NationStates Jolt Archive

Since this is becoming an issue in and of itself, I have deiced that recent events within the forum and the broader global community have warranted the discussion of an extremely divisive issue, that being, the use of "the n-word".

Firstly, tracing the original use of the word does little to undermine it's impact or intent in modern common use.

Secondly, despite the argument that the user and the intent of the serve affects the meaning, it is obvious from the black people I know, and as a black person myself, even jocular use is extremely offence, and perhaps more-so, as it indicates a social acceptance of a blatantly racist term.

Thirdly, irregardless of what thoughts lurk deep in your unconscious you believe are warranted to spill out because the issue of "black culture" is raised in a medium where other people are open to your opinion, learn from the 80s and 90s and embrace the inner-politically correct conscience -or outer if you lack tact- and shut up.

Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another.

As a tolerant white guy, I never use it.

But if young black people want to "reclaim" the word because it's some sort of counter-culture thing, whatever.

I didn't know you were black. Huh.

Since this is becoming an issue in and of itself, I have deiced that recent events within the forum and the broader global community have warranted the discussion of an extremely divisive issue, that being, the use of "the n-word".

Firstly, tracing the original use of the word does little to undermine it's impact or intent in modern common use.

Secondly, despite the argument that the user and the intent of the serve affects the meaning, it is obvious from the black people I know, and as a black person myself, even jocular use is extremely offence, and perhaps more-so, as it indicates a social acceptance of a blatantly racist term.

Thirdly, irregardless of what thoughts lurk deep in your unconscious you believe are warranted to spill out because the issue of "black culture" is raised in a medium where other people are open to your opinion, learn from the 80s and 90s and embrace the inner-politically correct conscience -or outer if you lack tact- and shut up.

Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another.
I disagree with this. Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another. I think free speech should have very few, if any limits. I do, however, make a personal choice not to use the word out of respect.

I didn't know you were black. Huh.
I forget, something about living in a a wealthy, intellectual area insulates -generally- from the sought of people who think there is any other meter for a person than "the content of your character"

It's just a word. Get over it.

Since this is becoming an issue in and of itself, I have deiced that recent events within the forum and the broader global community have warranted the discussion of an extremely divisive issue, that being, the use of "the n-word".

Firstly, tracing the original use of the word does little to undermine it's impact or intent in modern common use.

Secondly, despite the argument that the user and the intent of the serve affects the meaning, it is obvious from the black people I know, and as a black person myself, even jocular use is extremely offence, and perhaps more-so, as it indicates a social acceptance of a blatantly racist term.

Thirdly, irregardless of what thoughts lurk deep in your unconscious you believe are warranted to spill out because the issue of "black culture" is raised in a medium where other people are open to your opinion, learn from the 80s and 90s and embrace the inner-politically correct conscience -or outer if you lack tact- and shut up.

Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another.

I hate you people.

And by "you people" I mean, of course, those that use the word "irregardless" - It's not a word.

Originally the word was used to indicate someone who worked their ass off in a field. But since then, it evolved to mean black slaves before the Civil War. Since then it has become to refer to all black individuals, almost universally in a derogative fashion.

It is a term I would never use. Beyond the fact that there is no point in being an asshole, I would prefer that I treat people decently, and hopefully they'll return that respect.

Since this is becoming an issue in and of itself, I have deiced that recent events within the forum and the broader global community have warranted the discussion of an extremely divisive issue, that being, the use of "the n-word".

Firstly, tracing the original use of the word does little to undermine it's impact or intent in modern common use.

Secondly, despite the argument that the user and the intent of the serve affects the meaning, it is obvious from the black people I know, and as a black person myself, even jocular use is extremely offence, and perhaps more-so, as it indicates a social acceptance of a blatantly racist term.

Thirdly, irregardless of what thoughts lurk deep in your unconscious you believe are warranted to spill out because the issue of "black culture" is raised in a medium where other people are open to your opinion, learn from the 80s and 90s and embrace the inner-politically correct conscience -or outer if you lack tact- and shut up.

Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another.

Thats all well and good . What should my response be when a racial slur is directed at me? I don't like being referred to as Honky White Boy or Cracker, or any number of names I have heard from Black people. What the hell is the difference.

I disagree with this. In regards to which points, why, justify your position.

I think free speech should have very few, if any limits. I do, however, make a personal choice not to use the word out of respect.
Free speech, like all freedoms, has inherit restrictions. Because we live in a society, we must abandon the absolute use of certain rights, in the interests of protecting the rights of others, and frankly, my right to not vilified trumps your right to say whatever pops into your head at the time.

I forget, something about living in a a wealthy, intellectual area insulates -generally- from the sought of people who think there is any other meter for a person than "the content of your character"I just thought you said you were Jewish once.

Thats all well and good . What should my response be when a racial slur is directed at me? I don't like being referred to as Honky White Boy or Cracker, or any number of names I have heard from Black people. What the hell is the difference.
I covered this argument in the other thread, and you know it. I will not allow this topic to become sidetracked by comparison of this term, to every other slur. The issue is, this term is offence, and this term is unacceptable

In general, I feel it is just plain douchebaggery to use such a term, and I frown upon douchebaggery greatly. I would never, ever advocate an abolition on the use of such a word, but I will always do may damndest to dissuade others from using such a word, with logical appeals and appeals to general decency. But hey, that sort of thing exists amongst far too few people on these forums, so I wouldn't be surprised to find such a term in use here, at least by some people's standards.

I covered this argument in the other thread, and you know it. I will not allow this topic to become sidetracked by comparison of this term, to every other slur. The issue is, this term is offence, and this term is unacceptable

Again, it's just a bloody word. Oh no, the bad word hurts! :rolleyes:

I just thought you said you were Jewish once.
My Grandmother is. There is a thread here somewhere, called "Rotovia is a Black, Jewish, Catholic, Atheist" or words to that effect.

Thats all well and good . What should my response be when a racial slur is directed at me? I don't like being referred to as Honky White Boy or Cracker, or any number of names I have heard from Black people. What the hell is the difference.
Don't sink to their level, stay on the moral high ground. Question their decency as a human being, hell, don't just question, call them out and tell them that they're an asshole for their actions. But don't insult them for something arbitrary.

I'm bothered by the "double-standard" of blacks using it all the time, but screaming like a banshee if a white uses it.

I normally avoid that word because it IS offensive, but occasionally I might get POd at PC-ness and decide to purposely offend.

It's just a word. Get over it.
"Go fuck yourself!" -example to illustrate a point

"Fuck" is just a word, get over it. Except the word is offence when directed at a person.

I hate you people.

And by "you people" I mean, of course, those that use the word "irregardless" - It's not a word.
Get out, this is a serious thread and I've already stated I will not allow it to be sidetracked with nonsense

"Go fuck yourself!" -example to illustrate a point

"Fuck" is just a word, get over it. Except the word is offence when directed at a person.

Doesn't mean people can't use it. So somebody says somethign that offends you. Boo-freakin'-hoo.

"Go fuck yourself!" -example to illustrate a point

"Fuck" is just a word, get over it. Except the word is offence when directed at a person.
Fuck = F.U.C.K. = Fornication Under Consent of King!

In regards to which points, why, justify your position.


Free speech, like all freedoms, has inherit restrictions. Because we live in a society, we must abandon the absolute use of certain rights, in the interests of protecting the rights of others, and frankly, my right to not vilified trumps your right to say whatever pops into your head at the time.
I think the right to speak one's mind is so precious that it should be protected unless a certain message can be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence or disclosure of secrets which threaten the security of the nation.

Because of that I have no problem with a KKK rally where the speaker says something like "N*****S are destroying our society". He's entitled to his stupid and bigoted opinion. I have a problem when he says "N*****S should be lynched" because that is a clear incitement to violence.

Again, it's just a bloody word. Oh no, the bad word hurts! :rolleyes:
Yes, it does.

I covered this argument in the other thread, and you know it. I will not allow this topic to become sidetracked by comparison of this term, to every other slur. The issue is, this term is offence, and this term is unacceptable


When a black rapper uses it in their music exactly what does it mean there?

Yes, it does.

Oh, did it draw blood? Physically maim you in some way?

Like I said, get over it.

Unless my eyes were playing tricks, the word was spelled out before. Now it's astrisked out. The mods are fast today!

As a white guy, I've been given the title of an honorary '(word)' by my black mates, and have permission to use the word in the way they would. Not that I ever have, A) it would sound weird to me calling a mate that and B) it would be offensive to anyone who ever overheard and didn't know the circumstances.

Anyway, if the black guys want to use the word, let them, it's developed into a friendly term they use between each other in some of their culture. However, that doesn't mean anyone else should use the word for whatever meaning, it's still and probably always will be a highly racially charged word that should never be uttered in a perfect world.

I'm bothered by the "double-standard" of blacks using it all the time, but screaming like a banshee if a white uses it.


Whites have different motives for using that word. Besides I'm sure white people use the word all the time behind closed doors.

Doesn't mean people can't use it. So somebody says somethign that offends you. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
As much as I loathe ad-hominem detraction, I must say callousness and immaturity will make debating this issue difficult.

There term is offence, a decent person accepts they are bound by social rules that state you do not interfere with the rights of others.

When a black rapper uses it in their music exactly what does it mean there?
Some sort of counter-culture thing. Fighting against intellectuals of all stripes, including civil rights types. It's really kinda strange.

When a black rapper uses it in their music exactly what does it mean there?
READ THE DAMNED FIRST POST, or at least the replies I made in the other thread. It is offence, to me

Whites have different motives for using that word. Besides I'm sure white people use the word all the time behind closed doors.
Yeah, we save it up all day then when we go home at night we chant it like a mantra while practicing how not to dance well.

Oh, diddums, a word offends you. At least the offensive qualities of semantics isn't too subjective......:rolleyes:

As much as I loathe ad-hominem detraction, I must say callousness and immaturity will make debating this issue difficult.

There term is offence, a decent person accepts they are bound by social rules that state you do not interfere with the rights of others.

It's not a right not to be offended by something you hear.

I think that pretty much, all of them shouldn't be used, except when quoting something where it was used, when talking about historical use, or in a book/movie/play/whatever-like-that to show the bigotry/meanness of the character using it. This includes n*****.

I think the right to speak one's mind is so precious that unless a certain message can be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence or disclosure of secrets which threaten the security of the nation.

Because of that I have no problem with a KKK rally where the speaker says something like "N*****S are destroying our society". He's entitled to his stupid and bigoted opinion. I have a problem when he says "N*****S should be lynched" because that is a clear incitement to violence.
I do. We have laws against that in this country

It's just a word. Get over it.
Right on!

