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.

 

Parity Among Derogatory Slurs

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
The topic of this thread keeps getting missed. I'm not asking if it is right or wrong. Personally, I've reached the point where I don't care if you think it is right or wrong. What I am asking is whether or not it is right that society views some as worse than others?

To the people speaking against what I am saying here, answer the following questions.

1. Would you comfortably use the "N" word in a public place surrounded by strangers?


I have. In context I used it with anger too.


2. Would you comfortably use homophobic slurs in a public place surrounded by strangers?


Again I have.


You see, when Im being accosted by a mob of dark skinned people calling me a white c*** and prety much OK with making sure any slur they use is made in an effort to insult me, I will be inclined to return the favour.

It's ironic. Certain people ar allowed to call others a derogatory name while I was the one ostracised at the moment for my retort. That is what this should reflect, the inequality on attidudes. Do you only care if a gay or a dark person is attacked with "WORDS" or is it across the board. Otherwise your argument is slanted.

Again, as a heterosexual male, have you encountered the kind of slander that can be cast on you if you happen to be in a group of gay men? Down right bollocks if you ask me, they can be mean and catty.

DO I go out of my way to say these things? Not at all, far from it. But I will give as good as I get.

Despite the criticism the casual observer will give as they walk past, hearing my racist, homophobic arrogant ignorant diatribe. Easier to just sit on your hands and let society walk all over me, but I would rather keep breathing than suffocate in the arrogant toxic air of PC.


Answer honestly, if you will.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of people that are comfortable using some slurs in society, and not others. So whether the use of the slur is right or wrong, whether it's about people just being too sensitive. None of that is what we're talking about here. The issue is the lack of parity.


Until we as a people learn (cough) that its not ok on all counts, then we will never get anywhere.

Martyrs are only good for those who care. The rest of us live with it.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha
It's ironic. Certain people ar allowed to call others a derogatory name while I was the one ostracised at the moment for my retort. That is what this should reflect, the inequality on attidudes. Do you only care if a gay or a dark person is attacked with "WORDS" or is it across the board. Otherwise your argument is slanted.


Not at all, it was the examples I used however.

As I've said, hatred is hatred and ignorance is ignorance. I should not be ridiculed or insulted on my skin color, orientation of religion, just as everyone else should be free from it. It is equally immoral to insult someone for being black as it is white, for being gay as it is being straight. This also reinforces my assertion of a lack of parity as certain groups are expected to tolerate a level of abuse.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


There is a difference between harassment and free speech, Harassment is punishable by law, free speech isn’t. (yet) but it seems to me that you are advocating making free speech punishable in a court of law....



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by fraterormus
Yet, how are slurs any different?


Because the person spewing the slur defends the spreading of this hatred as some god given right through freedom of speech and conveniently denies the self-serving component that is associated with this sort of behavior. It forever goes unacknowledged that these slurs usually make the individual feel better about themselves in some twisted manner.

Stems from insecurities, in my opinion.



It is in fact someone’s god given right to be an ignorant racist, and use any type of derogatory term they so wish, You are confusing free speech for an actual physical attack on someone because they are different then you.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 



Profiling is a sensitive issue in the US, But if a 6'2 220 Pound black man with dreadlocks committed a crime, it should be reported as such so the police can keep an eye out for him. Same goes if it was a 6'3 330 pound white male, with a nascar shirt on, driving a beat up pickup truck.

So in a way I am for profiling.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


I know man, I am still waiting on this from him, some typical stuff around here say something with no proof to back it up.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
The topic of this thread keeps getting missed. I'm not asking if it is right or wrong. Personally, I've reached the point where I don't care if you think it is right or wrong. What I am asking is whether or not it is right that society views some as worse than others?

To the people speaking against what I am saying here, answer the following questions.

1. Would you comfortably use the "N" word in a public place surrounded by strangers?

2. Would you comfortably use homophobic slurs in a public place surrounded by strangers?

Answer honestly, if you will.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of people that are comfortable using some slurs in society, and not others. So whether the use of the slur is right or wrong, whether it's about people just being too sensitive. None of that is what we're talking about here. The issue is the lack of parity.


Yes I have and yes I will if I feel the situation warrants the dropping of slurs.

Here is a few times when I have used it in public around a large group of people.

