NationStates Jolt Archive

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:


See? i'm not offended. I can believe that it wasn't directed at me (though you quoted me, so by etiquette, it was adressed to me). But i don't get offended by anonymous gits flaming online.

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 never said that...so it must be your extrapolation of my logic. I've stated in another thread, though not this one, that people within a certain group have a certain latitude in using racial slurs directed at themselves...more so than people outside of the group. As has been pointed out, the context is important...but that context is simply going to be lacking unless you happen to be on the 'in'. So when you say it, it's offensive. When Chris Rock says it, not that much.

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.

And I'll keep saying this until someone pays attention. Rotovia live in Queensland where they have laws which allow the govt. to prosecute you for using words like ****** in a way meant to cause offence, and Rotovia indicated that he would use them if anyone upset him. Not eveyone lives in the US or has American type legal protections.

Incidentally, from the snippet of the law that he posted, it seems that making jokes about racial differences could get you in hot water as well and I don't know about you but I like my slightly off-colour race jokes.

It is this that I argue against.

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)

Exactly! I have the right to say that word in front of the bar in the "bad" part of town. And when I wake up, the ER nurse has the right to call me an f***ing idiot.

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.


What did I start? I changed the words of your post from ****** to retard. both are offensive. you are acting as if you werent using the word on someone who was already saying they were offended by the word. therefore you used it as an offense.

the fact that you said you didnt mean offense because you didnt use it in context in a sentence is just being disingenuous.

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)

Exactly! I have the right to say that word in front of the bar in the "bad" part of town. And when I wake up, the ER nurse has the right to call me an f***ing idiot.

Exactly! I have the right to say that word in front of the bar in the "bad" part of town. And when I wake up, the ER nurse has the right to call me an f***ing idiot.


Haha damn straight.

What did I start? I changed the words of your post from ****** to retard. both are offensive. you are acting as if you werent using the word on someone who was already saying they were offended by the word. therefore you used it as an offense.

the fact that you said you didnt mean offense because you didnt use it in context in a sentence is just being disingenuous.

Haha, okay I looked back, and apparently I did start the flamewar. My bad, I mistook you for someone else.
I wasn't using the word on anyone. Jesus Christ, get over the fact that it ws directed at anyone. I know you guys are offended by the word when used intentionally offensivly against you. I was testing to see if you'd be offended by it with no derisive context context. Like, I can write cracker, honkey, chick, spic, ******, completely out of context. If anyone is offended by this, they need a chill pill.

BTW whats "disingenuous" mean? I'm not educated at all lol.

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?
thats the POINT. slave isnt a racial slur; ****** is.

you can call a black man "slave" all day long and, apart from getting rather annoyed at you, he is unlikely to be offended.

for that matter you can call ME "******" all day long and i will only think that you are nutz. it cant offend me personally, im not black.

strangely enough, thats the way racial slurs work.

Alright, I would like to illustrate a point here...

In the 1800s profanity was significantly different from what it is today, back then belly was considered so vulgar that it was removed from the Bible in Britain and America. Leg was an obscene word and when referring even to a table leg a cultured person would say "the limb of the table." Pregnant was a taboo word until after World War II. Stink as in "that stinks" was on par with "that fucking blows cock" today. Their average profanity which was condemned, denounced, and forbidden with more ferocity then words like ****** do would illicit not offence, but laughter if used as an insult today. Try and think what would happen if you called someone a "yellow-bellied stinker" in modern times!

Alternatively, **** was used by the likes of Chaucer and Shakespeare with out any issue at all, as it later became taboo other words strung up. Cat, beaver, beard (thus a beardsplitter is a womanizer), snatch, twat, nokie, piece, squirrel, tail, mutton, Lapland, slit, scut, Netherlands, cozzy, quim, mouse, monkey, fish, cony, bit, bunny, scut, hat (because its frequently felt), furburger or a boxlunch or hair pie (the dish in cunnilingus) and Carvel's ring have all been used to reference a woman's external genitalia... Can anyone tell me why **** wasn't offensive when Shakespeare used it yet it is today, while cozzy and mouse aren't? Their meaning and intend are identical!

The ever popular word pussy has referred to the female genitalia for at least four hundred years, yet it was perfectly appropriate for a Victorian father to refer to his daughter as "pussy" as in,"What do you think, pussy?' said her father to Eva" in Uncle Tom's Cabin. Surely that quote proves that there are no objective standards and obscenity, blasphemy, and vulgarity exist only the mind of the prude and are as about as inconstant as the weather.

