|
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 07:52 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 I aim for effective communication. By all means use the term as you wish. But words mean what they mean to most intelligent people at the time and place they were said. In this time and place, using the word "monkey" to describe black people is racist, because that is what is meant 99% of the time. Which is totally fine if you are racist; it's fine with me, most of the people I call friend and even family are racist. If you are, you should own it. But if you're not, then the failure to communicate effectively lies with you.
There was no communication failure because the motive for the insult was explicitly stated and additional context was provided that ought to lead an intelligent person to conclude that this is not being used in a racist manner.
On September 23 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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.
Obviously everyone here I think would prefer if bigoted insults weren't out there. There are always going to be bigoted people, but you have a choice with how much ammunition you give them.
I consider making a word taboo and censuring it such that the only time it gets used is actually in that terrible context to be empowering it. If you restrict the word then only the actual bigots use it and it is continuously only used to insult x group or y group. I think you chip away at these stereotypes one at at time by breaking them instead of empowering them with this sort of 'sacred he-who-must-not-be-named' worship.
Rather than rational the devotion to political correctness for the sake of being politically correct seems very much like a religion sometimes. People just accept it without really thinking about it or wanting to discuss how it could be different if we changed things.
|
On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote: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.
...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us.
|
On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote: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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us.
I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either."
|
On September 23 2016 08:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us. I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either."
Presumably I'm in a context where I can call him a derogatory term and not immediately create a problem due to having insulted him? Otherwise I could call him a monkey, a nigger or an idiot, he would presumably not enjoy it.
|
On September 23 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:36 KwarK wrote: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'. 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. I didn't want to tell him. GH's burn was so cold and then GG didn't even get it. I couldn't bring myself to do it.
How is calling someone an ignorant moron a cold burn?
It just accidentally happened to have a double meaning that could fit either interpretation because of how it was grammatically constructed.
I'd still like GH to comment on it for clarity.
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 08:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:52 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 I aim for effective communication. By all means use the term as you wish. But words mean what they mean to most intelligent people at the time and place they were said. In this time and place, using the word "monkey" to describe black people is racist, because that is what is meant 99% of the time. Which is totally fine if you are racist; it's fine with me, most of the people I call friend and even family are racist. If you are, you should own it. But if you're not, then the failure to communicate effectively lies with you. There was no communication failure because the motive for the insult was explicitly stated and additional context was provided that ought to lead an intelligent person to conclude that this is not being used in a racist manner. Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. Obviously everyone here I think would prefer if bigoted insults weren't out there. There are always going to be bigoted people, but you have a choice with how much ammunition you give them. I consider making a word taboo and censuring it such that the only time it gets used is actually in that terrible context to be empowering it. If you restrict the word then only the actual bigots use it and it is continuously only used to insult x group or y group. I think you chip away at these stereotypes one at at time by breaking them instead of empowering them with this sort of 'sacred he-who-must-not-be-named' worship. Rather than rational the devotion to political correctness for the sake of being politically correct seems very much like a religion sometimes. People just accept it without really thinking about it or wanting to discuss how it could be different if we changed things.
You have to censor your language to exist with other people. Talking about your sex life or drug habit at work is not acceptable. Telling a girl how much you want to fuck her, rather than just saying "Hi" is also not ok. These words that you want to use are on that list. You might not like it, but that is the way it is.
You don't get to decide what words hurt other people. No more than someone shooting off fireworks gets to tell the vet with PTSD "This shouldn't bother you, its for fun."
|
On September 23 2016 08:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:02 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us. I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either." Presumably I'm in a context where I can call him a derogatory term and not immediately create a problem due to having insulted him? Otherwise I could call him a monkey, a nigger or an idiot, he would presumably not enjoy it.
Yes insulting people should ideally be avoided to begin with. We had a video of an innocent bystander being violently assaulted and I don't really think insulting the criminals warrants unique criticism in light of the greater context of what had just happened.
|
On September 23 2016 08:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:02 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us. I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either." Presumably I'm in a context where I can call him a derogatory term and not immediately create a problem due to having insulted him? Otherwise I could call him a monkey, a nigger or an idiot, he would presumably not enjoy it.
Again you're going down this road where everything's equivalent. Nigger is a word that's only a racial slur. That's it. Wrong race -> subhuman. Idiot is a word that refers to a concept everyone agrees on. That there are less intelligent people. That's a real thing. An actual meaning.
|
On September 23 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 07:36 KwarK wrote: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'. 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. I didn't want to tell him. GH's burn was so cold and then GG didn't even get it. I couldn't bring myself to do it. How is calling someone an ignorant moron a cold burn? It just accidentally happened to have a double meaning that could fit either interpretation because of how it was grammatically constructed. I'd still like GH to comment on it for clarity.