1.) My wife and I were out shopping for Xmas gifts, we had stopped by Family dollar to pick up some cleaning stuff( because its cheaper). She bumped into a guy (because she wasn’t paying attention to where she was going) (black guy) She apologized to him, but in return he starting yelling, screaming, and cussing at her. In return I stepped in (My wife is 5'6 this guy was 6'2) told him to stand down, it was an accident there was no since in getting upset. He in return attempted to bully and intimidate me ( even after his wife told him to knock it off it was an accident) I gave him a final warning and told him I won’t tolerate it. He got louder and cussed some more, now I am ready for a fight, I called him a n****r * after he had called me a H****y (stupid childish action on both our parts) but I didn’t back down he didn’t and we resorted to name calling. A few other blacks who happened to be around broke us up, but didn’t blame me or fault me for dropping the N bomb on him saying he was acting like one.
So yeah I have said it in public and wouldn’t hesitate in saying it again.

2.) A gay guy was being loudly obnoxious at a restaurant, I calmly told him to calm down, he said I was being prejudice because he was gay, I told him I could care less if you and your boyfriend here want to sword fight in your bedroom, but when you’re in public you should act like a man, put some base in your voice, and stop acting like a little fairy.

Was I being acting like a child, yeah. Do I care, no. Would I say it again anytime I feel the situation deserves it.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 




1. Would you comfortably use the "N" word in a public place surrounded by strangers?

2. Would you comfortably use homophobic slurs in a public place surrounded by strangers?

Answer honestly, if you will.


Me, personally? No, I wouldn't, and don't. Not even privately with friends. But that answer requires context. Slurs are generally intended to metaphorically imply ideas and to convey emotion. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. It's not the words themselves that I object to. For example, I would never feel the need to use an expression like "the N word" if I was having a discussion about the word 'n-word'. But to use the word 'n-word' to dishonestly convey ideas and to artificially increase the level of emotion in a discussion is unneccesary, counterproductive...and again, intellectually dishonest.

--- Apparently your "n word" is part of the word filter here on ATS, so I can't even use it properly and within context. You will note that honkey is not similarly censored. Just more fuel on your fire of "disparity."



The issue is the lack of parity.


Ok. But if you want to examine that fairly we have to recognize that the circumstances themselves lack parity. A few groups, blacks, gays and jews come to mind...are traditionally more sensitive to words that derogatorily target their group. Call a white man a honkey and it's extremely likely you won't get the same degree of reaction.

That is a disparity that exists in our culture, socially and emotionally, long before you get to examining anything to do with legalities or punishment. And it's a disparity that's difficult to simply wish or legislate away.



What I am asking is whether or not it is right
that society views some as worse than others?


I acknowledge that it's unfair to say that everything is the same simply because we expect that it should be. I acknowledge that there are groups who are more likely to experience genuine emotional distress from simply hearing a word, and other groups for whom no such emotional triggers exist.

That having been said...I don't feel it's a problem that I'm responsible for. Yes, I perceive disparity in the potential for members of certain groups to feel distress from hearing words, but so too do I perceive a disparity in the reactions of our society in this whole affair. As you pointed out in your first post, white man directed a racial slur at a black man and he was fined $14,000 and suspended for 4-6 months. I do not believe any such punishment would be applied to a black man directed a similar slur at a white man under similar circumstances.

Yes, we have two disparities. There are, however, two important differences between them. In the first case, the disparity exists purely in the minds of people. If someone calls me a honkey, it is up to me to choose how I react. If someone gets angry because of a racial/religious/sexual/whatever insult, that anger is a result purely inside their own head. I'm not responsible for it. They are. I don't run around trying to impose laws and fines on people for using words that I happen to dislike. If you don't like me for being white, that is your perogative. And if you say so, it's my responsibility to choose how I react to it.

However...imposing five-figure fines and punishments upon people...I see that disparity as being something that the receiving individual is not responsible for. You create your emotional reaction yourself, but if I directly interfere in your life, take money from you and prevent you from doing what you enjoy...then I am the one responsible for that. Unlike the disparity in people's minds, that is a disparity that is being imposed upon others. And I object to it.

So yes...I find your question of parity both valid and interesting. For me the preferred solution is to eliminate the disparity we're imposing on people. Get rid of the fines and the anti-discrimination laws. But the disparities that exist purely inside people's head...simply let people deal with them. If you get angry because somebody calls you something you don't like, that's your problem, and you need to be the one to deal with it. Using laws and fines to control and manipulate people into being nice to you is unfair, unreasonable, and thoroughly condusive to creating more problems rather than solving them.

