It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama uses N-word, says we are 'not cured' of racism

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream
Obama should have used "Thug", its the new N word used by those that miss the N word.


No, it is not. A "thug" means brutal ruffian, violent criminal, or assassin. Example: The man was brutalized by a bunch of street thugs.

Just because some of you want to change the real meaning of 'thug' into a substitution for the n-word does not make it so. The meaning is still the same, but if the shoe fits.....black, white, Asian, hispanic can all be thugs.
edit on 22-6-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This makes a good example of why an honest conversation and discussion is impossible at any level. On one hand you have people on the Right claiming that Obama is causing hate and riots between Blacks and White's by labeling the White Man as oppressive and that the Black Man is being abused.

Then on the other hand you guys on the Left like Cornel West here that is saying that Obama is ni**erized meaning that he's afraid to speak up against the White Man and his Oppression of Black People. That Obama is scared to speak up for the Black Man and the fact that Black people are being abused.

Any wonder as to why there is such a divide and such confusion with everyone. If you're on the Right Obama is a White Hating Black Man causing Blacks to Hate Whites. If you're on the Left Obama is sucking up to the White Man and selling out his Black Brothers and Sisters. Well, which is it then??? Is he catering to Whites or Blacks??? Guess it depends on which Talking Head you think is telling you the truth.

I say stop listening to the talking heads and use your own head. Stop letting others tell you what the truth is and decide that for yourself. I doubt you'll agree with the pundits on the left or right once you do.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

The real issue is that there is a such a thing as a "subject matter expert" that the news outlets can trot out. People who profit from racial tensions are pretty scummy.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mojom

The real issue is that there is a such a thing as a "subject matter expert" that the news outlets can trot out. People who profit from racial tensions are pretty scummy.


I miss the news like it used to be. Today's news would have read:

"Obama gave an interview today on WTF blog radio where they discussed various topics in a commercial free first hand format.
Here's Tom with the Weather."

Now it reads:

"Obama gave an interview today on WTF blog radio where he used the N-Word and now we are totally offended and you should be offended too because saying the N-Word in any context is Racist and Evil and God Hates that and hates you too if you don't agree that it's offensive.
Here's Tom with the Weather."



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And what happens when someone overhears your otherwise intelligent conversation and reports you for it because they did not hear the whole of your chat and it is thus out of context.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

And what happens when someone overhears your otherwise intelligent conversation and reports you for it because they did not hear the whole of your chat and it is thus out of context.



Reports you for what exactly??? Who are they going to report you to, the speech police???

But let's say there really are speech police to report to just for conversation sake. If they report something that isn't accurate and that they heard out of context who's at fault you or them???

If they are in fact making a false report of something that they heard wrong, aren't they still wrong??? The person who was talking didn't say anything wrong just because someone else who was snooping in on the conversation didn't hear them correctly, so as a matter of true justice who cares if they report you??? They're the one in the wrong so screw them. That's why Freedom of Speech is not something to hinder or change or take away.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lurker1
a reply to: xuenchen

Obama is part of the problem when he uses that kind of language.


Riiiiiight........If saying the N-Word in an interview got Obama in Politically Correct trouble, then his accepting this gift from Norman Rockwell and hanging in the White House should really ruffle some feathers! LOL




The thrust of the painting is not subtle. America’s vilest racial epithet appears in letters several inches high at the top of the canvas. To the left side, the letters “KKK” are plainly visible. The crowds, mostly women who gathered daily to taunt Bridges as she went to a largely empty school, are not shown in the picture. But the racist graffiti and a splattered tomato convey the hostile atmosphere.

Read more: www.politico.com...


Norman Rockwell painting sends rare White House message on race


edit on 22-6-2015 by windword because: because: can't correctly link Google finding from search "The "n**er" in the White House



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

You can be reported to your HR Dept., and it doesn't matter if they took you out of context or not, all that matters in many workplaces is if they felt uncomfortable.

If I were to use the word here, and someone was feeling nasty, they could track me down and report me to my HR Dept. along with the comment. I could then be reprimanded or even fired for embarrassing the company if the complaint were bad enough. What matters to HR is impact v. intent; it's how the person making the claim was made to feel, not what you intended or the context of what you said. And if the person making the complaint really wanted to raise a stink and get you in trouble, they also add in microaggression and inequity. Then your goose is cooked.
edit on 22-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I think politics exists for the naive...


I mean really...

If not the naive the uneducated..

I know for damn sure politics has lowered its standards over the years, in a reflection to the gain in population of illiterate...

These stories are just getting dumber and dumber...



