|
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 08:22 KwarK wrote:
Teamliquid banning him still wouldn't be censoring him, it'd just be showing him the door.
I would still consider that a form of censoring. TL has all the right to do it but if he was nuked then his opinion disappears and that is a form of censoring, even when its just in this tiny context of a thread.
|
On September 23 2016 08:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:17 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Excuse me if it's not clear what you're trying to dispute.
|
On September 23 2016 08:24 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:22 KwarK wrote:
Teamliquid banning him still wouldn't be censoring him, it'd just be showing him the door. I would still consider that a form of censoring.
This is a club house. He can find unlimited venues for his thoughts if he wants. TL is not required to provide him with people to read his thoughts. If we are going to devalue censorship to the point where its just someone telling you "you need to leave" the term is meaningless.
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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 Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you?
It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship.
"You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."
Seriously?
On September 23 2016 08:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:24 Slaughter wrote:On September 23 2016 08:22 KwarK wrote:
Teamliquid banning him still wouldn't be censoring him, it'd just be showing him the door. I would still consider that a form of censoring. This is a club house. He can find unlimited venues for his thoughts if he wants. TL is not required to provide him with people to read his thoughts. If we are going to devalue censorship to the point where its just someone telling you "you need to leave" the term is meaningless.
Good thing it's not up to you then.
Don't worry if I'm actually wrong about the outcome of this election I'll get my 180 day ban anyways and you can celebrate all you want.
|
On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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 Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you? It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship. "You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."Seriously?
Again, no one is stopping you from using it. People calling you out on it doesn't stop you.
|
On September 23 2016 08:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:17 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Excuse me if it's not clear what you're trying to dispute.
You offered a classification of derogatory terms based on whether everyone would be offended by them or just the specific group of people that they were meant to insult in the first place. While defending that this made sense, you told me that "cunt" would be just as badly received by a man or by a woman in certain contexts (a polite society discussion or walking to a stranger in the street). I countered that in the specific contexts that you offered, any insult would be badly received, and as such, that this was not relevant to whether "cunt" is received the same by a man or by a woman.
|
On September 23 2016 08:28 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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 Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you? It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship. "You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."Seriously? Again, no one is stopping you from using it. People calling you out on it doesn't stop you.
I mean short of wanting this thread to be a safe space for using racist epithets (ironically) im not sure what else is there.
Getting called out on using racist terms and dehumanizing people as ones that need to be exterminated should be met with agreement and applause.
,,,,,,,,
|
On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship.
"You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."
Seriously?
Again, please explain why you choose the term vermin. Is it descriptive like you use monkey because you believe these people have no value to society and should be killed?
|
Wow, those last 10 pages...
Some little French story for a parallel. A few months ago, one of our ministers was talking about Muslim women who were “forced to wear the veil”. The journalist replied, “but there are women who wear it freely”. And the minister said, “yeah, there are women who choose, but there were also American niggers who were for slavery”.
This declaration caused quite the outrage among antiracist militants, with protests from various associations, calls for her resignation, etc. The minister first defended herself by saying that she didn't mean nigger in an offensive way, but was simply referring to its “literary meaning” (related to some French author from the XVIIIth century who was using the term in a pro-abolitionism text).
Since people were still mad at her, and not at all convinced by her explanations, she eventually conceded that using nigger was a “language mistake” and apologized, saying she had regrets and felt terrible about that episode.
(Little story in the story, that minister was one of the founders of a famous antiracist association in the 80s...)
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 08:28 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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 Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you? It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship. "You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."Seriously? Again, no one is stopping you from using it. People calling you out on it doesn't stop you.
This is turning into a semantics debate over the nature of 'censorship'. People were calling these acts of racism.
I'm pretty sure that equates to calling for 'stopping me' because I believe racism is a violation of the rules here (obviously, as it should be - and someone who is actually promoting racial hatred ought to be censored).