As a white guy, I've been given the title of an honorary '(word)' by my black mates, and have permission to use the word in the way they would. Not that I ever have, A) it would sound weird to me calling a mate that and B) it would be offensive to anyone who ever overheard and didn't know the circumstances.

Anyway, if the black guys want to use the word, let them, it's developed into a friendly term they use between each other in some of their culture. However, that doesn't mean anyone else should use the word for whatever meaning, it's still and probably always will be a highly racially charged word that should never be uttered in a perfect world.


And that is exactly why it is used so often, because it gets such a reaction

It's not a right not to be offended by something you hear.

True. Of course if one person says something offensive to someone else, and gets beaten to a pulp in response, he wouldn't receive much sympathy, nor would he deserve it.

Oh, did it draw blood? Physically maim you in some way?

Like I said, get over it.There is no point in continuing a discussion with you, I am sorry, but you are not able to sit at the grown-up table.

****** is just a word, just like fuck, shit, or women's suffrage. They only offend you as much as you let them.

Whites have different motives for using that word. Besides I'm sure white people use the word all the time behind closed doors.

*raises eyebrow* Troll? Or do you SERIOUSLY think that?

Whites have different motives for using that word. Besides I'm sure white people use the word all the time behind closed doors.

Unless you're a mind-reader, you're making assumptions about a white person's motives. (not saying the assumption is wrong, it's just the principal of it)

It's not a right not to be offended by something you hear.
This is the last reply you get. Offence is a reaction, and has nothing to do with rights. My right is not have to be subjected to villification

This is the last reply you get. Offence is a reaction, and has nothing to do with rights. My right is not have to be subjected to villification

You have no such right. And as for your comment about the grown-up table, if you grew up yourself a bit, maybe namecalling wouldn't get under your skin so much.

****** is just a word, just like fuck, shit, or women's suffrage. They only offend you as much as you let them.


exactly and the way the n word is being usin humor these days, how can anyone be offended by it anymore?

****** is just a word, just like fuck, shit, or women's suffrage. They only offend you as much as you let them.
I hope you do not believe this. I hope you realise that every word has a different meaning and each word's meaning will elicit a response.

It's not a right not to be offended by something you hear.


Word. At least not in the USA it's not. I don't know what country the original poster is from though.

This is the last reply you get. Offence is a reaction, and has nothing to do with rights. My right is not have to be subjected to villification

Villification would constitute an explicit, not implicit, connotation.

I think that pretty much, all of them shouldn't be used, except when quoting something where it was used, when talking about historical use, or in a book/movie/play/whatever-like-that to show the bigotry/meanness of the character using it. This includes n*****.
Nickle?

Unless you're a mind-reader, you're making assumptions about a white person's motives. (not saying the assumption is wrong, it's just the principal of it)

People make and rely on assumptions all the time. A white couple walking down the street might react differently to a group of young black men, wearing big baggy clothes, walking in their direction than to a group of young white men dressed like they're about to hit a nightclub.

Nickle?

:rolleyes: Just saving the mods the job. You know what I'm referring to.

I hope you do not believe this. I hope you realise that every word has a different meaning and each word's meaning will elicit a response.

Every word has a different meaning? Good lord, phone the press, what news!

A meaning will elicit a response? My word, how insightful you are.

Does any of the above support your argument?

There is no point in continuing a discussion with you, I am sorry, but you are not able to sit at the grown-up table.

So now you stoop to his level. He has his opinion, and may well be offended by your attitude that you have a right to determine the language he uses.

Can you explain why we should be concerned about your particular dislike of this one word, but not about the dislike that any one of us may have to another term? You are not the center of the world.
Fine, explain your objection to the N-word, but this objection can not be made in any sustainable way without it being embedded in a system of mutual respect. As such it is necessary to include in this discussion why it is acceptable for terms such as Honkey to be used, but not for the n-word. Or do you claim that any term that any person is offended by is unacceptable for use?

People make and rely on assumptions all the time. A white couple walking down the street might react differently to a group of young black men, wearing big baggy clothes, walking in their direction than to a group of young white men dressed like they're about to hit a nightclub.
A black couple might react the same way.

People make and rely on assumptions all the time. A white couple walking down the street might react differently to a group of young black men, wearing big baggy clothes, walking in their direction than to a group of young white men dressed like they're about to hit a nightclub.

Indeed. Presumably because of the not entirely undeserved reputation "gangsta" kids have?

My Grandmother is. There is a thread here somewhere, called "Rotovia is a Black, Jewish, Catholic, Atheist" or words to that effect.


You sound like a real piece of work. It is people like you that make me use the N Word

People make and rely on assumptions all the time. A white couple walking down the street might react differently to a group of young black men, wearing big baggy clothes, walking in their direction than to a group of young white men dressed like they're about to hit a nightclub.

Yes, but in this case, "might" is the key word. Your previous post indicated that ALL white people do that behind closed doors and ALL "white" people have different motives from ALL "black" people.

Personally, my reaction tends to be "oh, people who have nothing to do with me at the moment" *keeps walking*. In both cases.

I hope you do not believe this. I hope you realise that every word has a different meaning and each word's meaning will elicit a response.
Again, it only hurts you as much as you allow it. Call me an asshole, it doesn't hurt of offend me. Call, say a more senstive person an asshole and it will hurt them more. You control how much it hurts.

Nickle?


i think the word is nuggets

You have no such right. And as for your comment about the grown-up table, if you grew up yourself a bit, maybe namecalling wouldn't get under your skin so much.
I hate being a liar, but I have to respond to this. I have deliberately ignored the "I know you are, your said are" part.

Australian law recognises in The Anti-Defamation and Racial Vilification Act my right not to be vilified by racial defamation.

you can use any word you want. no one is going to arrest you. no one is going to sue you. you can call your grandmother an ignorant slut if you want. i hope it makes you happy

regardless of your right to say it, regardless of your pure non-racist intentions, you will offend others. you will hurt the feelings of people you had no intention of hurting. you will give other people the impression that you are a racist pig. you might even give a person who is rather sick of hearing that word the impression that you are looking for a fight. maybe even several people.

your exercise of free speech might lead you to being beaten to a pulp. sure its wrong of those who beat you, sure they might well end up in jail but you are still going to spend a few weeks in the hospital because you thought your right to be offensive was that important.

so WHY would you use a word that offends people just because you CAN? it makes no sense to me that anyone would insist on being vile to others on the pretext of free speech.

if you cant drop it from your speech because you are too polite, if you cant drop it from your speech because you dont want to be seen as a racist, then perhaps youll drop it from your speech out of concern for your phsyical safety. if not, i hope you keep your insurance payments up, youre gonna need it.

Indeed. Presumably because of the not entirely undeserved reputation "gangsta" kids have?

Sure. Which is no different from the entirely deserved reputation white people who use the term "******" have.

Again, it only hurts you as much as you allow it. Call me an asshole, it doesn't hurt of offend me. Call, say a more senstive person an asshole and it will hurt them more. You control how much it hurts.


I agree completely

I hate being a liar, but I have to respond to this. I have deliberately ignored the "I know you are, your said are" part.

Australian law recognises in The Anti-Defamation and Racial Vilification Act my right not to be vilified by racial defamation.

Then, quite frankly, that particular Australian law is ridiculous, much in the same way that I believe the concept of "hate crimes" in the US is a load of bull.

Every word has a different meaning? Good lord, phone the press, what news!

A meaning will elicit a response? My word, how insightful you are.

Does any of the above support your argument?
I forget, I have to finish the thought process for certain people.

Ergo, certain words will offend certain people.

Happy?

People make and rely on assumptions all the time. A white couple walking down the street might react differently to a group of young black men, wearing big baggy clothes, walking in their direction than to a group of young white men dressed like they're about to hit a nightclub.

True. I'd make similar assumptions about a group of young WHITE men wearing big baggy clothes.

So now you stoop to his level. He has his opinion, and may well be offended by your attitude that you have a right to determine the language he uses.

Can you explain why we should be concerned about your particular dislike of this one word, but not about the dislike that any one of us may have to another term? You are not the center of the world.
Fine, explain your objection to the N-word, but this objection can not be made in any sustainable way without it being embedded in a system of mutual respect. As such it is necessary to include in this discussion why it is acceptable for terms such as Honkey to be used, but not for the n-word. Or do you claim that any term that any person is offended by is unacceptable for use?Because the topic of this debate is one word only

I forget, I have to finish the thought process for certain people.

Ergo, certain words will offend certain people.

Happy?

However, you seem entirely unperturbed by profanities? The same principle, or different due to the absence of an ethnic minority?

You sound like a real piece of work. It is people like you that make me use the N Word
WHAT?

Sure. Which is no different from the entirely deserved reputation white people who use the term "******" have.

Oh, I don't doubt that. However, I do contest quite why "******" is deemed taboo if those who use it are stigmatised accordingly.

WHAT?

I'm arguing with you, yes, but even I agree that that post was retarded.

Again, it only hurts you as much as you allow it. Call me an asshole, it doesn't hurt of offend me. Call, say a more senstive person an asshole and it will hurt them more. You control how much it hurts.
This word offends me. Comparing to other words doesn't change that fact. As much as people can continue to argue their right to racially villify, I am forced to question their motives

WHAT?
I think he's saying you're an upity N*****.

However, you seem entirely unperturbed by profanities? The same principle, or different due to the absence of an ethnic minority?
I never said that. Do not put words in my mouth. I simply stated this thread was about one word.

This word offends me. Comparing to other words doesn't change that fact. As much as people can continue to argue their right to racially villify, I am forced to question their motives

Why is it so much more wrong to villify on the basis of race as opposed to any other? Can I call you an asshole in Australia and get away with it?

And no, I'm not being a smartass there. I'm curious. Are all insults out of bounds?

You sound like a real piece of work. It is people like you that make me use the N Word
oh now you have just revealed that you are using racism to troll this thread.

there is NOTHING about that description of rotovia that qualifies as "a piece of work"

you can use any word you want. no one is going to arrest you. no one is going to sue you. you can call your grandmother an ignorant slut if you want. i hope it makes you happy

regardless of your right to say it, regardless of your pure non-racist intentions, you will offend others. you will hurt the feelings of people you had no intention of hurting. you will give other people the impression that you are a racist pig. you might even give a person who is rather sick of hearing that word the impression that you are looking for a fight. maybe even several people.

your exercise of free speech might lead you to being beaten to a pulp. sure its wrong of those who beat you, sure they might well end up in jail but you are still going to spend a few weeks in the hospital because you thought your right to be offensive was that important.

so WHY would you use a word that offends people just because you CAN? it makes no sense to me that anyone would insist on being vile to others on the pretext of free speech.

if you cant drop it from your speech because you are too polite, if you cant drop it from your speech because you dont want to be seen as a racist, then perhaps youll drop it from your speech out of concern for your phsyical safety. if not, i hope you keep your insurance payments up, youre gonna need it.


