Demystifying the Phrases in Race-related talk, Pt. II

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
...anti-Semite is a Zionist catch phrase used to get people critical of Israel/Zionism to shut up.


I was thinking about this statement and I realized that most (if not ALL) of the phrases we're talking about here can be used exactly for this reason. Catch phrases used to get people critical of {fill in the blank} to SHUT-UP! (or get pissed off or go away)


"White people deny the existence of white privilege" is a catch phrase that can be used to get people critical of white privilege to shut up!

"I don't see a color." is a catch phrase that can be used to get people critical of racism to shut up!

"White people think in terms of the individual." is a catch phrase that can be used to get people critical of "community responsibility" to shut up!

"Go back to Africa" is a catch phrase that can be used to get people critical of this country's politics to get pissed off and shut up!

"Linguistic Gymnastics" is a catch phrase that can be used to get people critical of challenging their words to shut up go away!

I'm realizing that that's where I (and others, but I'm only speaking for myself) went wrong during these discussions. There really is no place for "catch phrases" used to somehow manipulate our critics, if we're really trying to understand each other and learn something here. Which I really am.

I'm sorry for using these phrases in this manner when I have. I'd really like to see us all drop the animosity level and approach this fresh again.

truthseeka, I know I've said some really crappy things to you and I'm sorry. I'd like to get back to a point where we can talk again without all the baggage we have built up, because I know there are some important things I can learn from you.

I'm calling for clean slates all around...




posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
BH,

I appreciate what you are saying, and even agree.. to a point...

One of the first things one learns in a debate, especially an emotionally charged one, is the necessity of a thick skin.

When I was debating on a team at WVU, the professors would at times intentionally try and get under your skin to judge your reaction. If you lost it, you were tossed off.

That is the one singular reason I will not reply to those that choose to use "sniping" language, "gutter" words and other improper use of the language, intentionally.

However, for those that choose to debate intellectual, or at least are able to, I make sure I come here with a thick skin.

I AM NOT saying that I am not as guilty as the next person of "blowing" my top. Of course I am, I just try and try and try to ensure that it is not a regular pattern with me. There are those that are not so concerned and take any usage of any term and claim to find it offensive.

I will not allow this inflammatory behavior to regulate my posting style, use of my language or attempts to clarify an issue. If the word or phrase is the one that fits the situation, I intend to use it. (within the t&c of course)

I will gladly explain the usage at the time for anyone I offend the first time. It just gets old having to defend the usage of a phrase because some one person does not care for it, or reads more into it then there is.

Just my .02

Semper



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Listening to some old PodCasts this morning. I suddenly "remember" or recognize what's wrong with the phrase "I don't see color." It impersonalizes human beings.

It takes away the individuality and identity of a person.

Forgive the rambling in the first half. It's in the second half of this PodCast:

www.podtrac.com...

I'm sorry it took me so long to "get" this. But if you listen to the PodCast, You'll see that I understood it all along, I just hadn't applied it to race.



[edit on 11-4-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]





 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join