Have I answered your question?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 




It is equally immoral to insult someone for being black
as it is white, for being gay as it is being straight.


I see no immorality here. Preference is valid and acceptable. It's ok to like chocolate cake more than vanilla. It's ok to dislike dogs and like cats. And, in my mind, there is nothing morally wrong about substituting dog/cat/chocolate/vanilla with the racial/religious/sexual/whatever group of your choice. And once you can accept the idea that having preference is ok, it's not such a stretch to accept that expressing it is ok, too. It's simply a preference, nothing more. There's no particular emotional weight attached to somebody saying they don't like dogs or vanilla ice cream. Why should there be any particular emotional attachment when somebody expresses like or dislike for a racial/religious/etc group?

Oh sure, it may be unfortunate for you if happen to be in the group that isn't liked by someone, but why should race, religion or sexual reference have any sort of special treatment? I've been "disliked" by women for my height, some women have been disliked because of their weight, people who swear a lot will be unwelcome in nicer restaurants, and people may have preference based on any and every criteria they choose. What's so special about race? Some people do have preferences of height, weight and language, and some people do have preferences of race, religion and sex. Pretending that these preferences don't exist, and demanding that people supress them is delusional and unhealthy.

A racial slur is simply a word that carries with it the connotation of dislike, disapproval, or diminishment. If you want to say that you think little of white people, it's not neccesary to say "I think little of honkeys." It's redundant. The whole idea is conveyed by the single word "honkey."

That's all a racial slur is. A manner of conveying, and implying an idea by attaching it to the noun you're using to refer to the group.

This is not evil. This is not immoral. It may be manipulative, but if you get angry because of someone else's choice of words, that's your problem, not theirs.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 


In answer to your question, I think society as a whole puts more weight on some slurs. But it also depends on where you are. If you are in San Francisco (see I am stereotyping a city I have never been to based on jokes and society) and you start talking about stupid queers, you would get a lot more negative attention then if you were in the Bronx. (IMHO) But if you were in the city I grew up in and started using the N word, most wouldn't give you a second look. Sadly most people there use it as an adjective since there are very few black people there. So I submit that the severity of any slur is dependent on location and context.

For a personal note, I wasn't brought up to be a racist, but have been guilty of using derogatory terms when agitated. Mostly because that is what the people around me would do. I am not proud of it and attempt not to do it because I care about other peoples feelings. Not that I care at all about political correctness, but I don't like my feelings hurt and try to extend that courtesy to others. If people could be themselves around other people, you would be surprised at what could be learned. We aren't there yet.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
When I was a child, there was a time that I was called several things that seriously hurt my feelings and made me angry.

My grandmother taught me a saying. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"

I gave it a whirl and felt much better.

Those were the good ol' days.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by suigeneris
 


I think you are absolutely right, we have become too worried about people who wear their feelings on their sleeves. You have some people in society who are just plain stupid, there ignorant racists, you can’t fix them you shouldn’t try.

But free speech is free speech it should not be infringed upon, if I so choose to be stupid that is my choice. Laws shouldn’t be made to stifle my Ignorance. However, if my verbal Ignorance spills over to physical ignorance that where the line should be drawn.

Understand what I am saying OP?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler


1. Would you comfortably use the "N" word in a public place surrounded by strangers?

2. Would you comfortably use homophobic slurs in a public place surrounded by strangers?



The answer to both questions is, yes I would and have.

I can't help if people are to ignorant to realize the only reason those words are hateful is because they let them be.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler

Stems from insecurities, in my opinion.



That is always true; from one child calling another a name in Kindergarten to make them cry to an adult in an Armani Suit harassing a fat person on a plane to draw attention to himself and approval from the other passengers; which they will likely get.

You have done it without thinking and so have I. I agree the target does not matter it is the act. But for parity in the law the list would be like trying to make half the dictionary illegal.

The shoe is often on the other foot these days. Is it any more fair to accuse people of Racism because they are opposed to Obama or Homophobia simply because they are Conservative?

Part of what drives this in our culture is that many have learned to use this as a weapon. How often do we see an attack on people due to an unfortunate choice of words when in fact they may well be innocent. It was used as a powerful weapon in our last elections.

Then we have those who would never in a million years engage in a Homophobic slur or a Racist slur, but would not hesitate to verbally assault a fat person or somebody who was dressed badly in public.