All that is very well and true, but the problem is when someone, such as rotovia_ here, comes along and effectively says "You cannot use this word'. Bull. I can. Perhaps I would never have done so, perhaps I had no intention of doing so, but telling me I cannot is the wrong thing to do.

Left alone, to my own conscience and social judgement I would never use the word ******, but when someone seeks to limit my freedom of expression, then I am going to fight against that.

This word offends me. Comparing to other words doesn't change that fact. As much as people can continue to argue their right to racially villify, I am forced to question their motives

HOW DOES ****** RACIALLY VILLIFY? It merely implies that the recipient is black, and that the effector of the term has a slightly archaic vocabulary.

you can use any word you want. no one is going to arrest you. no one is going to sue you. you can call your grandmother an ignorant slut if you want. i hope it makes you happy

regardless of your right to say it, regardless of your pure non-racist intentions, you will offend others. you will hurt the feelings of people you had no intention of hurting. you will give other people the impression that you are a racist pig. you might even give a person who is rather sick of hearing that word the impression that you are looking for a fight. maybe even several people.

your exercise of free speech might lead you to being beaten to a pulp. sure its wrong of those who beat you, sure they might well end up in jail but you are still going to spend a few weeks in the hospital because you thought your right to be offensive was that important.

so WHY would you use a word that offends people just because you CAN? it makes no sense to me that anyone would insist on being vile to others on the pretext of free speech.

if you cant drop it from your speech because you are too polite, if you cant drop it from your speech because you dont want to be seen as a racist, then perhaps youll drop it from your speech out of concern for your phsyical safety. if not, i hope you keep your insurance payments up, youre gonna need it.
You can be both arrested and sued in my state for the use of this term, and I will envoke that right if someone is foolish enough to publish their villfication

Of course people shouldn't call other people hurtful names, though of course when you're angry things can happen. I personally couldn't care less if the person saying something offensive was black,white, red, or freakin rainbow coloured. If you kow it hurts someone's feelings - don't say it. If you know he or she couldn't care less, like a friend, then it doesn't matter.

People, please respect each other, and try to behave. Treat the other the way you want to be treated. <3

I hate you people.

And by "you people" I mean, of course, those that use the word "irregardless" - It's not a word.

Damn, you beat me to it.

HOW DOES ****** RACIALLY VILLIFY? It merely implies that the recipient is black, and that the effector of the term has a slightly archaic vocabulary.
The associations to the word are legally -and socially by the people I choose to associate with- deemed to offence to such a degree that the singular word is an act of defamation.

The associations to the word are legally -and socially by the people I choose to associate with- deemed to offence to such a degree that the singular word is an act of defamation.

In contrast to a myriad of other terms that carry no connotations whatsoever?

You sir, a politically correct, ethnically self absorbed moron.

Incidentally, would you condone the term "honky"? The legislation you cite as gospel does, thus presumably you do?

All that is very well and true, but the problem is when someone, such as rotovia_ here, comes along and effectively says "You cannot use this word'. Bull. I can. Perhaps I would never have done so, perhaps I had no intention of doing so, but telling me I cannot is the wrong thing to do.

Left alone, to my own conscience and social judgement I would never use the word ******, but when someone seeks to limit my freedom of expression, then I am going to fight against that.
Again, I'd have to say you do not have absolute freedoms. When you are in private, you do. When you are alone you may use whatever terms you so please, however, once you enter society, you must take into consideration the rights of others and accept that your rights may be curtailed.

I like Wanda Sykes's idea. Take the power from the word by turning into a snack-food.

"Go to a party and check out the food selection. No Niggers?! You can't have a party without Niggers! All you got is some Crackers. Make nacho cheese niggers, barbeque flavored ..." and so on.

Make it a snack-food. Brilliant!

Again, I'd have to say you do not have absolute freedoms. When you are in private, you do. When you are alone you may use whatever terms you so please, however, once you enter society, you must take into consideration the rights of others and accept that your rights may be curtailed.

Why? To prtect you from offence, despite the curtailing of his rights potentially offending him?

HOW DOES ****** RACIALLY VILLIFY? It merely implies that the recipient is black, and that the effector of the term has a slightly archaic vocabulary.

Because it doesn't just imply that the recipient is black, so you're argument is now flawed. :/

Because the topic of this debate is one word only

No it is not, jewboy :p - No offense intended (I have jewish blood myself)

See, the topic is terms that offend. Though apparently you want to limit it to just the one term. That makes it an edict by you, rather than a possible debate on the reasonable limits on freedom of expression.

Again, I'd have to say you do not have absolute freedoms. When you are in private, you do. When you are alone you may use whatever terms you so please, however, once you enter society, you must take into consideration the rights of others and accept that your rights may be curtailed.

Maybe where you live. Where I live, I'm free to say what I want, as long as I don't incite violence. Though it wouldn't be very smart to say certain things in certain parts of town.

In contrast to a myriad of other terms that carry no connotations whatsoever?

You sir, a politically correct, ethnically self absorbed moron.

Incidentally, would you condone the term "honky"? The legislation you cite as gospel does, thus presumably you do?
I have covered this a dozen times, I will not allow myself to be sidetracked with the host of other terms that are no doubt offence, because I am referring to a single term. This is an instancial argument, not a universal one.

Furthermore, I am aware I have resorted to bellow the belt tactics in this thread, and have stated such, but please do not do so, regardless of what hypocrisy that statement entails, I would prefer this thread remain civil.

There Is One Of Me And Dozens Of You. Slow Down With The Replies Please.
It's 4:25 am and I've been replying non-stop -virtually- for an hour straight.

I like Wanda Sykes's idea. Take the power from the word by turning into a snack-food.

"Go to a party and check out the food selection. No Niggers?! You can't have a party without Niggers! All you got is some Crackers. Make nacho cheese niggers, barbeque flavored ..." and so on.

Make it a snack-food. Brilliant!

^I like that plan! It'll take a while, but in a few generations, no one will know that the word meant anything other than <insert relevant snack food here>.

I like Wanda Sykes's idea. Take the power from the word by turning into a snack-food.

"Go to a party and check out the food selection. No Niggers?! You can't have a party without Niggers! All you got is some Crackers. Make nacho cheese niggers, barbeque flavored ..." and so on.

Make it a snack-food. Brilliant!Unfortunately, it isn't a snack food and therefore outside of that scenario, your areguement is baseless.

Because it doesn't just imply that the recipient is black, so you're argument is now flawed. :/

Oh, no? Let me just consult my dear friend O. Dictionary:

******:
1. Another name for a Negro
2. A member of any dark-skinned race

So presumably, though the supposition that the word has connotations, and in light of the above, you cast aspersions as to Negros and other dark skinned races generally?

Again, I'd have to say you do not have absolute freedoms. When you are in private, you do. When you are alone you may use whatever terms you so please, however, once you enter society, you must take into consideration the rights of others and accept that your rights may be curtailed.

I must - on what basis? I only have to of my own choosing, or if I wish to be able to demand that others extended these same courtesies to me. However when I am not allowed to call you a ******, but you can call me a honkey, then I am not being extended these courtesies anyway. So I might just as well call you a ******. The fact that I would never do so, outside of this theoretical debate, is down to me, not down to your requirements of me.

I'll express my white power however I please.

Why is it so much more wrong to villify on the basis of race as opposed to any other? Can I call you an asshole in Australia and get away with it?

And no, I'm not being a smartass there. I'm curious. Are all insults out of bounds?

You, of course, are ignoring my questions, but then, that's not surprising...

Why? To prtect you from offence, despite the curtailing of his rights potentially offending him?
Why does this really seem unreasonable? Do you really so value your right to say any nonsense that comes into your head? Do you really not believe we should consider other people before we speak?

All that is very well and true, but the problem is when someone, such as rotovia_ here, comes along and effectively says "You cannot use this word'. Bull. I can. Perhaps I would never have done so, perhaps I had no intention of doing so, but telling me I cannot is the wrong thing to do.

Left alone, to my own conscience and social judgement I would never use the word ******, but when someone seeks to limit my freedom of expression, then I am going to fight against that.

thats what you got out of that eh?

i recommend that you not call someone that in australia as it seems it will get you thrown into jail

but then i would also suggest that you dont call anyone that in the united states too since it could well end with a more severe punishment.

yeah its SO wrong to suggest that people engage in civil discourse. i weep for your inability to use offensive words without offending people. thats such a noble cause, fighting for the right to be vile.

Why does this really seem unreasonable? Do you really so value your right to say any nonsense that comes into your head? Do you really not believe we should consider other people before we speak?


we should but we wont. just isnt the way the world is.

I have covered this a dozen times, I will not allow myself to be sidetracked with the host of other terms that are no doubt offence, because I am referring to a single term. This is an instancial argument, not a universal one.

Furthermore, I am aware I have resorted to bellow the belt tactics in this thread, and have stated such, but please do not do so, regardless of what hypocrisy that statement entails, I would prefer this thread remain civil.

Meh. You cited legislation and the perceptions of a single clique as testament to the malignity of a word, thus renderring any terms not legislated against acceptable.

No it is not, jewboy :p - No offense intended (I have jewish blood myself)

See, the topic is terms that offend. Though apparently you want to limit it to just the one term. That makes it an edict by you, rather than a possible debate on the reasonable limits on freedom of expression.
No, the topic is not "terms that offend". I clearly defined that, it is an instancial argument, on a single word and it's effects.

Unfortunately, it isn't a snack food and therefore outside of that scenario, your areguement is baseless.

Well, to be fair, Wanda Sykes is a comedian. She does, however, bring up a very good point. The reason the word invokes such offense is because the word has so much power.

Take the power away from the word.

I have covered this a dozen times, I will not allow myself to be sidetracked with the host of other terms that are no doubt offence, because I am referring to a single term. This is an instancial argument, not a universal one.

Furthermore, I am aware I have resorted to bellow the belt tactics in this thread, and have stated such, but please do not do so, regardless of what hypocrisy that statement entails, I would prefer this thread remain civil.

You are over fond of expecting others to follow your preferences.

Honkey is offensive, now why should you use it to describe us, but we not call you a ******?

Maybe where you live. Where I live, I'm free to say what I want, as long as I don't incite violence. Though it wouldn't be very smart to say certain things in certain parts of town.
I would think the entire of civilized society shares these principles, if not these laws.

