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.
originally posted by: luciddream
Obama should have used "Thug", its the new N word used by those that miss the N word.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Lurker1
a reply to: xuenchen
Obama is part of the problem when he uses that kind of language.
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...
The fact that you tried to draw a correlation between the "intelligent" use of the word , period, wonderfully sheds light on the problem........
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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...