Fuck! Fuck off! Fuck You! Get Fucked! The majority of the human race likes nothing better, this recommendation should fall somewhere between "Have a nice day," and "Hope you win the lottery." To some it is taken as offence, yet simultaneously to someone else it's a playful and pretty damn good suggestion! There is no Goddamn consistency of any kind, anywhere in the scope of what is etymologically profane!

Of course, sometimes it is not what you say but rather who you say it too. In 1484 William Colyburne wrote a couplet in which he referred to Richard III as a hogge [hog]. He fled but was caught, hanged almost to death, cut down, disemboweled, and his intestines burned. In In 1812 (softer times apparently) Leigh Hunt, editor of The Examiner, described the Prince Regent (the future George IV) as a corpulent man of fifty, for which he was prosecuted for libel, convicted, and sentenced to two years in jail. In 1984 the wife of the mayor of Pine Hills, New York, called a reporter a fat pig and was convicted of verbal assault and fined $250. Ah, how standards have fallen!

Today, and I'm ashamed to say it, people still believe that certain words should be forbidden and attempt to force other people to conform to what they consider appropriate language. That just makes others want to use them more. ****** would have gone the way of belly and stink if you pestilent jack asses would get your foul and malodorous shit together, suck it up like a good bunch of fellating dogs and piss off! :p

Seriously though, this is embarrassing. It was once the Church that believed it was their place to dictate what is and isn't appropriate language to the whole Goddamn world. Now it's the "tolerant" and "progressive" "liberals" who think it's their place to decide who and what is bigoted, indecent, vulgar, and unacceptable and force that decision on everyone else. What the bloody hell is up with that?!?

The fact is that something is only offensive as long as people are offended by it. Meaning, intent, point of view, social class, and historical etymology mean fuck all if the person you're talking to couldn't give a baker's fuck what you think of him... And that's the word.

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.

By "can't", I meant legally inhibited. Don't reply so angrily if you don't know whats going on.

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?

Sin. You know me better than that. The point I am making is that he does not have any grounds to limit the discussion just to the word ******, and his refusal to broaden it to other words implies that he does not think that they are offensive in the same way.

If he wants to be able to restrict the freedom of speech of others, so as not to be offended, then this same level of restriction has to apply to all possibly offensive terms. Otherwise he is looking for special treatment rather than equal treatment under the law.

I am not picking a fight, I am refusing to allow rotovia to limit the discussion to the one word that happens to offend him, regardless of his mistaken conviction that he is using an instance argument.

(If it were an instance argument it would be about a specific use of the word ****** in a specific set of circumstances by a specified individual. What we have here is a general argument about the use of potentially offensdive terms.)

I must admit that I have a hard time taking this discussion seriously. Am I really being asked not to say "******"? Ok, fine. If it offends you then I won’t say it anymore – I do believe in politeness after all.
But how come then, that black people are allowed to use the word? Is it not offensive then? This is hypocrisy – it is either a demeaning term or it is not.

thats the POINT. slave isnt a racial slur; ****** is.

you can call a black man "slave" all day long and, apart from getting rather annoyed at you, he is unlikely to be offended.

for that matter you can call ME "******" all day long and i will only think that you are nutz. it cant offend me personally, im not black.

strangely enough, thats the way racial slurs work.

I know thats the point. I was making that point. Slave is not racial because I chose simple a word which has cause to be contextually offernsive. I am not talking about race here, just words that have reason to be offensive.

I must admit that I have a hard time taking this discussion seriously. Am I really being asked not to say "******"? Ok, fine. If it offends you then I won’t say it anymore – I do believe in politeness after all.
But how come then, that black people are allowed to use the word? Is it not offensive then? This is hypocrisy – it is either a demeaning term or it is not.

My point exactly.

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


WHAT THE HELL IS DOUCHEBAGGERY? It sounds like a racial slur to me.

On a forum like this you can be whatever ...no one can tell...so why should the real world be any different ? Racist morons should think on that .
Especially when they are talking to the 500 lb black chick with the mustache who's telling them " your my daddy " while they pull their pud thinking about the 5'8" blond babe they asume they are taking to .

You would succeed in being offensive!



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.