Why does this really seem unreasonable? Do you really so value your right to say any nonsense that comes into your head? Do you really not believe we should consider other people before we speak?
Some of us don't believe that we should HAVE TO consider other people before we speak. It's polite to do so, but it's oppressive to require it.

I disagree with this. I think free speech should have very few, if any limits. I do, however, make a personal choice not to use the word out of respect.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Ditto.

I must - on what basis? I only have to of my own choosing, or if I wish to be able to demand that others extended these same courtesies to me. However when I am not allowed to call you a ******, but you can call me a honkey, then I am not being extended these courtesies anyway. So I might just as well call you a ******. The fact that I would never do so, outside of this theoretical debate, is down to me, not down to your requirements of me.
I will not have words put into my mouth. I have never claimed a right to call you honky.

Why does this really seem unreasonable? Do you really so value your right to say any nonsense that comes into your head? Do you really not believe we should consider other people before we speak?

Do not engage in a theoretical argument and then divert into reality. Bad form.

Of course we should consider other people before we speak. I have no doubt that any terms that could offend should be deemed unusable by the speaker, however I doubt that legislation and PC mongering is the best way to pursue this course.

Do not engage in a theoretical argument and then divert into reality. Bad form.


His whole attitude and conduct in this thread has been bad form.

Meh. You cited legislation and the perceptions of a single clique as testament to the malignity of a word, thus renderring any terms not legislated against acceptable.
I have stated numerous times, including in the first post of this thread, that this argument is instancial and limited to the scope of one word.

I like Wanda Sykes's idea. Take the power from the word by turning into a snack-food.

"Go to a party and check out the food selection. No Niggers?! You can't have a party without Niggers! All you got is some Crackers. Make nacho cheese niggers, barbeque flavored ..." and so on.

Make it a snack-food. Brilliant!


...we had something like that in The Netherlands... for I don't know how long, we had VERY tasty chocolate things that practicaly everyone loves, and they were called 'negerzoenen' which actually means 'negro-kisses' XD But, all of a sudden, some dude got it in his/her head that it would be racism to call it like that... :S Now they're jus called 'zoenen' which just means 'kisses'... I mean, seriously, the entire country went WTF? 0_o;; Some things aren't racism until someone turns it into it...ugh.

His whole attitude and conduct in this thread has been bad form.


hence why i havent been posting on this thread much

its not even worth my spam.

Well, to be fair, Wanda Sykes is a comedian. She does, however, bring up a very good point. The reason the word invokes such offense is because the word has so much power.

Take the power away from the word.If we start taking the power away from words, we are left with a collection of sounds and no meanings

Why does this really seem unreasonable? Do you really so value your right to say any nonsense that comes into your head? Do you really not believe we should consider other people before we speak?

I consider other people because I CHOOSE to. I do value my right to say any "nonsense" that enters my head. The fact that I choose not to say certain words does not give anyone else the right to say that I can't say those words.

No, the topic is not "terms that offend". I clearly defined that, it is an instancial argument, on a single word and it's effects.

In that case it is no argument, you are an arrogant and ignorant fool.

All discussion of any offensive term has to be constructed in a neutral context. The word ******, in isolation, is not offensive. It simply means black. If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one. Now that language contains many such terms, and these are also involved in the discussion, if the discussion is to be meaningful. As it is, you are making as much sense as someone who is claiming that thew word effervescent is offensive to them. The reply to which would be 'tough shit'.

You are over fond of expecting others to follow your preferences.

Honkey is offensive, now why should you use it to describe us, but we not call you a ******?
This has to be the nineth time in a row I've cover this point. I HAVE NEVER SAID IT IS OK TO CALL SOMEONE A HONKY

I should be able to say anything and everything. I should be able to say the n-word just like you should be able to say honkey or cracker or racist son of a bitch. I choose which words I say, no one else should be able to take that right from me.

In that case it is no argument, you are an arrogant and ignorant fool.

All discussion of any offensive term has to be constructed in a neutral context. The word ******, in isolation, is not offensive. It simply means black. If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one. Now that language contains many such terms, and these are also involved in the discussion, if the discussion is to be meaningful. As it is, you are making as much sense as someone who is claiming that thew word effervescent is offensive to them. The reply to which would be 'tough shit'.

What he said.

I will not have words put into my mouth. I have never claimed a right to call you honky.

You are trying to exclude it from the discussion, thereby implicitly claiming that there would be no offense in calling me a Honky or at least that it is different to me calling you a ******. Get it now.

Answer the rest of the point please.

Some of us don't believe that we should HAVE TO consider other people before we speak. It's polite to do so, but it's oppressive to require it.
I am morally bound to not kill you, but I am also legally bound to not do so. It is sometimes necessary to extend morality to restrict rights, where in doing so, the rights of others are protected.

I have never claimed a right to call you honky.

I'll claim that right!

You are trying to exclude it from the discussion, thereby implicitly claiming that there would be no offense in calling me a Honky or at least that it is different to me calling you a ******. Get it now.

Answer the rest of the point please.
I am claiming nothing of the sought, do not extend my arugment beyond it's intended bounds. I find one term heinously offence, the nature of other terms warrant a debate on their own.

Do you have any idea how many posts I have to teply to, wait!

I am morally bound to not kill you, but I am also legally bound to not do so. It is sometimes necessary to extend morality to restrict rights, where in doing so, the rights of others are protected.
Not all of us agree that one has the right not to be offended. In fact, the supreme court ruled that free speech trumps hurting someone's feelings in the case where Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari advertizement which used the idea of Jerry Falwell screwing his mother in an outhouse for comedic value.

Honky McGee
Crackah
White Bread
Snowflake

I love 'em all.

Course, I used to work in a restaurant where the kitchen staff was pretty much all black guys and a few mexicans. I don't think I ever heard the word ****** more than in that place.

And I don't think I'd ever been called 'white girl' more often than when I worked there.

Honky McGee
Crackah
White Bread
Snowflake

I always liked the term "briarhopper" myself.

In that case it is no argument, you are an arrogant and ignorant fool.

All discussion of any offensive term has to be constructed in a neutral context. The word ******, in isolation, is not offensive. It simply means black. If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one. Now that language contains many such terms, and these are also involved in the discussion, if the discussion is to be meaningful. As it is, you are making as much sense as someone who is claiming that thew word effervescent is offensive to them. The reply to which would be 'tough shit'.
oh for gods sake

thats like saying that the world "motherfucker" is neutral and that no one should be automatically offended when someone calls them a motherfucker.

****** is now and has been offensive since before the US civil war. it has only gotten MORE offensive over the years rather than less. in its "neutral" state it is an insult. just as motherfucker is an insult. the times when it is NOT an insult are the exceptions--such as when you call your best friend a motherfucker because he bested you in a basketball game.

if you want to insult people that is your business. but it is NOT their problem that they took an insult as an insult, its YOUR problem because you are the one who is going to be considered a racist pig and get your faced punched.

In that case it is no argument, you are an arrogant and ignorant fool.

All discussion of any offensive term has to be constructed in a neutral context. The word ******, in isolation, is not offensive. It simply means black. If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one. Now that language contains many such terms, and these are also involved in the discussion, if the discussion is to be meaningful. As it is, you are making as much sense as someone who is claiming that thew word effervescent is offensive to them. The reply to which would be 'tough shit'.
I think I asked you to not insult me previously, I am not certain, however I would appreciate it if you could limit your comments to my argument itself, and not me as a person.

Finally, and argument based on the word itself, that doesn't need to compare it to other offence terms.

I find the word offence in isolation and I am sure if we did a survey of educated black people, they'd agree.

Of course, there is a difference between the terms ****** and honky. If yo look at historical context as it imparts meaning to words, when white people call a black guy ****** it seems to have some kind of slave/lesser being connotation. When blacks call a white person honky or whatever, it doesn't have that same connotation.

just my 2 cents worth.

Not all of us agree that one has the right not to be offended. In fact, the supreme court ruled that free speech trumps hurting someone's feelings in the case where Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari advertizement which used the idea of Jerry Falwell screwing his mother in an outhouse for comedic value.
Of course there is no right "not to be offended", that makes no sense as offence is a response. There is, however, a right not to be racially vilified

Honky McGee
Crackah
White Bread
Snowflake

I love 'em all.

Course, I used to work in a restaurant where the kitchen staff was pretty much all black guys and a few mexicans. I don't think I ever heard the word ****** more than in that place.

And I don't think I'd ever been called 'white girl' more often than when I worked there.Interesting how people completely ignore the first post of this thread... I have repeatedly asked any arguments made relate directly to this single term and be able to stand on their own. There are -maybe- three posts that do this.

I think I asked you to not insult me previously, I am not certain, however I would appreciate it if you could limit your comments to my argument itself, and not me as a person.

Finally, and argument based on the word itself, that doesn't need to compare it to other offence terms.

I find the word offence in isolation and I am sure if we did a survey of educated black people, they'd agree.

What if you asked a group of black people who didn't speak English if the word was offensive? A word is nothing more then a collection of sounds and to discuss it's merits it must be placed in a linguistic and historical context. As such your desire to debate it without reference to other insults and their history is frankly ludicrous.

Of course, there is a difference between the terms ****** and honky. If yo look at historical context as it imparts meaning to words, when white people call a black guy ****** it seems to have some kind of slave/lesser being connotation. When blacks call a white person honky or whatever, it doesn't have that same connotation.

just my 2 cents worth.
Thank you. But, I have to judge you buy the same meter-stick. This thread is about one word only and is not about comparing offencive terms

oh for gods sake

thats like saying that the world "motherfucker" is neutral and that no one should be automatically offended when someone calls them a motherfucker.

****** is now and has been offensive since before the US civil war. it has only gotten MORE offensive over the years rather than less. in its "neutral" state it is an insult. just as motherfucker is an insult. the times when it is NOT an insult are the exceptions--such as when you call your best friend a motherfucker because he bested you in a basketball game.

if you want to insult people that is your business. but it is NOT their problem that they took an insult as an insult, its YOUR problem because you are the one who is going to be considered a racist pig and get your faced punched.

How quaintly US centric.

Nigga, in Brazil, just meant black.

The point was, however, that the term is only offensive anywhere because of the history and culture. Did you not read what I posted? I repeat:

If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one.

However that hiustory and culture brings with it a whole bucket load of other offensive terms - such as motherfucker. Trying to discuss the term ****** without looking at a wider picture of the balance between offense and freedom of expression in general is what I am objecting to.

Sorry, but I don't see where this right to hear no evil comes from, no matter what the law says- laws don't give you rights.