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



The fact that you tried to draw a correlation between the "intelligent" use of the word , period, wonderfully sheds light on the problem........


I did not say anything about "intelligent use of the word". I said that intelligent people look at the usage and context of how words are used, before they knee-jerk about the very use of it.

Big difference. I fear you may have not caught that important distinction and the fact that no correlation was included.

I notice that you did not address my more important point in that this is more about politics than the use of the word. Perhaps that sheds more light than anything else.


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

And what happens when someone overhears your otherwise intelligent conversation and reports you for it because they did not hear the whole of your chat and it is thus out of context.



Then that person in unintelligent and should not be of any concern. We have freedom of speech in this country and whom would I be reported to? Are language Nazis on patrol?



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mojom

You can be reported to your HR Dept., and it doesn't matter if they took you out of context or not, all that matters in many workplaces is if they felt uncomfortable.

If I were to use the word here, and someone was feeling nasty, they could track me down and report me to my HR Dept. along with the comment. I could then be reprimanded or even fired for embarrassing the company if the complaint were bad enough. What matters to HR is impact v. intent; it's how the person making the claim was made to feel, not what you intended or the context of what you said. And if the person making the complaint really wanted to raise a stink and get you in trouble, they also add in microaggression and inequity. Then your goose is cooked.


Should we then assume that we should not speak at all in the event that someone takes offense to what we say? WE may just get a call from HR, you know.

It is this mindset that stifles free expression and the sharing of thoughts. We must bow down to the emotionally inept whiners that are afraid of being offended, rather than uphold the freedom of speech.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I did not say anything about "intelligent use of the word". I said that intelligent people look at the usage and context of how words are used, before they knee-jerk about the very use of it.

Big difference. I fear you may have not caught that important distinction and the fact that no correlation was included.

I notice that you did not address my more important point in that this is more about politics than the use of the word. Perhaps that sheds more light than anything else.


splitting hairs doesnt change the content of your post, the message was the same and my point in contrast still stands.......

there is no intelligent way to look at the use of the word because the word shouldnt be used PERIOD if people are going to cry about how racist it is, that includes other black people , white people , green people, and Obama........FULL STOP...

The fact that you cant understand this sheds more light than anything else



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

bro, your just getting sucked into the bullcrap...


This story is bullcrap..

The only reason why it has legs, is because people are to stupid to see the truth, in this story...




posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mojom

You can be reported to your HR Dept., and it doesn't matter if they took you out of context or not, all that matters in many workplaces is if they felt uncomfortable.

If I were to use the word here, and someone was feeling nasty, they could track me down and report me to my HR Dept. along with the comment. I could then be reprimanded or even fired for embarrassing the company if the complaint were bad enough. What matters to HR is impact v. intent; it's how the person making the claim was made to feel, not what you intended or the context of what you said. And if the person making the complaint really wanted to raise a stink and get you in trouble, they also add in microaggression and inequity. Then your goose is cooked.


Should we then assume that we should not speak at all in the event that someone takes offense to what we say? WE may just get a call from HR, you know.

It is this mindset that stifles free expression and the sharing of thoughts. We must bow down to the emotionally inept whiners that are afraid of being offended, rather than uphold the freedom of speech.



Now you are beginning to catch on. That is indeed what they want. If no one can say things they don't want us to say for fear of possibly losing our livelihoods or social bullying, then they can control our conversation and speech without having to take away free speech.

It's free *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Who's splitting hairs?

There is a big difference and what you are advocating is the sterilization of language to only that which you find acceptable. This is how suppression of free speech starts and exactly what the Founders would have rallied against.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Who's splitting hairs?

There is a big difference and what you are advocating is the sterilization of language to only that which you find acceptable. This is how suppression of free speech starts and exactly what the Founders would have rallied against.


I find it amazing, people cannot see how easy it is for them to be controlled by the elite...

Divide and conquer... Someone has read the art of war, and it is neither of these neanderthals arguing about a adjective.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

bro, your just getting sucked into the bullcrap...


This story is bullcrap..

The only reason why it has legs, is because people are to stupid to see the truth, in this story...



No I totally agree its bullcrap, I agree the uproar about it is bullcrap and trivial........

My point is he isnt exempt from it



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Bicent76

How is it divide and conquer when all I'm advocating in the freedom of speech and asking people to grow a pair so that their feeling don't get hurt when someone says something they don't like?



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



My point is he isnt exempt from it


My point is, who cares? Man-up.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

why express it?

Let it be..

This is not the propagandized headline to stimulate.

Just saying....




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join