Because he said the only way you could make teh argument that it wasn't racist is if you were an uneducated moron who didn't know any better. Child like, Glass eyed and dull. Someone that gets to make mistakes because they can't know any better.
|
I'm mostly gonna be avoiding posting here until tomorrow, so peeps can settle down and the crazy can subside.
|
On September 23 2016 08:06 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 I aim for effective communication. By all means use the term as you wish. But words mean what they mean to most intelligent people at the time and place they were said. In this time and place, using the word "monkey" to describe black people is racist, because that is what is meant 99% of the time. Which is totally fine if you are racist; it's fine with me, most of the people I call friend and even family are racist. If you are, you should own it. But if you're not, then the failure to communicate effectively lies with you. There was no communication failure because the motive for the insult was explicitly stated and additional context was provided that ought to lead an intelligent person to conclude that this is not being used in a racist manner. Ah, I knew I shouldn't have changed "efficient" to 'effective". (again) I agree. As I said before, they should have taken you at your word when you say you regularly use it to describe the behavior itself regardless of race. But still, for efficient communication, I still think you should consider using different terminology. You can't really blame them for getting the wrong impression initially.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with you at all here.
|
On September 23 2016 08:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 07:36 KwarK wrote: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'. 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. I didn't want to tell him. GH's burn was so cold and then GG didn't even get it. I couldn't bring myself to do it. How is calling someone an ignorant moron a cold burn? It just accidentally happened to have a double meaning that could fit either interpretation because of how it was grammatically constructed. I'd still like GH to comment on it for clarity. Because he said the only way you could make teh argument that it wasn't racist is if you were an uneducated moron who didn't know any better. Child like, Glass eyed and dull. Someone that gets to make mistakes because they can't know any better.
Okay whatever you say bud
On September 23 2016 08:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 I aim for effective communication. By all means use the term as you wish. But words mean what they mean to most intelligent people at the time and place they were said. In this time and place, using the word "monkey" to describe black people is racist, because that is what is meant 99% of the time. Which is totally fine if you are racist; it's fine with me, most of the people I call friend and even family are racist. If you are, you should own it. But if you're not, then the failure to communicate effectively lies with you. There was no communication failure because the motive for the insult was explicitly stated and additional context was provided that ought to lead an intelligent person to conclude that this is not being used in a racist manner. On September 23 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. Obviously everyone here I think would prefer if bigoted insults weren't out there. There are always going to be bigoted people, but you have a choice with how much ammunition you give them. I consider making a word taboo and censuring it such that the only time it gets used is actually in that terrible context to be empowering it. If you restrict the word then only the actual bigots use it and it is continuously only used to insult x group or y group. I think you chip away at these stereotypes one at at time by breaking them instead of empowering them with this sort of 'sacred he-who-must-not-be-named' worship. Rather than rational the devotion to political correctness for the sake of being politically correct seems very much like a religion sometimes. People just accept it without really thinking about it or wanting to discuss how it could be different if we changed things. You have to censor your language to exist with other people. Talking about your sex life or drug habit at work is not acceptable. Telling a girl how much you want to fuck her, rather than just saying "Hi" is also not ok. These words that you want to use are on that list. You might not like it, but that is the way it is.You don't get to decide what words hurt other people. No more than someone shooting off fireworks gets to tell the vet with PTSD "This shouldn't bother you, its for fun."
Just because that's the way it is doesn't mean it's the way it should be. There is a time and place for censorship but I don't think how it was attempted to be used in this thread was appropriate when it was made explicitly clear that the criminals were being called 'thugs' and 'vermins' for their behavior, not their skin color.
It's a pretty horrible analogy to compare this to someone with PTSD. Your brother serves so you should know better than this. I know I'm really lucky as my career will probably lead to me not getting it while I serve, but I would never compare PTSD with getting offended over political correctness.
|
On September 23 2016 08:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:05 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:02 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
"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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us. I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either." Presumably I'm in a context where I can call him a derogatory term and not immediately create a problem due to having insulted him? Otherwise I could call him a monkey, a nigger or an idiot, he would presumably not enjoy it. Again you're going down this road where everything's equivalent. Nigger is a word that's only a racial slur. That's it. Wrong race -> subhuman. Idiot is a word that refers to a concept everyone agrees on. That there are less intelligent people. That's a real thing. An actual meaning.
No, I'm not going down this road at all. You are pretending that I am cause this dishonest way of arguing is literally your go-to debate tactic, so I'm not very surprised.
If you walk down a street and start calling strangers stupid, they will react badly. That doens't mean "stupid" is the same as "nigger", it just means you used an idiotic example that proves nothing to further your point that "cunt" is received the same by a man or by a woman in America.