Haha, okay I looked back, and apparently I did start the flamewar. My bad, I mistook you for someone else.
I wasn't using the word on anyone. Jesus Christ, get over the fact that it ws directed at anyone. I know you guys are offended by the word when used intentionally offensivly against you. I was testing to see if you'd be offended by it with no derisive context context. Like, I can write cracker, honkey, chick, spic, ******, completely out of context. If anyone is offended by this, they need a chill pill.

BTW whats "disingenuous" mean? I'm not educated at all lol.

well since it is the point of the thread, I have trouble seeing it any other way - I see it as Rotovia saying that he is offended by the word and you saying it three times in a row in his thread to see if he is offended by it (since it's his thread after all) . I honestly have trouble seeing it as a harmless word when used specifically to see if it will offend.

I personally don't find racial slurs against me offensive as seen by my long post on page 10. I'm betting that you will agree with most if not all of it.

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" David Cannadine.
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

You would succeed in being offensive!

Yes, I would.

I would also succeed in breaking the law, that is bad.

I must admit that I have a hard time taking this discussion seriously. Am I really being asked not to say "******"? Ok, fine. If it offends you then I won’t say it anymore – I do believe in politeness after all.
But how come then, that black people are allowed to use the word? Is it not offensive then? This is hypocrisy – it is either a demeaning term or it is not.

Last post from me, hopefully, just to sum up what I've said: I know some people find "******" offensive. I do not support saying it. but I do disagree with forcing (with laws) anyone not to say it without a reason better than the fact that a certain group of people are offended. that's all. If you don't disagree with what I've written, please don't bother to respond to this post.

WHAT THE HELL IS DOUCHEBAGGERY? It sounds like a racial slur to me.

A slur, but one with a more gender-bashing origin than a racial one.

A slur, but one with a more gender-bashing origin than a racial one.
Maybe, but I don't think it applies now to any gender over another...considering that douchebags aren't really used that much anymore...it's kind of a catch all for asshatery.

Asshat. Now where on earth did that term originate?

Alright, I would like to illustrate a point here...

In the 1800s profanity was significantly different from what it is today, back then belly was considered so vulgar that it was removed from the Bible in Britain and America. Leg was an obscene word and when referring even to a table leg a cultured person would say "the limb of the table." Pregnant was a taboo word until after World War II. Stink as in "that stinks" was on par with "that fucking blows cock" today. Their average profanity which was condemned, denounced, and forbidden with more ferocity then words like ****** do would illicit not offence, but laughter if used as an insult today. Try and think what would happen if you called someone a "yellow-bellied stinker" in modern times!

Alternatively, **** was used by the likes of Chaucer and Shakespeare with out any issue at all, as it later became taboo other words strung up. Cat, beaver, beard (thus a beardsplitter is a womanizer), snatch, twat, nokie, piece, squirrel, tail, mutton, Lapland, slit, scut, Netherlands, cozzy, quim, mouse, monkey, fish, cony, bit, bunny, scut, hat (because its frequently felt), furburger or a boxlunch or hair pie (the dish in cunnilingus) and Carvel's ring have all been used to reference a woman's external genitalia... Can anyone tell me why **** wasn't offensive when Shakespeare used it yet it is today, while cozzy and mouse aren't? Their meaning and intend are identical!

The ever popular word pussy has referred to the female genitalia for at least four hundred years, yet it was perfectly appropriate for a Victorian father to refer to his daughter as "pussy" as in,"What do you think, pussy?' said her father to Eva" in Uncle Tom's Cabin. Surely that quote proves that there are no objective standards and obscenity, blasphemy, and vulgarity exist only the mind of the prude and are as about as inconstant as the weather.

Fuck! Fuck off! Fuck You! Get Fucked! The majority of the human race likes nothing better, this recommendation should fall somewhere between "Have a nice day," and "Hope you win the lottery." To some it is taken as offence, yet simultaneously to someone else it's a playful and pretty damn good suggestion! There is no Goddamn consistency of any kind, anywhere in the scope of what is etymologically profane!

Of course, sometimes it is not what you say but rather who you say it too. In 1484 William Colyburne wrote a couplet in which he referred to Richard III as a hogge [hog]. He fled but was caught, hanged almost to death, cut down, disemboweled, and his intestines burned. In In 1812 (softer times apparently) Leigh Hunt, editor of The Examiner, described the Prince Regent (the future George IV) as a corpulent man of fifty, for which he was prosecuted for libel, convicted, and sentenced to two years in jail. In 1984 the wife of the mayor of Pine Hills, New York, called a reporter a fat pig and was convicted of verbal assault and fined $250. Ah, how standards have fallen!

