was a racist term
but you surely wouldn't say the person using it in this hypothetical situation was a racist for doing it.
|
On September 23 2016 07:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
Nigger/coon/spook are slurs. Thug/vermin/monkey are words. We know there's no eyelid batting if someone were to call a white person, acting like a monkey, a monkey. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no sense. If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either. Doesn't mean "cunt" is a "word" and not a "slur".
I actually don't even know what the big deal is with this word. As an american where I'm from it's just synonymous with pussy or bitch.
Does it have some sort of slur meaning beyond that?
|
On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist?
yes language isn't some private activity or else we couldn't communicate. You're supposed to be aware of what the stuff you say signifies.
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:41 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
Nigger/coon/spook are slurs. Thug/vermin/monkey are words. We know there's no eyelid batting if someone were to call a white person, acting like a monkey, a monkey. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no sense. If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either. Doesn't mean "cunt" is a "word" and not a "slur". There is almost as much shock in polite society if you called xDaunt a cunt as if you called him a nigger (speaking academically, thanks for being a sport xDaunt) despite that he's not in the target group of either of those slurs. "Polite society"? I'm not sure what you're asking. You said nobody would care if you called a man a cunt. That's not "real-world" true.
If you introduce polite society to the conversation, I'm not sure people will be okay with being called "monkeys", or even "stupid". I hear insults aren't very polite.
|
On September 23 2016 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist? yes next question. I could understand if you still wanted to say it was a racist term but you surely wouldn't say the person using it in this hypothetical situation was a racist for doing it.
Except the person would need to have grown up in a bubble, on the moon and somehow learned English without ever interacting with the world at large.
|
On September 23 2016 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:41 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
Nigger/coon/spook are slurs. Thug/vermin/monkey are words. We know there's no eyelid batting if someone were to call a white person, acting like a monkey, a monkey. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no sense. If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either. Doesn't mean "cunt" is a "word" and not a "slur". There is almost as much shock in polite society if you called xDaunt a cunt as if you called him a nigger (speaking academically, thanks for being a sport xDaunt) despite that he's not in the target group of either of those slurs. "Polite society"? I'm not sure what you're asking. You said nobody would care if you called a man a cunt. That's not "real-world" true. If you introduce polite society to the conversation, I'm not sure people will be okay with being called "monkeys", or even "stupid". I hear insults aren't very polite.
Are you making the word "stupid" equivalent in force to "nigger" which is nothing but a racial slur?
|
On September 23 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2016 07:45 biology]major wrote:
question for you guys: lets say hypothetically a poster used the word monkey to describe all sorts of people, it was just his favorite insult ever and he threw it out any chance he got. Then we get to where we are now, that same poster calls the people in that clip monkeys. Would you still think that's racist? yes next question. I could understand if you still wanted to say it was a racist term but you surely wouldn't say the person using it in this hypothetical situation was a racist for doing it. Except the person would need to have grown up in a bubble, on the moon and somehow learned English without ever interacting with the world at large.
Or in a world where people actually thought saying "I have black friends" made you not racist when you said something racist.
|
On September 23 2016 07:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:41 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
Nigger/coon/spook are slurs. Thug/vermin/monkey are words. We know there's no eyelid batting if someone were to call a white person, acting like a monkey, a monkey. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no sense. If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either. Doesn't mean "cunt" is a "word" and not a "slur". There is almost as much shock in polite society if you called xDaunt a cunt as if you called him a nigger (speaking academically, thanks for being a sport xDaunt) despite that he's not in the target group of either of those slurs. "Polite society"? I'm not sure what you're asking. You said nobody would care if you called a man a cunt. That's not "real-world" true. If you introduce polite society to the conversation, I'm not sure people will be okay with being called "monkeys", or even "stupid". I hear insults aren't very polite. Are you making the word "stupid" equivalent in force to "nigger" which is nothing but a racial slur?
No, I'm not. I'm questioning your introduction of "polite society" into the discussion so that you can then say that american men would be offended at the word "cunt" being used against them.
|
On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:58 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:41 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
Nigger/coon/spook are slurs. Thug/vermin/monkey are words. We know there's no eyelid batting if someone were to call a white person, acting like a monkey, a monkey. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no sense. If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either. Doesn't mean "cunt" is a "word" and not a "slur". There is almost as much shock in polite society if you called xDaunt a cunt as if you called him a nigger (speaking academically, thanks for being a sport xDaunt) despite that he's not in the target group of either of those slurs. "Polite society"? I'm not sure what you're asking. You said nobody would care if you called a man a cunt. That's not "real-world" true. If you introduce polite society to the conversation, I'm not sure people will be okay with being called "monkeys", or even "stupid". I hear insults aren't very polite. Are you making the word "stupid" equivalent in force to "nigger" which is nothing but a racial slur? No, I'm not. I'm questioning your introduction of "polite society" into the discussion so that you can then say that white men would be offended at the word "cunt" being used against them.
Do the totally inoffensive experiment that was proposed by left leaning people earlier, walk up to a man on the street and a woman on the street, call them both a cunt, and report back to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