I don't think I was racist because I don't think calling a criminal a criminal is racist. I don't think I did anything wrong. This was what was being contested and is very much a matter of censorship.
|
Apparently we have found the most controversial topic ITT.
|
On September 23 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:28 Slaughter wrote:On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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 Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you? It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship. "You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."Seriously? Again, no one is stopping you from using it. People calling you out on it doesn't stop you. This is turning into a semantics debate over the nature of 'censorship'. People were calling these acts of racism. I'm pretty sure that equates to calling for 'stopping me' because I believe racism is a violation of the rules here (obviously, as it should be - and someone who is actually promoting racial hatred ought to be censored). I don't think I was racist because I don't think calling a criminal a criminal is racist. I don't think I did anything wrong. This was what was being contested and is very much a matter of censorship.
Yea don't try to pretend thats what the argument was about.
|
United States43553 Posts
I'm actually okay with that usage of the word although I agree it was a shitty word choice. It reinforces the status of African Americans under slavery which is a central part of the argument.
|
|
|
On September 23 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:28 Slaughter wrote:On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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 Your not being censored. People critiquing you for using terms is not censoring. Not like you are banned now are you? It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship. "You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."Seriously? Again, no one is stopping you from using it. People calling you out on it doesn't stop you. I don't think I was racist because I don't think calling a criminal a criminal is racist. I don't think I did anything wrong. This was what was being contested and is very much a matter of censorship.
You didn't call them criminals. You called them subhumans. Nobody would have a problem if you had called them criminals, given that they are.
|
On September 23 2016 08:32 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship.
"You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."
Seriously?
Again, please explain why you choose the term vermin. Is it descriptive like you use monkey because you believe these people have no value to society and should be killed?
Sorry, I'm using vermin because vermin was what another poster first used to describe them that sparked the situation. I believed it was taken as a racial insult when I don't think it had anything to do with race and everything to do with how these violent people were behaving.
I don't really call people vermins; it's not one of the insults in my vocabulary. I'm just using it as an example because while I don't use it I still think if i wanted to I should be able to without being accused of being a 'dehumanizing racist'. It's no different than calling someone a scumbag.
If I call someone a scumbag I'm calling them a scumbag. It's like you saying "You call them a scumbag because you think they should be executed by crucifixion and tortured?" . I'm just sitting here like what? So what if he called them vermin? The rest of that is on you no one is talking about murdering people
On September 23 2016 08:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 08:28 Slaughter wrote:On September 23 2016 08:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 23 2016 08:21 Slaughter 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:
[quote]
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? It's not state-sponsored censorship sure, but it's trying to control and suppress speech by banning specific words at an absurd level that could properly described as censorship. "You can no longer call a black person a vermin. You can call them a stupid fucking retard, but if you call them a vermin that goes too far because of racism now apparently."Seriously? Again, no one is stopping you from using it. People calling you out on it doesn't stop you. I don't think I was racist because I don't think calling a criminal a criminal is racist. I don't think I did anything wrong. This was what was being contested and is very much a matter of censorship. You didn't call them criminals. You called them subhumans. Nobody would have a problem if you had called them criminals, given that they are.
sigh..
|
On September 23 2016 08:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:25 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 08:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2016 08:17 oBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Excuse me if it's not clear what you're trying to dispute. You offered a classification of derogatory terms based on whether everyone would be offended by them or just the specific group of people that they were meant to insult in the first place. While defending that this made sense, you told me that "cunt" would be just as badly received by a man or by a woman in certain contexts (a polite society discussion or walking to a stranger in the street). I countered that in the specific contexts that you offered, any insult would be badly received, and as such, that this was not relevant to whether "cunt" is received the same by a man or by a woman.
I see the problem, you've just misunderstood everything.
|
United States43553 Posts
On September 23 2016 08:40 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:
Apparently we have found the most controversial topic ITT. I would attribute it more to miscommunication.
You are being generous beyond all reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