Today, and I'm ashamed to say it, people still believe that certain words should be forbidden and attempt to force other people to conform to what they consider appropriate language. That just makes others want to use them more. ****** would have gone the way of belly and stink if you pestilent jack asses would get your foul and malodorous shit together, suck it up like a good bunch of fellating dogs and piss off! :p

Seriously though, this is embarrassing. It was once the Church that believed it was their place to dictate what is and isn't appropriate language to the whole Goddamn world. Now it's the "tolerant" and "progressive" "liberals" who think it's their place to decide who and what is bigoted, indecent, vulgar, and unacceptable and force that decision on everyone else. What the bloody hell is up with that?!?

The fact is that something is only offensive as long as people are offended by it. Meaning, intent, point of view, social class, and historical etymology mean fuck all if the person you're talking to couldn't give a baker's fuck what you think of him... And that's the word.


This is one of the best fucking post I have ever read on this forum .... no shit about it..ever .

Maybe, but I don't think it applies now to any gender over another...considering that douchebags aren't really used that much anymore...it's kind of a catch all for asshatery.

Asshat. Now where on earth did that term originate?
I heard a Canadian use the word "asshat" and I thought it sounded effective.

I think the original meaning of douchebag is largely lost because of advances in disposable feminine hygiene products.

That's going to far..people have the right to be offenive assholes.


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

well since it is the point of the thread, I have trouble seeing it any other way - I see it as Rotovia saying that he is offended by the word and you saying it three times in a row in his thread to see if he is offended by it (since it's his thread after all) . I honestly have trouble seeing it as a harmless word when used specifically to see if it will offend.

I personally don't find racial slurs against me offensive as seen by my long post on page 10. I'm betting that you will agree with most if not all of it.

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" David Cannadine.
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.


Thanks for the definition. I learned a lot today haha.

Anyways, I haven't read you page 10 post, so excuse me for that. If in fact we do agree, then what are we arguing about? And I never posted "******" 3x without realizing that someone would be offended (like I said in that post). I was merely trying to point out the absurdity that someone could take offense, on a anonymous internet thread, knowing barely anyone here personally, from words stated to be without derisive context, and not intended to offend (intent and expectation are different things, after all), even with a "Have a nice day" after it. The word "******" has been escalated in importance, as demonstrated, by the very people who are offended by it.

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.

Firstly I was not part of that other thread, so for me this is a stand alone discussion.

The point I am trying to make, and you are trying to ignore, is that offense is a culturally defined feeling. ******, as a word, out of context, without all the negative cultural connotations might just as well be the word 'student' or 'gold'. The offensiveness comes from the concept - of being less than human - behind the term, and this concept is expressed by many different terms, to many different groups, from many different groups. So to discuss just '******' is a complete waste of everybodies time.

Thanks for the definition. I learned a lot today haha.

Anyways, I haven't read you page 10 post, so excuse me for that. If in fact we do agree, then what are we arguing about? And I never posted "******" 3x without realizing that someone would be offended (like I said in that post). I was merely trying to point out the absurdity that someone could take offense, on a anonymous internet thread, knowing barely anyone here personally, from words stated to be without derisive context, and not intended to offend (intent and expectation are different things, after all), even with a "Have a nice day" after it. The word "******" has been escalated in importance, as demonstrated, by the very people who are offended by it.

My beef was with the way you presented your argument. I thought you were being trollish, but if not then I think you may have went about making the argument the wrong way. And since this is the internet afterall - it is tough to recognize intent and sometimes we must do our best to guess.

Firstly I was not part of that other thread, so for me this is a stand alone discussion.

The point I am trying to make, and you are trying to ignore, is that offense is a culturally defined feeling. ******, as a word, out of context, without all the negative cultural connotations might just as well be the word 'student' or 'gold'. The offensiveness comes from the concept - of being less than human - behind the term, and this concept is expressed by many different terms, to many different groups, from many different groups. So to discuss just '******' is a complete waste of everybodies time.
No, it's only a waste of time if you happen to come from a society where the n word is not offensive, or even known. Which you don't. You may LIVE in a society where that is true, but I doubt that was the case in your country of origin.

