First Lady Uses Racial Slur And Gets Away With It

originally posted by: intrepid
I'm Canadian. I have a trained beaver

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: beezzer

Bottom of the barrel material, no wonder you found it.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: beezzer

Bottom of the barrel material, no wonder you found it.

Michelle Obama picked the word, all by herself, I'm guessing.
First Lady material right there!

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

We have totally become the US of A, home of the offended.

That totally offends me.

originally posted by: TDawg61
Hey the democrats started the "politically correct"bs with the Clintons.The fact that they can't abide by the same rules that they've shoved down our throats just proves their hypocrisy.

This is all the republicans can come up with?

What a failures.

Seems like the Obama's are slacking.

This supports the assertion that offense is in the context/tone and not in the word itself.

Anyone who got upset about "Redskins" needs to be upset by "gypped". Neither context is hateful or offensive.

The only other option is that we place a numerical value on whether or not a word is offensive.

So how many people need to claim offense for a word to be officially offensive? 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000?

Is it the fault of the gypsies that they lack the numbers to sway popular opinion? Are they forever destined to be an abused and ridiculed minority?

The defense of "she didnt know" or "it's so commonly used" further backs the point that without an offensive context or tone there is no offense.

So to rail against a team named the Redskins yet defend the use of the term "gypped" is ridiculous.

Of course if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NFL team is a wholly anti-native organization named for the sole purpose of deriding the native population then you could prove offensive context and tone. From what I've seen nobody has been able to do that. They point to evidence that the term can be used in such context but not that the organization has been founded in that context. I can point to evidence that "Monday" has been used in an offensive context but that does not mean that Mondays were created for the sole purpose to offend a group of people.

originally posted by: intrepid
I think it's another non-issue. TONS of those lately. My 2 points:

1) Who hasn't used that word?
2) How many even know it's a racial slur?

I agree...but...how about the old man that is too ancient to realize that "the n word" is no longer OK to use? Does he get a pass also? Hell...my mother still calls Brazil Nuts "n-toes".

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
This supports the assertion that offense is in the context/tone and not in the word itself.

Anyone who got upset about "Redskins" needs to be upset by "gypped". Neither context is hateful or offensive.

The only other option is that we place a numerical value on whether or not a word is offensive.

So how many people need to claim offense for a word to be officially offensive? 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000?

Is it the fault of the gypsies that they lack the numbers to sway popular opinion? Are they forever destined to be an abused and ridiculed minority?

The defense of "she didnt know" or "it's so commonly used" further backs the point that without an offensive context or tone there is no offense.

So to rail against a team named the Redskins yet defend the use of the term "gypped" is ridiculous.

Of course if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NFL team is a wholly anti-native organization named for the sole purpose of deriding the native population then you could prove offensive context and tone. From what I've seen nobody has been able to do that. They point to evidence that the term can be used in such context but not that the organization has been founded in that context. I can point to evidence that "Monday" has been used in an offensive context but that does not mean that Mondays were created for the sole purpose to offend a group of people.

It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Holy Guacamole! How is anybody supposed to know that stuff?

I use "bugger" almost everyday. From this moment forward I deeply apologize to all Bulgarian Sodomites I may have offended...

"Hip Hip Hooray" is anti-semitic? I thought "Peanut Galley" was from Howdy Doody?

Where does this end?

a reply to: ABNARTY

Holy Guacamole!

Hey! I know someone that is Mexican... and I'll bet he would be offended.... if he read that.

Much ado about nothing. Extreme political correctness the past few years is one of the many things ruining this country. Pretty soon people will stop talking and writing (which for some would be a good idea) altogether, for fear every single word will be scrutinized for ethnic origin and meaning (both proper and maybe unknown or unintended slang).

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.

The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.

The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind

Very well put.
Libertarian holds the live and let live mindset now..... NOT Tea Party... Libertarian.

*General reply to thread* That means no one in particular.

I find it ironic to bring up the issue of intent or lack thereof as a defense in this case.

Speaking of defense, I think Washington will have a pretty good one this year. Perhaps they can change their name to the Gypsies, with good intentions only of course.

Sunday afternoon at FedEx and Washington takes the field, trying to win another one for the Gyppers.

Of course that idea might encounter fierce opposition from this guy

I'd be the last person to ever take the Obama's side, but political correctness will be the death of us all. There's another term for what she said that I hear more often, but it may be against T & C to post, but it is widely used. I don't think it's "racist".

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.

The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind

Personally, I like the live and let live mentality. I believe in that as long as the "living" that individual does, only affects that individual. But when their "choices" cost me money, freedom or security...thats a different story. A woman is free to choose to have sex while not wanting to get pregnant and I should be free not to pay for her choice and her pills. My neighbor is free (in my mind) to choose to do drugs, but when the crowd that gathers around his house to buy cause noise, damage and a threat...that is wrong. A single woman with five children and on welfare is free to choose to have more children...but not with me paying the bill. I could go on...for a long time.

So yes...live and let live. And let me live and let live and your life better never affect mine. If it does...you broke the rule and all bets are off.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

It becomes offensive when there are enough votes to care about. Gypsies? Probably not enough for the liberals to invest in.

The word "liberal" used to mean something good. A relaxed live-and-let-live attitude. It's sad that the word is now used to refer to some of the most devious forms of humorless PC thought-police fascism in the History of mankind

Yea but liberals want to make sure society is such that the 'living and letting live' of others, is not creating a hellish society for the others to live in. I personally dont think the redskins thing is that bad, I dont really care either way, I really dont care. What would you think if a white NBA owner named his team 'The New York Blackskins'? Should you be right if you were to say a black person shouldnt be offended by something? Should a person have the right to be offended by something another does, and should the collective offense be attempted to be eliminated with action? This idea of being offended is the sole essence of the idea of law. 'it is offensive to murder, it is offensive to steal, it is offensive to rape, it is offensive to destroy property'.

I understand the whole liberal PC thought police thing but its a very interesting thing. It appears as if it is emotional law of sorts, when one is all for freedom, that includes he freedom to not be enlightened, the freedom to be ignorant, but it doesnt include the freedom to murder and rape. It is a brave new world. I dont think the red skins thing is that bad, but maybe its for the fact that it is an exaggerated stereotype, in that they didnt really have red skin...maybe, what about naming a train service that ran a line the asian americans helped lay the track for 'the yellowskin express', their slogan can be 'ride smart'?

Now that I think about it, my stance is that any non native american can and should not be allowed to utilize any at all thing of native american history, in any way, just because of how history turned out. I am assuming that thought plays a role in the recent 'losing of their trademark'. They (the nfl team owner) should not be able to profit on the image of the white mans slaughtering of and ruining of the native american peoples lives. That is more than fair in my opinion.

It appears it must be solely about the the term 'redskin', as there are the 'Atlanta Braves' who feature a traditional stadium synched 'tomahawk chop', and the 'Chicago Black hawks' who should be forced to change their name as it is quite disrespectful to those hawks of color.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Since you bring up the old man, I will raise you a National Association for the Advancement of Negroes.

Should I mention how offended I am by the term African Americans describing those who are not African?

We have a buttload (that's PC, isnt it?) of contradicting stuff in our society. I find the "Redskins" controversy to be ridiculous. I suppose the Braves and the Chiefs will be next on the "offended, get rid of it" campaign.

Seems like we have bigger issues in the US to be disturbed by. Like, the Kardashians... !!!

lol