What if you asked a group of black people who didn't speak English if the word was offensive? A word is nothing more then a collection of sounds and to discuss it's merits it must be placed in a linguistic and historical context. As such your desire to debate it without reference to other insults and their history is frankly ludicrous.
Firstly, unfortunately, I know plenty of black people who speak English and know the meaning of the word, just fine.

Secondly, this is a debate about one word, I refuse to allow it to be expanded beyond belief, which is what happens in these debates. There is some reason that provokes people to debate by comparison, or to expand the issue, that is ludicrous.

As a tolerant white guy, I never use it.

But if young black people want to "reclaim" the word because it's some sort of counter-culture thing, whatever.

A quote from the recent movie The Ladykillers:

"N------s! Two thousand years after Jesus, thirty years after Martin Luther King, the age of Montel; sweet Lord of mercy is that where we at? "

I find the word offence in isolation and I am sure if we did a survey of educated black people, they'd agree.

So a particular combination of letters - when written, or phonemes - when spoken is insulting.

LOL.

What you mean is the concept that is expressed by the word ****** is insulting. That is something where I can agree with you. But the concept is one that can be expressed by many different terms - so discussing just the term ****** is pointless.

Sorry, but I don't see where this right to hear no evil comes from, no matter what the law says- laws don't give you rights.
Firstly, there is no "right to hear no evil". -This continuous creation of fallacy in relation to my statements is becoming irritating- There is, however, a right not to be vilified.

Secondly, the law codifies and preserves rights, because society, without these laws, seems reluctant to hand them out.

Of course there is no right "not to be offended", that makes no sense as offence is a response. There is, however, a right not to be racially vilified
Well, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree that it's a right.

I dont think people should be forced to conceal their feelings or thoughts, unless it is incitement to violence.

I believe it is futile to sit there and tell people to be polite. Yes, it would be nice, but is it reasonable to expect it? I say no, it isn't.

If you can tell the person is using the word to illicite a negative response from you (or is just used negatively in general), then dismiss them as unworthy of your attention.

If you can't tell why they used the word, then inquire for clarity, or just dont pay attention to them.

If they are using the word in a humorous fashion and you can tell they mean no harm, then perhaps you can tell tham that you find that word hurtful and ask that they refrain from using it around you at least. If they do then great, and if they don't then don't pay attention to them.

I agree with those who say that the individual being hurt by a word is responsible for the hurt they feel. Either you make the conscious decision to take it personally or you don't.

Here is where I paste one of my favorite pieces of advice:


Toltec wisdom written by Don Miguel Ruiz:

The Four Agreements


BE IMPECCABLE WITH YOUR WORD

Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

DON’T TAKE ANYTHING PERSONALLY

Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

DON’T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS

Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST

Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

Some people call it PC to refrain from being an asshole to someone else but I just call it being respectful. For instance I could get really angry if someone calls my handicapped sister a retard, and I have, but I take responsibility for that anger and my response. My choice though is to dismiss it as idiocy on their part and move on.

I for one don't like to hear people call black people "niggers" either. I won't use it. But have you ever noticed how the human brain works in terms of humor? One of our favorite things to do is mock others. My friend Danny has a major mexican accent and I mimic it for fun involuntarily almost. Same with my buddy from England (well he doesn't have a mexican accent but you know what I mean). I do the same with the southern accents, ebonics and what not. I once blurted out "What it be like?" to my black friend Cameron (when we first started to hang out) and he was automatically offended and I apologized and explained that I didn't do it because he was black... I've asked "What it be like?" to countless others before him.

There are instances when I can hear the word "******" and laugh, like when Richard CHeese does the Cypress Hill song "Insane In The Membrane".

I am too long winded at the moment so I'll shut up now.

So a particular combination of letters - when written, or phonemes - when spoken is insulting.

LOL.

What you mean is the concept that is expressed by the word ****** is insulting. That is something where I can agree with you. But the concept is one that can be expressed by many different terms - so discussing just the term ****** is pointless.
Remove the "lol", I am trying to keep a reasonable discourse in this thread.

I think we have a common ground, but where we differ is that I believe the one word embodies certain ideals -that though they can be expressed separately- are still present and offence in the single, potent, word.

How quaintly US centric.

Nigga, in Brazil, just meant black.

The point was, however, that the term is only offensive anywhere because of the history and culture. Did you not read what I posted? I repeat:

If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one.

However that hiustory and culture brings with it a whole bucket load of other offensive terms - such as motherfucker. Trying to discuss the term ****** without looking at a wider picture of the balance between offense and freedom of expression in general is what I am objecting to.
OWWWW! dont do that, it hurts when i roll my eyes so hard!

for all i know it means butterfly in swahili. SO WHAT?

use the word all you want in brazil. maybe they wont know you are using an american insult rather than a strange pronunciation of black in portuguese.

im sure that in most non english speaking countries its not particularly offensive. GO FIGURE.

Well, I agree with the sentiment, but disagree that it's a right.
Brilliant, then we are at an acceptable stalemate.

Firstly, unfortunately, I know plenty of black people who speak English and know the meaning of the word, just fine.

You seem to be holding the position that the word ****** is in itself offensive, I was pointing out that it isn't, the connotations it carries are. As I said it is nothing more that a collection of sounds, to none English speakers it means nothing.

Secondly, this is a debate about one word, I refuse to allow it to be expanded beyond belief, which is what happens in these debates. There is some reason that provokes people to debate by comparison, or to expand the issue, that is ludicrous.

As I tried to say, and others are trying to say, it is impossible to have any kind of rational debate about this until you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la I can't hear you' everytime someone says something that doesn't supports your position.

Screaming 'it's my thread and you have to say the things I want you to say' will win you no friends.

If we start taking the power away from words, we are left with a collection of sounds and no meanings

They said take the power away, not the meaning. Besides, why do you let it bother you so much? Don't you know if you show people that it bothers you, they are just going to say it more? If you start telling people they can't say something just because its offensive, they are going to say it to prove that you can't stop them.

As much as I loathe ad-hominem detraction, I must say callousness and immaturity will make debating this issue difficult.

There term is offence, a decent person accepts they are bound by social rules that state you do not interfere with the rights of others.

Perhaps you are typing too fast, but for God's sake you are driving me nuts with these errors. I will not however claim you cannot do this as it offends me. You have no "right to not be offended." Free speech is free up until the point where it promotes violence or public alarm. This is the be all an end all to limited free speech. You would be wise to review the volumes of US Supreme Court cases covering the very topic you have propped up here. As a moralist I choose not to use this word becaue I personally feel it is wrong. The job of the courts and legislature is not to write personal taste into law. Oh, there's also the slander and libel portions which do not apply here. The Supreme Court has upheld, on many occasions, the right for hate groups to use derogetory terms during rallies, on signs, and anywhere else they see fit (ex. government owned land).
In summation, while I agree that the term should not be used I also agree with the other poster that there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Go ahead and be offended but that is where it ends. Nowhere in US criminal or civil court would you have a wooden leg to stand on.

Secondly, this is a debate about one word, I refuse to allow it to be expanded beyond belief, which is what happens in these debates. There is some reason that provokes people to debate by comparison, or to expand the issue, that is ludicrous.

How is comparison ludicrous? it places the debate in the correct context, as it is the context that informs it.

If you say "The Welsh should not eat burgers because it is bad for them."

And I say

"The French have been eating them for years and it hasn't hurt them."

It is topical relevent and informs the debate.

You say that people shouldnt use a certain insult
Other people say why shouldn't they be allowed? especially when similar insults are levelled against them and they don't try to enact laws against it.

Firstly, there is no "right to hear no evil". -This continuous creation of fallacy in relation to my statements is becoming irritating- There is, however, a right not to be vilified.

Secondly, the law codifies and preserves rights, because society, without these laws, seems reluctant to hand them out.

There is no right not to be villified. You are (or should be) free to say whatever you like, which anyone else is free to respond to. You have a right not to be slandered, which you can defend in court. You have no right to be treated nicely- that's absurd.

Your second point you can debate with an anarcho-capitalist sometime, but suffice it to say that you are hardly enshrining rights by removing the right to free speach in order to coddle someone's feelings.

You seem to be holding the position that the word ****** is in itself offensive, I was pointing out that it isn't, the connotations it carries are. As I said it is nothing more that a collection of sounds, to none English speakers it means nothing.
All language is just a collection of sounds, to which we assign certain means. This particular collection is offencive, as it summarizes an ethos of racial hatred


As I tried to say, and others are trying to say, it is impossible to have any kind of rational debate about this until you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la I can't hear you' everytime someone says something that doesn't supports your position.I have never done this and frankly find this ascertain absurd. I have refused to allow you to expand this debate beyond the scope my argument was intended or draw comparison to avoid addressing the argument alone. If you this difficult yo do, then that is your own problem, those that followed the rules were able to put forward some very reasonable arguments and have a debate, that for once, is on topic and not a violation of inductive logic.

Screaming 'it's my thread and you have to say the things I want you to say' will win you no friends. I never said that, or anything remotely like that. Making up fallacies based on an unwillingness to obey the rules of debate is inane, at best, and malicious, at worst.

****** ****** ******.


If this post offends anyone, get over it. If you attach so much significance to this one word, even with its historical and social signifiance, then you deserve to be offended, because I'm telling you all straight out that I am not saying "******" to offend anyone, but merely to test whether anyone takes offense at a word written 3x without any derisive context. Have a nice day.

Firstly, there is no "right to hear no evil". -This continuous creation of fallacy in relation to my statements is becoming irritating- There is, however, a right not to be vilified.

Secondly, the law codifies and preserves rights, because society, without these laws, seems reluctant to hand them out.

You seem like a nice enough fellow, but you're seriously misled. Nowhere is there any inherent right to not be offended (or vilified) as you keep implying. Here are your exceptions:false public alarm, inciting to violence, libel, and slander. The word ni**er fits none of these constitutionally bound prescripts.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/overview.aspx

****** ****** ******.


If this post offends anyone, get over it. If you attach so much significance to this one word, even with its historical and social signifiance, then you deserve to be offended, because I'm telling you all straight out that I am not saying "******" to offend anyone, but merely to test whether anyone takes offense at a word written 3x without any derisive context. Have a nice day.


So then you created a puppet just to troll? I assume that is because you are to afraid to express this position from the name we might know you as. Sad, really.

So what do you think about politeness? Just some stupid liberal PC bullshit?

There is no right not to be villified. You are (or should be) free to say whatever you like, which anyone else is free to respond to. You have a right not to be slandered, which you can defend in court. You have no right to be treated nicely- that's absurd.