If you feel that it is a pointless conversation because it has no meaning in Brazil, then by all means, bow out. The rest of us live in societies where the term IS offensive.

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 think when people don't say the word or call it the N-word, it gives it more power.

Also there is a difference between ****** and nigga.

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

Wow, just when I thought Australia was all about the outback and being toughasses. You all have resorted to legislating personal taste and to me that seems to make you less free. Being that I reside the USA I'd kindly invite you over to call you a ****** and then buy you a beer. I'm not a heartless prick, just someone who likes to debate the law of this land and use it to destroy my opponent. Not because I would hate or dislike you, but simply to make an example of the freedom of expression your mates do not share with us. For the record, I replied to a post far before your mentioning of Australia and Queensland. After having called you a inflamatory name I am sure happy that international law does not share your land's petty sensitivity. I now feel the urge to call Crocodile Dundee a pansy just for the humor. So feel protected in your neck of the woods and please don't be offended if you come to America and hear the word "******" used more freely than a $10 whore. I guess I'd be able to cry foul whenever someone called me a guinea, deago, or WOP. I don't because I realize that ignorance exists everywhere and I am far richer mentally and financially than any who would use such language to denigrate me.

Alright, I would like to illustrate a point here...

In the 1800s profanity was significantly different from what it is today, back then belly was considered so vulgar that it was removed from the Bible in Britain and America. Leg was an obscene word and when referring even to a table leg a cultured person would say "the limb of the table." Pregnant was a taboo word until after World War II. Stink as in "that stinks" was on par with "that fucking blows cock" today. Their average profanity which was condemned, denounced, and forbidden with more ferocity then words like ****** do would illicit not offence, but laughter if used as an insult today. Try and think what would happen if you called someone a "yellow-bellied stinker" in modern times!

Alternatively, **** was used by the likes of Chaucer and Shakespeare with out any issue at all, as it later became taboo other words strung up. Cat, beaver, beard (thus a beardsplitter is a womanizer), snatch, twat, nokie, piece, squirrel, tail, mutton, Lapland, slit, scut, Netherlands, cozzy, quim, mouse, monkey, fish, cony, bit, bunny, scut, hat (because its frequently felt), furburger or a boxlunch or hair pie (the dish in cunnilingus) and Carvel's ring have all been used to reference a woman's external genitalia... Can anyone tell me why **** wasn't offensive when Shakespeare used it yet it is today, while cozzy and mouse aren't? Their meaning and intend are identical!

The ever popular word pussy has referred to the female genitalia for at least four hundred years, yet it was perfectly appropriate for a Victorian father to refer to his daughter as "pussy" as in,"What do you think, pussy?' said her father to Eva" in Uncle Tom's Cabin. Surely that quote proves that there are no objective standards and obscenity, blasphemy, and vulgarity exist only the mind of the prude and are as about as inconstant as the weather.

Fuck! Fuck off! Fuck You! Get Fucked! The majority of the human race likes nothing better, this recommendation should fall somewhere between "Have a nice day," and "Hope you win the lottery." To some it is taken as offence, yet simultaneously to someone else it's a playful and pretty damn good suggestion! There is no Goddamn consistency of any kind, anywhere in the scope of what is etymologically profane!

Of course, sometimes it is not what you say but rather who you say it too. In 1484 William Colyburne wrote a couplet in which he referred to Richard III as a hogge [hog]. He fled but was caught, hanged almost to death, cut down, disemboweled, and his intestines burned. In In 1812 (softer times apparently) Leigh Hunt, editor of The Examiner, described the Prince Regent (the future George IV) as a corpulent man of fifty, for which he was prosecuted for libel, convicted, and sentenced to two years in jail. In 1984 the wife of the mayor of Pine Hills, New York, called a reporter a fat pig and was convicted of verbal assault and fined $250. Ah, how standards have fallen!

Today, and I'm ashamed to say it, people still believe that certain words should be forbidden and attempt to force other people to conform to what they consider appropriate language. That just makes others want to use them more. ****** would have gone the way of belly and stink if you pestilent jack asses would get your foul and malodorous shit together, suck it up like a good bunch of fellating dogs and piss off!

