Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Seems to me that some people are simply upset that society will no longer tolerate hatespeech and bigoted views.

Welcome to the 21st century, y'all. Going to be a rough ride if you try and defend hate.

Maybe their upset that one word can constitute hate speech and bigoted views.

Well, again, welcome to the 21st century. You refer to someone black as a N word, someone gay as an F**, a mexican person as a sp**k, a jewish person as a k*k#.....guess what...thats hate speech.

Tell me how its not.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Seems to me that some people are simply upset that society will no longer tolerate hatespeech and bigoted views.

Welcome to the 21st century, y'all. Going to be a rough ride if you try and defend hate.

Maybe their upset that one word can constitute hate speech and bigoted views.

But it can...so they must deal with it. It is totally justified to have that one word carry that much weight.

Either they need to advance their thinking, or just keep their outdated opinions to themselves.

Or, a third option: they need to quit whining when the public calls them out on it.

a reply to: kruphix
Spurs Fans adopted racial slur as positive word get vilified for it

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
Maybe their upset that one word can constitute hate speech and bigoted views.

THIS word, in THIS context absolutely does indicate hate speech and bigoted and racist views. I mean, do you disagree with that?

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Mirthful Me
Just to be clear on this...

If the police official was black, this would be okay... Right?

Yeah... I can't keep score anymore...

What?

Sure, show me where a black politician or elected official has called someone a racial slur and it has been defended by anyone.

This false meme of whites being persecuted has got to end.

You aren't from the U.S.

Are you?

And if you are, what rock have you been living under?

.............

As for the OP's question...

One waitress should not be enough to determine this incident even occurred.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Tell me how its not.

Because the usage is allowed to some, but not to others.

If it is 'hate speech', then it is 'hate speech, regardless of usage and regardless of user.

That is what the vast majority here seem to be missing. We can't be a country (or civilization) that espouses equality while we flaunt inequality. We can debate the semantics and ethics of it all day long, but it does not change the simple fact that we currently treat different segments of society differently for different issues. This is a core issue that currently effects every race, each in their unique way.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Mirthful Me
Just to be clear on this...

If the police official was black, this would be okay... Right?

Yeah... I can't keep score anymore...

What?

Sure, show me where a black politician or elected official has called someone a racial slur and it has been defended by anyone.

This false meme of whites being persecuted has got to end.

You aren't from the U.S.

Are you?

And if you are, what rock have you been living under?

.............

As for the OP's question...

One waitress should not be enough to determine this incident even occurred.

The guys not only admits it, he defends it.

Please, feel free to cite some examples of black politicians using racial slurs in public against whites....

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
One waitress should not be enough to determine this incident even occurred.

The guy fully admitted he said it.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Tell me how its not.

Because the usage is allowed to some, but not to others.

If it is 'hate speech', then it is 'hate speech, regardless of usage and regardless of user.

That is what the vast majority here seem to be missing. We can't be a country (or civilization) that espouses equality while we flaunt inequality. We can debate the semantics and ethics of it all day long, but it does not change the simple fact that we currently treat different segments of society differently for different issues. This is a core issue that currently effects every race, each in their unique way.

the most sensible thing ive read in here!!!

a reply to: peck420

Because the usage is allowed to some, but not to others. If it is 'hate speech', then it is 'hate speech, regardless of usage and regardless of user. That is what the vast majority here seem to be missing. We can't be a country (or civilization) that espouses equality while we flaunt inequality. We can debate the semantics and ethics of it all day long, but it does not change the simple fact that we currently treat different segments of society differently for different issues. This is a core issue that currently effects every race, each in their unique way.

Its context, not usage. Saying "that f@*&ing N*#&^r" differs in context from "my n&#%a", does it not?

And in what way does the "well someone else does it so why cant I?" defense make what he said any less hateful?

originally posted by: peck420
If it is 'hate speech', then it is 'hate speech, regardless of usage and regardless of user.

That's not true.

Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

Source

This man was clearly attacking a person on the basis of race. That is hate speech. The word isn't always used that way.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Hate speech indicates the intent to commit a hate crime or insight others to do so. Using any of those words alone is not hate speech.

Your argument might hold some weight if the word in question was dropped often on movies, television shows, and popular music. If it is hate speech for him than any 'artist' who uses that word on his or her album is also guilty of hate speech.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Seems to me that some people are simply upset that society will no longer tolerate hatespeech and bigoted views.

Welcome to the 21st century, y'all. Going to be a rough ride if you try and defend hate.

Maybe their upset that one word can constitute hate speech and bigoted views.

Well, again, welcome to the 21st century. You refer to someone black as a N word, someone gay as an F**, a mexican person as a sp**k, a jewish person as a k*k#.....guess what...thats hate speech.

Tell me how its not.

Okay I'll bite.

I have a friend named Clyde. We've been close for a better part of 10 years; we met at school. One of the first things he uttered to me after seeing my truck was "you redneck cracker ass" to which I immediately replied "you big ugly n*****"!

Now normally you would think this would have got heated but just the opposite happened. We laughed like hell and then started hanging out. From that day forward is was our thing to call each other racial slurs. Still is to this day.

It's our way of removing the negative connotation and power from the words themselves. Finding humor in our differences while celebrating our similarities.

Now let me catch you calling him one with ill intent and this redneck cracker will go ham on your azz.

There's no hate here. Just love.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Hate speech indicates the intent to commit a hate crime or insight others to do so. Using any of those words alone is not hate speech.

Your argument might hold some weight if the word in question was dropped often on movies, television shows, and popular music. If it is hate speech for him than any 'artist' who uses that word on his or her album is also guilty of hate speech.

Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, context matters.

And, Again, the "other people do it so why cant I?" defense is weak at best.

originally posted by: jrod
Hate speech indicates the intent to commit a hate crime or insight others to do so. Using any of those words alone is not hate speech.

That's the legal definition. We're talking about the common use of the term, "hate speech"

Source

Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople

.............

As for the OP's question...

One waitress should not be enough to determine this incident even occurred.

Certainly not, but when the individual in question fully admits that they made the remarks and is defiant enough about it that they don't think they should have to apologize, at that point whoever overheard the remarks and sent the letter is somewhat irrelevant and the incident has begun to take on a life if its own. The Commisioners own admission of culpability in the matter is more than en to determine the event occurred.

a reply to: TiedDestructor

CONTEXT.

C.O.N.T.E.X.T.

a reply to: TiedDestructor

Do you think this Copeland guy meant his comment in the same way? You think he likes Obama and was just teasing about him?

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: peck420
Its context, not usage. Saying "that f@*&ing N*#&^r" differs in context from "my n&#%a", does it not?

It wasn't considered context based in Florida when a black girl called, ironically a hispanic, man a cracker. Why should it be context based when a white man calls a, ironically half white, man a 'n-word'?

And in what way does the "well someone else does it so why cant I?" defense make what he said any less hateful?

Because we have equality laws. If we are willing to allow one group to do something, we must allow everybody to do that same thing.

a reply to: kruphix

Personally I reject your assessment. That said, if society wishes to view me that way... oh well. I will treat their opinions the same way I would treat the opinion of someone who claimed I was, say, an extraterrestrial: "Oh? *shrug* whatever you say."

I refuse to submit to strong arm bullying nonsense reinforced by threats of an illegitimate kangaroo court of public opinion. If more Americans did the same, most of this nonsense and ridiculous character assassinations would stop very quickly. Unfortunately, enough folks have been manipulated into believing that the worst thing in the world is to have even one person claim you have beef with a protected class and those folks fall all over themselves, supplicating, begging forgiveness, and getting raked over the coals in the media circus over their "sin".