Your second point you can debate with an anarcho-capitalist sometime, but suffice it to say that you are hardly enshrining rights by removing the right to free speach in order to coddle someone's feelings.
Firstly, there is a clear legal definition -and one that is socially accepted by the people I know- that racial vilification is an act of defamation.

Secondly, you are the fifth -or so- person I have politely asked not to change my words so as to alter their context. I am aware this is a common debating tactic, but expect a more highbrow approach if you wish to continue. That said, there is no "right to be treated nicely", there is however, a "right not to be racially vilified"

Oh, diddums, a word offends you. At least the offensive qualities of semantics isn't too subjective......:rolleyes:
I love how all the Generalite racists are racing to defend the use of an offensive, derogatory word. And by love I mean 'feel like puking because of'.

****** ****** ******.


If this post offends anyone, get over it. If you attach so much significance to this one word, even with its historical and social signifiance, then you deserve to be offended, because I'm telling you all straight out that I am not saying "******" to offend anyone, but merely to test whether anyone takes offense at a word written 3x without any derisive context. Have a nice day.
I'm offended. Well done. Have a cookie

By the way, just because a group of people (no matter how legitimately) finds a word offensive does not give them the right to try and stop others from using it. In fact, the whole controversy over "******" comes from the fact that people tried to stop others from using this word. Well, if Muslims found the word "Christian" offensive (very hypothetically speaking), then by your beliefs, you shouldn't use that word. I'm not sure who this post is adressed to, but I'm sure someone holds the belief I am critisizing.

****** ****** ******.


If this post offends anyone, get over it. If you attach so much significance to this one word, even with its historical and social signifiance, then you deserve to be offended, because I'm telling you all straight out that I am not saying "******" to offend anyone, but merely to test whether anyone takes offense at a word written 3x without any derisive context. Have a nice day.
I'm not saying that it offends me, but that's it's just general douchebaggery to repeatedly go on like that.

****** ****** ******.

Crackah, please.

douchebaggery

I love love love that word.

Ok, I'll try it oyur way. You say there are laws which prevent the use of the word ****** in Australia. Do these laws apply only to white people saying it to black people? How about when those crazy kids use it among themselves, are they locked up? I also assume that all rap music being imported from the US is censored to prevent the word being used.

The question I'm asking is does this law apply universally or only when you want it to?

You seem like a nice enough fellow, but you're seriously misled. Nowhere is there any inherent right to not be offended (or vilified) as you keep implying. Here are your exceptions:false public alarm, inciting to violence, libel, and slander. The word ni**er fits none of these constitutionally bound prescripts.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/overview.aspx
Please, do not use patronisation, this is my least favourite debating tactic, followed by manipulating someone's words and debating the altered phrase.

I am also assuming you have chosen to not read most this thread and ignored my numerous references to Australia and the State of Queensland where I reside and where I am safely protected by The Anti-Defamation Act and Racial Vilification Act

By the way, just because a group of people (no matter how legitimately) finds a word offensive does not give them the right to try and stop others from using it.

I find more people are scared of the words "leftist", "liberal", and "hippie" than they are of the word "******". So much so, in fact, that they'll try to use "leftist", "liberal", and/or "hippie" as an insult. It's not.

So now you stoop to his level. He has his opinion, and may well be offended by your attitude that you have a right to determine the language he uses.

Can you explain why we should be concerned about your particular dislike of this one word, but not about the dislike that any one of us may have to another term? You are not the center of the world.
Fine, explain your objection to the N-word, but this objection can not be made in any sustainable way without it being embedded in a system of mutual respect. As such it is necessary to include in this discussion why it is acceptable for terms such as Honkey to be used, but not for the n-word. Or do you claim that any term that any person is offended by is unacceptable for use?
I think he's made it pretty clear that he doesn't want to start delving into the meanings, offensive or not, of other words, and that he is dealing with this word in particular. People are going to bring in other racist slurs in able to justify why they should be allowed to use the n word. Like, "Well I don't like being called a #$&*^#, so I get to use the n word when I want to!" So no, it is not necessary to include in this discussion why YOU THINK that others believe it is acceptable for terms such as honkey to be used.

By the way, just because a group of people (no matter how legitimately) finds a word offensive does not give them the right to try and stop others from using it. In fact, the whole controversy over "******" comes from the fact that people tried to stop others from using this word. Well, if Muslims found the word "Christian" offensive (very hypothetically speaking), then by your beliefs, you shouldn't use that word. I'm not sure who this post is adressed to, but I'm sure someone holds the belief I am critisizing.

I agree with you.

You sound like a real piece of work. It is people like you that make me use the N Word
No one makes you use that word. Your own disrespectful attitude towards others causes you to ignore civility and resort to racial slurs.

By the way, just because a group of people (no matter how legitimately) finds a word offensive does not give them the right to try and stop others from using it. In fact, the whole controversy over "******" comes from the fact that people tried to stop others from using this word. Well, if Muslims found the word "Christian" offensive (very hypothetically speaking), then by your beliefs, you shouldn't use that word. I'm not sure who this post is adressed to, but I'm sure someone holds the belief I am critisizing.
This is getting rediculous, read the first post, or the dozens of reproachs I have made for this low tactic. Do not debate by comparison, debate by merit. If this thread does nothing else, I hope it can improve the quality of debate of the general forum.

"Crackah, please."

First of all, who said I was white?

'I'm not saying that it offends me, but that's it's just general douchebaggery to repeatedly go on like that."

Why is that, if it doesn't offend you?

"I'm offended. Well done. Have a cookie"

Thank you, I'll take that cookie. While you're at it, try to tolerate others like me a little more, while you're seeking toleration yourself by being a jerk.

I love love love that word.
It truly is a classic word.

I find it personally far easier to NOT be an asshat, when people aren't angry with you, it's easier to chill.

Please, do not use patronisation, this is my least favourite debating tactic, followed by manipulating someone's words and debating the altered phrase.

I am also assuming you have chosen to not read most this thread and ignored my numerous references to Australia and the State of Queensland where I reside and where I am safely protected by The Anti-Defamation Act and Racial Vilification Act

You're not "safely protected" here are you?

Don't debate by comparison? What the heck? You mean, don't use examples ever, just use vague hypotheticals with no real world implications? Is that it? Comparison(used tactfully) is a critical and quick way to show somehting is faulty.

I hate you people.

And by "you people" I mean, of course, those that use the word "irregardless" - It's not a word.

I swear it is.

"Originally Posted by Rotovia-
Please, do not use patronisation, this is my least favourite debating tactic, followed by manipulating someone's words and debating the altered phrase.

I am also assuming you have chosen to not read most this thread and ignored my numerous references to Australia and the State of Queensland where I reside and where I am safely protected by The Anti-Defamation Act and Racial Vilification Act"


Is that a comparison I see????

"Crackah, please."

First of all, who said I was white?

'I'm not saying that it offends me, but that's it's just general douchebaggery to repeatedly go on like that."

Why is that, if it doesn't offend you?

"I'm offended. Well done. Have a cookie"

Thank you, I'll take that cookie. While you're at it, try to tolerate others like me a little more, while you're seeking toleration yourself by being a jerk.Ah yes, create a vague reference to fictitious incident and hope no-one notices. Unless you are the President of the United States, you cannot get away this. I have done my utmost to remain civil in this debate, though I freely admit throwing a few bellow the belt when the debate got nasty, but I think I tolerant, if nothing else.

You're not "safely protected" here are you?
Explain

All that is very well and true, but the problem is when someone, such as rotovia_ here, comes along and effectively says "You cannot use this word'. Bull. I can. Perhaps I would never have done so, perhaps I had no intention of doing so, but telling me I cannot is the wrong thing to do.

Left alone, to my own conscience and social judgement I would never use the word ******, but when someone seeks to limit my freedom of expression, then I am going to fight against that.
Sorry, does Rotovia have the power to actually stop you from using a word? No. Does he think he does? Doubtful...he's never come across as being a megalomaniac. So when you jump to conclusions like this that 'don't use this word, it's not okay' somehow equals "I will petition the state to imprison you for any such usage" you are being ridiculous.

There are people on this board, and in the wider society who often like to tell themselves that because certain black people use the word, that they can use it too, and no one has the right to consider it to be offensive. There are people who like to toy with the word and ignore completely the actual contemporary connotations of it, in order to 'get away' with using this word...pretending that 'they didn't mean it that way'. These kinds of false arguments are what were addressed in the first post. No, it's not okay, it is still a racist term, that hasn't changed. Use it if you want, but don't pretend that it is in any way acceptable or not insulting.

Your freedom is in no way limited. Unless you believe that ever mentioning that something is offensive is in some way a 'limit on your freedom'.

I love how all the Generalite racists are racing to defend the use of an offensive, derogatory word. And by love I mean 'feel like puking because of'.

their lack of debating skills is amusing. with rotovia declining to take the typical bait that throws a thread like this off topic they are left with "words are just a collection of sounds" and trying to put words into his mouth.

can we declare their lack of a real argument as a WIN? otherwise they can keep up with the same crap until some poor soul takes the bait that rotovia refused.

HOW DOES ****** RACIALLY VILLIFY? It merely implies that the recipient is black, and that the effector of the term has a slightly archaic vocabulary.
And see what I mean, AB? Certain people here love using the term, and try to pretend that it doesn't mean what we all know it means. That is truly a sickening example of intellectual dishonesty.

Ah yes, create a vague reference to fictitious incident and hope no-one notices. Unless you are the President of the United States, you cannot get away this. I have done my utmost to remain civil in this debate, though I freely admit throwing a few bellow the belt when the debate got nasty, but I think I tolerant, if nothing else.


What in the world are you talking about, "create a vague reference to fictitious incident and hope no-one notices. Unless you are the President of the United States, you cannot get away this"? Please make things a little clearer when you try to show how stupid I am.

Don't debate by comparison? What the heck? You mean, don't use examples ever, just use vague hypotheticals with no real world implications? Is that it? Comparison(used tactfully) is a critical and quick way to show somehting is faulty.
No, debate by comparison is lazy and ignore the fact that there are no real similes and that the original item and second are in fact different in many ways. In this particular argument, comparison can be used to bring in words that are offencive and debate those words, instead of the one word cover in my argument.

First of all, who said I was white?


Who said "crackah" was a slur against white people?

Fascinating you'd automatically draw that conclusion, yet when it comes to "******", it's just a word and should be ignored.

Firstly, there is a clear legal definition -and one that is socially accepted by the people I know- that racial vilification is an act of defamation.

Secondly, you are the fifth -or so- person I have politely asked not to change my words so as to alter their context. I am aware this is a common debating tactic, but expect a more highbrow approach if you wish to continue. That said, there is no "right to be treated nicely", there is however, a "right not to be racially vilified"

vil·i·fy: To make vicious and defamatory statements about.