Seriously though, this is embarrassing. It was once the Church that believed it was their place to dictate what is and isn't appropriate language to the whole Goddamn world. Now it's the "tolerant" and "progressive" "liberals" who think it's their place to decide who and what is bigoted, indecent, vulgar, and unacceptable and force that decision on everyone else. What the bloody hell is up with that?!?

The fact is that something is only offensive as long as people are offended by it. Meaning, intent, point of view, social class, and historical etymology mean fuck all if the person you're talking to couldn't give a baker's fuck what you think of him... And that's the word.This is one of the best fucking post I have ever read on this forum .... no shit about it..ever .

I seriously appreciate that, mate. Though I get the impression that it's going to be ignored and soon lost in the flood.

My beef was with the way you presented your argument. I thought you were being trollish, but if not then I think you may have went about making the argument the wrong way. And since this is the internet afterall - it is tough to recognize intent and sometimes we must do our best to guess.

Risking another argument, I have to ask: how did I present my argument the wrong way? What exactly do you mean? And I reserve judgement until you explain it to me :).

I seriously appreciate that, mate. Though I get the impression that it's going to be ignored and soon lost in the flood.


Maybe, but its not like this thread will be life-changing for anyone here. Though you wrote very nicely.

Just a thought: Won't Rotovia be pissed that everyone sorted this thing out without him? He seemed like he was kinda into this thing for a while.

This is to all in on this thread
When I use the N-Word, I don't give a dam what color the person I am directing it to is and if I call someone that I most certainly mean it in the most derrogtory way possible.

Just a thought: Won't Rotovia be pissed that everyone sorted this thing out without him? He seemed like he was kinda into this thing for a while.
I think he was simply trying to defend himself against all the people who suddenly decided to let him know that it's his fault if they call him ****** and he gets offended. A reasonable reaction.

This is to all in on this thread
When I use the N-Word, I don't give a dam what color the person I am directing it to is and if I call someone that I most certainly mean it in the most derrogtory way possible.

Guess its not sorted out after all. How about we just ignore this post and pretend it mnever happened lol?

This is to all in on this thread
When I use the N-Word, I don't give a dam what color the person I am directing it to is and if I call someone that I most certainly mean it in the most derrogtory way possible.
To you:

Yes, we know you are a racist troll.

I think he was simply trying to defend himself against all the people who suddenly decided to let him know that it's his fault if they call him ****** and he gets offended. A reasonable reaction.


Now wait a minute. I never called him ******. THough i can see why he thinks that. hmm

Guess its not sorted out after all. How about we just ignore this post and pretend it mnever happened lol?

You can pretend all you want. I am sure I am not alone in my point of view

Now wait a minute. I never called him ******. THough i can see why he thinks that. hmmYes...especially if you consider that for pages before you first posted, he was under attack. So it's not just about you...but you happened to interject at a time when many people were attacking him, and it looked as if you were throwing them your support.

You can pretend all you want. I am sure I am not alone in my point of view
No, certainly not. The other racists on board will welcome you.

The rest of us will not.

Moving on people..away from the racist troll.

Risking another argument, I have to ask: how did I present my argument the wrong way? What exactly do you mean? And I reserve judgement until you explain it to me :).


I did explain.

If it was a thread where the person was a mexican saying they dont want to be called a wetback and then you start your post off with "wetback, wetback, wetback" and then say that you dont mean any offense and arent sayign it directly to anyone, I wouldnt believe it because its an offensive word to the thread starter and looking to see if your derogatory word will offend is called trolling.

TO make the argument better, I think that you should have at least prefaced your racial slur with a qualifier of your intentions. You may have tried to do that with what you said afterwards but I felt that it was short on explanation.

edit: and perchance looked more like a lie than an explanation to cover for the trolling - especially since it was yoru very first post - it made you look like a troll puppet. Which I am not saying you are now. I understand that things can be taken the wrong way.

You can pretend all you want. I am sure I am not alone in my point of view


No, sadly, you are nothing special. Look, we know you want to offend people. But unless you have a lot of free time and/or are mentally-masochistic, you are gonna get nothing out of this thread besides every1 thinking you are a jerk.

I did explain.

If it was a thread where the person was a mexican saying they dont want to be called a wetback and then you start your post off with "wetback, wetback, wetback" and then say that you dont mean any offense and arent sayign it directly to anyone, I wouldnt believe it because its an offensive word to the thread starter and looking to see if your derogatory word will offend is called trolling.