|
On September 23 2016 08:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:09 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 07:36 KwarK wrote: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'. 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. I didn't want to tell him. GH's burn was so cold and then GG didn't even get it. I couldn't bring myself to do it. How is calling someone an ignorant moron a cold burn? It just accidentally happened to have a double meaning that could fit either interpretation because of how it was grammatically constructed. I'd still like GH to comment on it for clarity. Because he said the only way you could make teh argument that it wasn't racist is if you were an uneducated moron who didn't know any better. Child like, Glass eyed and dull. Someone that gets to make mistakes because they can't know any better. Okay whatever you say bud Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:06 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 08:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I aim for effective communication. By all means use the term as you wish. But words mean what they mean to most intelligent people at the time and place they were said. In this time and place, using the word "monkey" to describe black people is racist, because that is what is meant 99% of the time. Which is totally fine if you are racist; it's fine with me, most of the people I call friend and even family are racist. If you are, you should own it. But if you're not, then the failure to communicate effectively lies with you. There was no communication failure because the motive for the insult was explicitly stated and additional context was provided that ought to lead an intelligent person to conclude that this is not being used in a racist manner. On September 23 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Obviously everyone here I think would prefer if bigoted insults weren't out there. There are always going to be bigoted people, but you have a choice with how much ammunition you give them. I consider making a word taboo and censuring it such that the only time it gets used is actually in that terrible context to be empowering it. If you restrict the word then only the actual bigots use it and it is continuously only used to insult x group or y group. I think you chip away at these stereotypes one at at time by breaking them instead of empowering them with this sort of 'sacred he-who-must-not-be-named' worship. Rather than rational the devotion to political correctness for the sake of being politically correct seems very much like a religion sometimes. People just accept it without really thinking about it or wanting to discuss how it could be different if we changed things. You have to censor your language to exist with other people. Talking about your sex life or drug habit at work is not acceptable. Telling a girl how much you want to fuck her, rather than just saying "Hi" is also not ok. These words that you want to use are on that list. You might not like it, but that is the way it is.You don't get to decide what words hurt other people. No more than someone shooting off fireworks gets to tell the vet with PTSD "This shouldn't bother you, its for fun." Just because that's the way it is doesn't mean it's the way it should be. It's a pretty horrible analogy to compare this to someone with PTSD. Your brother serves so you should know better than this.
For reference, I was talking about a kid I knew in high school that was rampantly abused by his father because he was gay. We were not friends, but it was a bummer to hear why he moved across the country and punched in a girl in college who called him a fag. But I get is, only vets can experience trauma. Except those who have are normally pretty accepting other other peoples struggles.
|
On September 23 2016 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:09 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:05 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:02 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:58 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us. I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either." Presumably I'm in a context where I can call him a derogatory term and not immediately create a problem due to having insulted him? Otherwise I could call him a monkey, a nigger or an idiot, he would presumably not enjoy it. Again you're going down this road where everything's equivalent. Nigger is a word that's only a racial slur. That's it. Wrong race -> subhuman. Idiot is a word that refers to a concept everyone agrees on. That there are less intelligent people. That's a real thing. An actual meaning. No, I'm not going down this road at all. You are pretending that I am cause this dishonest way of arguing is literally your go-to debate tactic, so I'm not very surprised. If you walk down a street and start calling strangers stupid, they will react badly. That doens't mean "stupid" is the same as "nigger", it just means you used an idiotic example that proves nothing to further your point that "cunt" is received the same by a man or by a woman in America.
People do not feel the same if you call them a cunt or a nigger as if you call them a pinhead, or we have divergent personal experiences.
|
On September 23 2016 08:06 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Barrin wrote:On September 23 2016 07:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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 I aim for effective communication. By all means use the term as you wish. But words mean what they mean to most intelligent people at the time and place they were said. In this time and place, using the word "monkey" to describe black people is racist, because that is what is meant 99% of the time. Which is totally fine if you are racist; it's fine with me, most of the people I call friend and even family are racist. If you are, you should own it. But if you're not, then the failure to communicate effectively lies with you. There was no communication failure because the motive for the insult was explicitly stated and additional context was provided that ought to lead an intelligent person to conclude that this is not being used in a racist manner. I agree. As I said before, they should have taken you at your word when you say you regularly use it to describe the behavior itself regardless of race.
Again, I think that's wrong. When you know that a word is used to refer to a specific group of people, and you use it to refer to that specific group of people but in a different way, society doesn't have to take time to adapt to you. You know what you're doing.
|
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
Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you?
|
On September 23 2016 08:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:09 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:05 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:02 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:00 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 07:58 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 07:52 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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. ...walk up to a stranger in the street and call them "stupid". Report back to us. I'm not the one who said "If you call an american man a "cunt", there's no eyelid batting either." Presumably I'm in a context where I can call him a derogatory term and not immediately create a problem due to having insulted him? Otherwise I could call him a monkey, a nigger or an idiot, he would presumably not enjoy it. Again you're going down this road where everything's equivalent. Nigger is a word that's only a racial slur. That's it. Wrong race -> subhuman. Idiot is a word that refers to a concept everyone agrees on. That there are less intelligent people. That's a real thing. An actual meaning. No, I'm not going down this road at all. You are pretending that I am cause this dishonest way of arguing is literally your go-to debate tactic, so I'm not very surprised. If you walk down a street and start calling strangers stupid, they will react badly. That doens't mean "stupid" is the same as "nigger", it just means you used an idiotic example that proves nothing to further your point that "cunt" is received the same by a man or by a woman in America. People do not feel the same if you call them a cunt or a nigger as if you call them a pinhead, or we have divergent personal experiences.
That would tend to prove that "pinhead" is not an equivalent of "nigger", which means you have won the argument that you have in your head.
|
United States42008 Posts
Teamliquid banning him still wouldn't be censoring him, it'd just be showing him the door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