Right now our own government is engaged in what amounts to the same thing in its assault of the obese or those with unhealthy lifestyles. Do you really want the government to decide what makes up hate speech or enforce any kind of laws to do with it?

What constitutes hate speech is very generational (if I'm using that word correctly
). When I was young the word Gay meant happy and cheerful and if somebody called you gay it was a positive statement. If they called you "bad" it was a very negative thing and then suddenly the word bad evolved into meaning you were cool or hip.

We have seen example after example of proof it is not the word but the intent behind it that matters. During the height of the Feminist movement calling a girl a Cool Chick went from a compliment to a Male Chauvinist Pig statement tantamount to the "N" word today.

What worries me about what you are saying, if I'm understanding, is that you want enforcement somehow meaning government intervention. Do we truly want to go that route. Who defines the words and the targets? Is harassing a fat person any different than harassing a Black person? Is humiliating somebody who dresses badly any worse than calling a Gay person a name?

Then we have the gray area's. How do we define those. Is being offended by a person who run's around talking about their sexual preferences in public constantly being a Homophobes? Is being offended by the bizarre displays in Gay Pride Parades in public where children can see them being Homophobes? Is being offended by teaching about sexual orientation and discussing sex to children under 8 being Homophobes? Is being offended by Gay's demanding special treatment as if sexual preferences were a handicap being Homophobes? Who decides? When does it cross the line from sexual preference to sexual perversion and who decides that?

I think these things are the last thing any government body should be involved in. Legislating morality is a slippery slope. There will always be people who are irrational offended by something. Where do we draw the line?

Harassing someone is already a crime for which there is already legal and civil recourse. Do we need to make something illegal twice or just once? Do we need a law covering all harassment or a law covering each and every instance of possible harassment?

Should the Obama Political Machine be charged with a hate crime for falsely saying anyone who did not vote for him is a Racist? What is the difference exactly? Should the Koss be shut down for its lies and the hate that is spewed daily on that site? Again, what is the difference?

You see, we will never all agree what constitutes harassment. Innocent people will be accused and in fact harassed over things they never meant. There will always be Race Baiters and Angry Gay's who will never be satisfied no matter what. They are locked into the victim mentality or they use it like a weapon to get special treatment or extort special favors.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


The difference is simple. Vanilla ice cream may taste better or another item may have a tangible difference to you that makes it more satisfying. It's not so much of a generalization as it is an opinion. But if we are going to talk about skin color, orientation, etc, than what are the tangibles that you base the opinion? Without the tangibles, it becomes a generalization. And generalizations are the root of all stereotypes.

Vanilla ice cream is vanilla ice cream. Each bowl is going to be very similar. As humans, we are our own distinct beings.

That's the difference as I see it.

(posted from iPhone)



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears

Originally posted by chissler


1. Would you comfortably use the "N" word in a public place surrounded by strangers?

2. Would you comfortably use homophobic slurs in a public place surrounded by strangers?



The answer to both questions is, yes I would and have.

I can't help if people are to ignorant to realize the only reason those words are hateful is because they let them be.


The question is your intent behind those words. Are you using them out of hate, bigotry or ignorance? Were you raised to hate people who are different and is that why you use those words to bully people? Is your personal self-esteem so low you use those words because you think bullying people some how makes you more acceptable to yourself?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Just here to say that derogatory white terms aren't really all that offensive. I'm yet to hear a really funny white racist joke.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
BEFORE:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


AFTER:
"We the non-animal, non-vegetable entities of not-to-be defined background, gender, or gender preference of the poltical territory known among persons of non-indigenous heritage as the "United States," in order to: form what some, from a purely subjective viewpoint, might plausibly conder "a more perfect Union;" establish a necssarily limited form of "justice" (without prejudicial viewpoints on "right" and "wrong" that could cause offence or result from the mental activities of non-forward-thinking persons); insure a mutally acceptable form of domestic Tranquility as defined by each unique and special snowflake of an individual; provide for the common defence in a manner that does not violate the rights of any special group or involve use of force, verbal output, or cognition that could possibly offend any person or group that has been historically marginalized; promote the general Welfare [we'll leave that one alone]; and secure the non-religiously understood "Blessings" as defined from a multifacited panalopy of differeing viewpoints with regard to the so-called concept of "Liberty" to ourselves and our Posterity (for those of us who choose to reproduce or otherwise harbor "posterity" as understood in a non-gender-specific manner), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the aforementioned so-called "United States of America," insofar is it causes no offence to protected, hegemonically-challenged groups or global harmony among all persons in a non-derogatory way."