The word under discussion does not vilify- it insults, degrades and demeans perhaps, but these are hurt feelings, as I said before. It is vicious, aye, but that is not a legal basis for anything. Unless you think that the n-bomb is defamatory ("damages the reputation, character, or good name of someone by slander or libel"), you are speaking simply of a right to be treated nicely.
Simplifying someone's arguments in order to expose their incorrectness is a perfectly valid debating tactic, and logically sound at that. Don't frow your low brows at me.

No it is not, jewboy :p - No offense intended (I have jewish blood myself)

See, the topic is terms that offend. Though apparently you want to limit it to just the one term. That makes it an edict by you, rather than a possible debate on the reasonable limits on freedom of expression.
Actually, the topic is the n word.

Since this is becoming an issue in and of itself, I have deiced that recent events within the forum and the broader global community have warranted the discussion of an extremely divisive issue, that being, the use of "the n-word".

What in the world are you talking about, "create a vague reference to fictitious incident and hope no-one notices. Unless you are the President of the United States, you cannot get away this"? Please make things a little clearer when you try to show how stupid I am.
"Please make things a little clearer when you try to show how stupid I am" was this ironic?

Sorry, that probably proves your point in and of itself, however, I was referring to the fact you alluded to me being intolerant of someone.

You are over fond of expecting others to follow your preferences.

Honkey is offensive, now why should you use it to describe us, but we not call you a ******?
Show me the posts where he uses the term Honkey. Otherwise, eat that red herring, it'll do you more good.

'I'm not saying that it offends me, but that's it's just general douchebaggery to repeatedly go on like that."

Why is that, if it doesn't offend you?

First of all, it's not a term that is applicable to me. But I do know there are people who are insulted by such a term. Out of my respect for them I would request that you show them the respect that they, as human beings, deserve. If someone does not wish to be called something, then ithe decent thing to do is not call them that. Maybe it's just me, but I'm a fan of decency and civility. If those things are totally defunct, then I guess I'm old fashioned.

vil·i·fy: To make vicious and defamatory statements about.

The word under discussion does not vilify- it insults, degrades and demeans perhaps, but these are hurt feelings, as I said before. It is vicious, aye, but that is not a legal basis for anything. Unless you think that the n-bomb is defamatory ("damages the reputation, character, or good name of someone by slander or libel"), you are speaking simply of a right to be treated nicely.
Simplifying someone's arguments in order to expose their incorrectness is a perfectly valid debating tactic, and logically sound at that. Don't frow your low brows at me.
The Racial Vilification Act:

Racial vilification

4. A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their race by

Sorry, does Rotovia have the power to actually stop you from using a word? No. Does he think he does? Doubtful...he's never come across as being a megalomaniac. So when you jump to conclusions like this that 'don't use this word, it's not okay' somehow equals "I will petition the state to imprison you for any such usage" you are being ridiculous.

If you read back in the thread you will find that Rotovia live in Queensland where, according to him, there are laws which would allow him to have you prosecuted for using the n-word. I'm arguing against this rather than for using the word on a regular basis. In this circumstance then exactly what other words we should be 'protected' from hearing becomes very relevent.

No, debate by comparison is lazy and ignore the fact that there are no real similes and that the original item and second are in fact different in many ways. In this particular argument, comparison can be used to bring in words that are offencive and debate those words, instead of the one word cover in my argument.

Not true. In fact, the HYPOTHETICAL example I am about to create is very simliar to the real life example of "******". Here's one:

Slavery has been around for a long time, way before blacks were shipped to the Americas and enslaved. I'm pretty sure that slaves have always been referred to as slaves. So the word "slave" shouldn't be used because it denotes a historical and social villany, much like "******". What's the problem with this example?

Who said "crackah" was a slur against white people?

Fascinating you'd automatically draw that conclusion, yet when it comes to "******", it's just a word and should be ignored.


So you are saying that it is not fair to assume that "cracker" is reffering to a white person? What world are you from?

In that case it is no argument, you are an arrogant and ignorant fool.

All discussion of any offensive term has to be constructed in a neutral context. The word ******, in isolation, is not offensive. It simply means black. If you want to contend that it is offensive, then it has to be placed in a social and cultural context. A linguistic one, not a single word one. Now that language contains many such terms, and these are also involved in the discussion, if the discussion is to be meaningful. As it is, you are making as much sense as someone who is claiming that thew word effervescent is offensive to them. The reply to which would be 'tough shit'.
Unbelievable. Talk around it all you like, the term is offensive, and you know it. It's really amazing how you are all jumping down his throat, considering that this whole discussion was spawned out of another thread where people were trying to claim that they should get to use the word because 'it has no meaning outside of what you assign to it'. Please. Remember that cult of denial, AB? Where people blame everyone else for how their actions are received, rather than themselves for their actions because as an individual, it's up to you to not be offended? I thought you weren't a part of it. So if he, or I, or anyone else is offended by the word, it's OUR fault, not the fault of the person who knowingly uses this offensive word, and intends to offend. Wow.

I'm going to have to leave it there, I've been replying for two hours straight now -since 3:30ish- and have an all day lecture to attend.

Given most counter-points have been covered, I will only respond to NEW arguments WITHIN the rules, after this point.

First of all, it's not a term that is applicable to me. But I do know there are people who are insulted by such a term. Out of my respect for them I would request that you show them the respect that they, as human beings, deserve. If someone does not wish to be called something, then ithe decent thing to do is not call them that. Maybe it's just me, but I'm a fan of decency and civility. If those things are totally defunct, then I guess I'm old fashioned.

So you are offended. Maybe not for your own sake, but for the sake of racial tension having been stretched.

Down with douchebaggery! Up with decency!

Does it hurt you all that much to not be an asshole?

If you read back in the thread you will find that Rotovia live in Queensland where, according to him, there are laws which would allow him to have you prosecuted for using the n-word. I'm arguing against this rather than for using the word on a regular basis. In this circumstance then exactly what other words we should be 'protected' from hearing becomes very relevent.
I quote the act above.

You are trying to exclude it from the discussion, thereby implicitly claiming that there would be no offense in calling me a Honky or at least that it is different to me calling you a ******. Get it now. What a way to twist it. So because he doesn't want to get into a shouting match about 'well so and so says honkey, so I say n*****', that is 'implicitly claiming that there would be no offense in calling [you] a Honkey? Picking a fight much?

Goodbye Rotovia, and try to be more reasonable when you come back. You have not, in fact, covered my last example.

Not true. In fact, the HYPOTHETICAL example I am about to create is very simliar to the real life example of "******". Here's one:

Slavery has been around for a long time, way before blacks were shipped to the Americas and enslaved. I'm pretty sure that slaves have always been referred to as slaves. So the word "slave" shouldn't be used because it denotes a historical and social villany, much like "******". What's the problem with this example?


So my sister is handicapped (mentally and physically), are you going to go up to her and say "Retard, retard, retard", not to be hateful but just to see her reaction and then blame her and put her down for being offended by it?

So you are saying that it is not fair to assume that "cracker" is reffering to a white person? What world are you from?

Hey you're the one arguing for context over substance.

I could have been referring to a saltine.

You are the one who gave it substance rather than context.

Defeated your own argument there.

So you are offended. Maybe not for your own sake, but for the sake of racial tension having been stretched.
No, for the sake of respect for my friends.

Not true. In fact, the HYPOTHETICAL example I am about to create is very simliar to the real life example of "******". Here's one:

Slavery has been around for a long time, way before blacks were shipped to the Americas and enslaved. I'm pretty sure that slaves have always been referred to as slaves. So the word "slave" shouldn't be used because it denotes a historical and social villany, much like "******". What's the problem with this example?
I think you know the situation is different. The word is in the thread title, and is obviously needed to be used when discussing it's racist connotations, it is difficult to say "'******' is offencive", without saying it.

Hey you're the one arguing for context over substance.

I could have been referring to a saltine.

You are the one who gave it substance rather than context.

Defeated your own argument there.

ER...my argument was that the word "******" should not be limited. Dpn't twist my words, please.

Goodbye Rotovia, and try to be more reasonable when you come back. You have not, in fact, covered my last example.
Actually, I have... been both reasonable and answered your example

No, for the sake of respect for my friends.

Yeah, thats still offense.

ER...my argument was that the word "******" should not be limited. Dpn't twist my words, please.

Limited by what ... substance or context?

You have no "right to not be offended." Free speech is free up until the point where it promotes violence or public alarm. This is the be all an end all to limited free speech. You would be wise to review the volumes of US Supreme Court cases covering the very topic you have propped up here.
He's not from the US, your point is moot.

So my sister is handicapped (mentally and physically), are you going to go up to her and say "Retard, retard, retard", not to be hateful but just to see her reaction and then blame her and put her down for being offended by it?

No of course not. "retard" in this sense, is used in a hateful context.

Yeah, thats still offense.
I'm arguing for their honor. If you feel it so important to insult the honor of my good friends, who are decent, hardworking people, then I will argue in their stead. Much as a lawyer doing pro bono work.

Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another.

To quote your original post, it seems that you want to limit free speech because "******" offends you. Am I right?

Polite people don't use it. It's that simple.


Since this is becoming an issue in and of itself, I have deiced that recent events within the forum and the broader global community have warranted the discussion of an extremely divisive issue, that being, the use of "the n-word".

snip

Finally, Free Speech Ends where it defames, vilifies and impunes the character of another.

I'm arguing for their honor. If you feel it so important to insult the honor of my good friends, who are decent, hardworking people, then I will argue in their stead. Much as a lawyer doing pro bono work.

Yeah I know you want to protect your friends' honor. But you are taking offense to me "harming their honor". THats offense.

their lack of debating skills is amusing. with rotovia declining to take the typical bait that throws a thread like this off topic they are left with "words are just a collection of sounds" and trying to put words into his mouth.

can we declare their lack of a real argument as a WIN? otherwise they can keep up with the same crap until some poor soul takes the bait that rotovia refused.I'm just shocked that even posters I respect (AB) are jumping on this particular bandwagon to prove a point that really isn't all that relevant...that 'words are just a collection of sounds' and their context give them meaning...yeah, we get that. The context of this particular word is the point. Moving on.

No of course not. "retard" in this sense, is used in a hateful context.

and yet you said "****** ****** ******" to see if it offended anyone and it wasnt meant hatefully?

Bullshit - "retard" can have other meanings too. And it is generally accepted that both of these words are thought of as derogatory.

You cant argue that saying one is okay and the other isnt.

I'm certainly not advocating legal punishments for those who would use the word ******, instead I'm arguing that it's indecent, and common decency and respect for your fellow human being insists that one does not use a word in such a sense.

Limited by what ... substance or context?

Limited in speech, is what I meant. I'm just arguing for freedom of speech here, even if someone is offended by free speech. I don't presonally use "******", but it doesn't mean I can't because some people are offended.

Yeah I know you want to protect your friends' honor. But you are taking offense to me "harming their honor". THats offense.
Fine, I'm taking offense. Whatever. How does this affect the argument?

If you read back in the thread you will find that Rotovia live in Queensland where, according to him, there are laws which would allow him to have you prosecuted for using the n-word. I'm arguing against this rather than for using the word on a regular basis. In this circumstance then exactly what other words we should be 'protected' from hearing becomes very relevent.I think that he has brought this law up because people are saying he has no right to any sort of legal redress. He does. I have not, however, seen him advocate for any sort of change to US, Canadian or other laws. In fact, the thread really isn't even centered around a debate as to whether such a law is valid, just, necessary or not. Instead, it is centered around a single word, a word that is offensive, despite the fact that people claim they can use it and not 'really mean it'.

Explain
I mean, people on the internet aren't going to be arrested for saying that word that you hate so much.

Instead, it is centered around a single word, a word that is offensive, despite the fact that people claim they can use it and not 'really mean it'.

Call Dave Chappelle and tell him to stop using it then.

Limited in speech, is what I meant. I'm just arguing for freedom of speech here, even if someone is offended by free speech. I don't presonally use "******", but it doesn't mean I can't because some people are offended.

In the US? No. It could get you fired. It could get your ass kicked. It could get you fined if you work for a public company or sports team.

You can, yes. "Can" and "should" are rarely mutual.

and yet you said "****** ****** ******" to see if it offended anyone and it wasnt meant hatefully?

Bullshit - "retard" can have other meanings too. And it is generally accepted that both of these words are thought of as derogatory.

You cant argue that saying one is okay and the other isnt.

Learn to read, moron. In the "retard" example, someone was calling someone a retard, with the motive of offending.. When I wrote "******", it was not directed at anyone, nor was it meant to create offense. If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I wanted to see who would be offended by it, despite the fact that I clearly meant no offense (having stated it in that post several times).

Polite people don't use it. It's that simple.

But, I'm not polite! :p

The Racial Vilification Act:

Racial vilification

4. A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their race by

That sounds like hurting your feelings to me- exactly my point.

While inciting hatred is debatable, serious contempt and severe ridicule do not fall outside the bounds of free speech, nor should they.

You can quote laws all you like, but my point stands- laws != rights. In fact, most laws remove rights, as does that one.

Call Dave Chappelle and tell him to stop using it then.

Many people have. It didn't stop him. Matter of fact, in response, he created the Clayton Bigsby sketch.

To quote your original post, it seems that you want to limit free speech because "******" offends you. Am I right?
Actually, if you read the first post, the point is that you can't wiggle around the fact that the word is offensive. Don't pretend it isn't..which some of you seem hell bent on doing anyway...for shits and giggles it seems.

Fine, I'm taking offense. Whatever. How does this affect the argument?

It doesn't. But you tried to argue that you were not offended, and I merely felt differently. That's all, so drop it, plz, and I will too.

Call Dave Chappelle and tell him to stop using it then.
No.

Just because some black people use it, doesn't give everyone else a free shot until every single black person erases it from their vocabulary first.

But, I'm not polite! :p
Then you are going to miss out on much the world has to offer. People generally don't like people who lack basic levels of civility.

OK, lets look at this from another angle.

What if I want to be incredibly offensive to a black guy, you know, we're having an argument and he just called my mother an old trout or something equally awful, what right does the government have to restrict my use of a word.

In this case there can be no argument for the restriction of the word for ploitenesses sake, I'm intending it to be offensive.

Actually, if you read the first post, the point is that you can't wiggle around the fact that the word is offensive. Don't pretend it isn't..which some of you seem hell bent on doing anyway...for shits and giggles it seems.

I'm not pretending that peopel aren't offended. But the point is that just because people are offended doesn't mean that the word should be restricted in speech. I personally don't like Jews (just kidding!, its just an example), and if enough people like me took personal offense to "jew", should it be restricted too?

Learn to read, moron. In the "retard" example, someone was calling someone a retard, with the motive of offending.. When I wrote "******", it was not directed at anyone, nor was it meant to create offense. If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I wanted to see who would be offended by it, despite the fact that I clearly meant no offense (having stated it in that post several times).
It was offensive, and I don't believe for a moment that you weren't aiming it at someone specifically, despite your protestations of innocence.

That is as stupid as saying, "Hey, no offense, but you're a cocksucker". Not very sincere, is it.

OK, lets look at this from another angle.

What if I want to be incredibly offensive to a black guy, you know, we're having an argument and he just called my mother an old trout or something equally awful, what right does the government have to restrict my use of a word.

In this case there can be no argument for the restriction of the word for ploitenesses sake, I'm intending it to be offensive.
I'm not arguing that the government has any right to restrict your choice of words. I'm arguing that decency insists that you find a more substantial way to challenge the other fellow. A more meaningful way perhaps.

It was offensive, and I don't believe for a moment that you weren't aiming it at someone specifically, despite your protestations of innocence.

That's exactly the problem here. You're so busy being offended that you can't even concede that I didn't mean offense (which I didn't). Just believe me, and there would be no argument.

Not true. In fact, the HYPOTHETICAL example I am about to create is very simliar to the real life example of "******". Here's one:

Slavery has been around for a long time, way before blacks were shipped to the Americas and enslaved. I'm pretty sure that slaves have always been referred to as slaves. So the word "slave" shouldn't be used because it denotes a historical and social villany, much like "******". What's the problem with this example?

since its so important to you

ill debate this in rotovias absense as long as you can provide .......100 .... real life examples of how "slave" has been used as a racial slur in the past 100 years.

Actually, if you read the first post, the point is that you can't wiggle around the fact that the word is offensive. Don't pretend it isn't..which some of you seem hell bent on doing anyway...for shits and giggles it seems.
My point is that many people find it offensive when black people say it.

So they should stop, using your logic.

I'm not arguing that the government has any right to restrict your choice of words. I'm arguing that decency insists that you find a more substantial way to challenge the other fellow. A more meaningful way perhaps.

Definitely. Decency does argue that a better word can be used. I agree with you wholeheartedly there.

That's exactly the problem here. You're so busy being offended that you can't even concede that I didn't mean offense (which I didn't). Just believe me, and there would be no argument.
No.

Learn to read, moron. In the "retard" example, someone was calling someone a retard, with the motive of offending.. When I wrote "******", it was not directed at anyone, nor was it meant to create offense. If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I wanted to see who would be offended by it, despite the fact that I clearly meant no offense (having stated it in that post several times).


I did learn to read little one. You said "****** ****** ******" to see if someone was offended by it. That's the same thing as what I said which was saying "Retard retard retard" to see if someone was offended by it. Yet you say it's different but can't reasonably explain how? Maybe you should learn to write clearly.

Dont get all name cally just because your argument was smashed to pieces and you have no intelligent response.

you can use any word you want. no one is going to arrest you. no one is going to sue you. you can call your grandmother an ignorant slut if you want. i hope it makes you happy


Actually in England a man was jailed for calling someone a "******".

since its so important to you

ill debate this in rotovias absense as long as you can provide .......100 .... real life examples of how "slave" has been used as a racial slur in the past 100 years.

Racial slur? Who said anything about racial? In fact, what makes one race more important than another? I was using an example of an historicaly charged word that many people have good reason to be offended by.

100examples... What race are you? I'll call you "slave" 100x and I will mean it in a racial way. How bout that?

My point is that many people find it offensive when black people say it.

So they should stop, using your logic.
No, I think your point was that as long as someone is using it, we all should be able to.

I don't have a clue who David Chapelle is outside of his name...

No, I think your point was that as long as someone is using it, we all should be able to.

I don't have a clue who David Chapelle is outside of his name...
Comedian. Actually doesn't use the word casually, if you watch the routines and sketches, but if you're looking for an excuse to use the word then you could miss it.

I did learn to read little one. You said "****** ****** ******" to see if someone was offended by it. That's the same thing as what I said which was saying "Retard retard retard" to see if someone was offended by it. Yet you say it's different but can't reasonably explain how? Maybe you should learn to write clearly.

Dont get all name cally just because your argument was smashed to pieces and you have no intelligent response.

Hey, don't even try and balme me for something you started. Like I said, you call someone retard to his face, you probably mean it offensively. I say "******" to no one in particulary and even tell you I don't mean it offensively, then its your problem if you take it to be a attack on yourself.

I agree, it's the old chestnut of "fire" in crowded theater. Where do words stop being just words?


I think the right to speak one's mind is so precious that it should be protected unless a certain message can be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence or disclosure of secrets which threaten the security of the nation.

Because of that I have no problem with a KKK rally where the speaker says something like "N*****S are destroying our society". He's entitled to his stupid and bigoted opinion. I have a problem when he says "N*****S should be lynched" because that is a clear incitement to violence.

Hey, don't even try and balme me for something you started. Like I said, you call someone retard to his face, you probably mean it offensively. I say "******" to no one in particulary and even tell you I don't mean it offensively, then its your problem if you take it to be a attack on yourself.
Uh-huh.

Fucking asshole.

Oops...don't anyone take offense, I was just saying that, it isn't directed at anyone, and if you get offended it's all your fault because you should know I didn't mean it in a bad way!:rolleyes:

No, I think your point was that as long as someone is using it, we all should be able to.

I don't have a clue who David Chapelle is outside of his name...

No, my point is that if black people think it's so offensive, we ALL should not be saying it. And using your logic, there is NO context that would not be offensive.

I mean, I couldn't get up as a comedian and say the word, and then say I was just joking, and not offend anyone.

I agree, it's the old chestnut of "fire" in crowded theater. Where do words stop being just words?

Actually, thats a good point. Some words create immediate danger. "******" happens to not be one of them (unless you count danger toward the person saying the word lol)

Limited in speech, is what I meant. I'm just arguing for freedom of speech here, even if someone is offended by free speech. I don't presonally use "******", but it doesn't mean I can't because some people are offended.
well DUH

the thought police cant come along and rip out your vocal cords or wipe the word out of your memory. you CAN say it.

you (and by you i do mean YOU) "can't" say it because you arent a racist piece of shit who delights in race-baiting.

the rest of the pro posters will perhaps come to understand that they "can't" use that word because it has bad personal reprocussions for them, since they have no problem offending strangers.