[edit on 11/3/09 by silent thunder]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 




But if we are going to talk about skin color, orientation,
etc, than what are the tangibles that you base the opinion?


I could answer this in many ways, but ultimately it doesn't matter...because it's not up to you to decide the criteria upon which somebody else expresses a preference. It's not up to you decide what is or is not tangible to somebody else.

I can't tell the difference between a cuban and a russian cigar. That doesn't mean that nobody else can, and it doesn't make it "immoral" for someone else to have preference between the two based on criteria that I either don't care about or can't perceive. There are people who can tell the difference between cuban and russian cigars, and there are people who have definite preferences between them. It's not immoral for those people to have and express that preference simply because I can't tell the difference.

If somebody else has a preference that you don't share, based on criteria that you either can't perceive or simply don't care about...how do you justify the leap of logic that their preference is immoral?



Vanilla ice cream may taste better or another item may have a tangible difference to you that makes it more satisfying.


Key words in your above quote: "to you."

The "tangible difference" that you're talking about is purely subjective. Someone might prefer vanilla ice cream because of the flavor, of they may be allergic to chocolate, or maybe they have fond memories of getting vanilla ice cream with their first girlfriend...doesn't matter. Someone might prefer cuban cigars because they're more diserning than you are, or they might even prefer them simply because they think other people will think they're classier if they smoke them instead of russian cigars. Again, it doesn't matter. There's nothing immoral about any of this.

If somebody prefers one race over another, who are you to say it's not ok for them to have that preference?

The irony in all this is that you're the one who should be arguing my case. From what I gather, you would agree that it's ok for people to have and express sexual preference, right? If a gay man wants to exclusively have sex with other men, that's ok, right? Others may not share that preference, or even understand it, and the gay man may or may not have what you personally perceieve as "tangible reasons" for having that preference...but none of this changes the fact that he does have that preference, and it's not immoral for him to have it. Maybe he likes the taste of semen. Maybe women scare him. Maybe he enjoys feeling dominated. Or maybe he doesn't have any good "rational" or "tangible" reason at all, he just knows that he prefers men. It doesn't matter. It's not your place to tell him what he is and isn't allowed to prefer.

A racist and a homophobe are engaging in exactly the same expression of preference that a gay man is. The only difference is what their preferences are.

The only place where "immorality" can come into any of this is when other people start telling them that it's not ok for them to have their preferences. When people tell a gay man it's not ok for them to prefer to avoid the company of women. When people start telling racists that it's not ok for them to prefer to avoid the company of people of whichever race they dislike. Or, as in the case of your original post in this thread: when organizations impose fines and bans on individuals for expressing themselves.

If a gay man says, "I don't like women. I only want to be with other men," that's ok. And if a white supremacist says, "I don't like blacks, I only want to be with other whites," that's ok too. If a woman wants to have a girls-only club, and prohibit men from joining the club, that's ok. And if a heterosexual want to have a heterosexuals-only club, and prohibit homosexuals from joining the club, that's ok too.


Whether or not you agree with my view, do you at least agree that it is logically consistent?

Is yours?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Bored To Tears

Originally posted by chissler


1. Would you comfortably use the "N" word in a public place surrounded by strangers?

2. Would you comfortably use homophobic slurs in a public place surrounded by strangers?



The answer to both questions is, yes I would and have.

I can't help if people are to ignorant to realize the only reason those words are hateful is because they let them be.


The question is your intent behind those words. Are you using them out of hate, bigotry or ignorance? Were you raised to hate people who are different and is that why you use those words to bully people? Is your personal self-esteem so low you use those words because you think bullying people some how makes you more acceptable to yourself?


The question was would I say them, not my intent was behind saying them.

As far as the questions you ask behind me saying them, I believe I already answered them, but let me re post it just so YOU aren't the one being ignorant by questioning the way I was raised, why I use them, how I use them or my self esteem.

I can't help if people are to ignorant to realize the only reason those words are hateful is because they let them be.

In other words, it is you and other fools who give these words more power then they deserve. I see them as regular words.

If you want to give them power then shun them from your house, but don't try and tell me what words are allowed to be used.

Those words will always be around, nothing you or I can do about it. The only way to solve the problem is for everyone to grow up and realize that they are words.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by Bored To Tears]




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join