TO make the argument better, I think that you should have at least prefaced your racial slur with a qualifier of your intentions. You may have tried to do that with what you said afterwards but I felt that it was short on explanation.

I did what I did, rightly or wrongly, for max shock value. I think that's the best way to introduce yourself on a thread.

I did what I did, rightly or wrongly, for max shock value. I think that's the best way to introduce yourself on a thread.


then it was to troll???


I added to what I said above.

I did what I did, rightly or wrongly, for max shock value. I think that's the best way to introduce yourself on a thread.

He's right you know, he tried shock value and you've been going on for pages about him. I tried eloquence and it got me fuck all! That's the internet for you.

then it was to troll???


I added to what I said above.


No no no. Not to troll. Just to shock. Besides, if I had written what I had written in different order, I would have offended people just as much, but wouldn't have shocked them as much. Shocking and Troling are different, IMO.

He's right you know, he tried shock value and you've been going on for pages about him. I tried eloquence and it got me fuck all! That's the internet for you.

Exactly.

He's right you know, he tried shock value and you've been going on for pages about him. I tried eloquence and it got me fuck all! That's the internet for you.

lol - well your post just said it all and needed nothing added to it. I perhaps could have kudosed you but that was already given. :)

had he been as eloquent, a lot of energy wouldnt have been wasted calling him a troll when he didnt mean to be.

btw - I thought I did a pretty good job on my page 10 rant, but it was long and not a single person responded to it.

lol - well your post just said it all and needed nothing added to it. I perhaps could have kudosed you but that was already given. :)

had he been as eloquent, a lot of energy wouldnt have been wasted calling him a troll when he didnt mean to be.

Thanks, then. :)

It is just a mite frustrating to write and fact check a post that size and have it ignored and lost in a flood of one-line banter is all.

btw - I thought I did a pretty good job on my page 10 rant, but it was long and not a single person responded to it.

That's pretty funny. maybe you should try "trolling"?;)

this remindes me of the movie Cabin Fever.

White College Students going up to the hills for a camping trip stop at a local store for food and supplies...

one comments on a rifle hung above and behind the register and the white old man calmly replies, in a thick southern accent.
"Oh, that's for the niggas."

the students silently leave and the movie continues.

at the end, tho. a car pulls up and several black college students get out and the old man reenters his store. inside, the students walk up to this old man, who has taken down the gun, and say
Students: "Hey pops, what's happening?"
Old Man (as he high fives the students and it's obvious that the students like this man): "Hey my niggas, here ya go, all cleaned up and repaired. you'll hunt some fine deer up in these hills, good hunting!"

The point is, it's just a word. and like a two edged weapon, it's 1) how you use it, and 2) how the reciever perceives the useage.

If I am not comfortable in using a word, I will find another, suitable word to replace it. If I know that the person I am talking to is uncomforatable with my using a word, (and lets me know) I will respect their feelings and find another word to use. Language has many words that can be use, thus one is not 'forced' to use any one particular word when there are other choices.

Thanks, then. :)

It is just a mite frustrating to write and fact check a post that size and have it ignored and lost in a flood of one-line banter is all.


understandable - but this is NSG afterall - i quit being too in depth in my responses for the most part (sometimes I do go off though) because when noone responds to the in depth stuff it seems as if either everyone thinks yer an idiot or is too lazy to even read it so why even try.

Though I do appreciate those of you who do such excellent comments myself, but as you saw, even though I did appreciate it I didnt respond. perhaps I should think about responding to those more.

That's pretty funny. maybe you should try "trolling"?;)


what and be a whiney cracker like you? :D

wait I think that was flaming.

um... YOU ARE ALL NAZIS!

there that should do it. :p

um... YOU ARE ALL NAZIS!

WOO! GODWIN!

[/thread]

No, it's only a waste of time if you happen to come from a society where the n word is not offensive, or even known. Which you don't. You may LIVE in a society where that is true, but I doubt that was the case in your country of origin.

If you feel that it is a pointless conversation because it has no meaning in Brazil, then by all means, bow out. The rest of us live in societies where the term IS offensive.

Read will ya Sin. I am not denying that the using the N word is to be offensive, I am denying that it is the letters and phonemes that make up the word that are offensive. They simply cannot be as they carry no meaning independently of the concept.

Now what is the concept attached to the n word. That it is used to refer to negros is incidental, it is the same concept as wop, or wetback, or dago, or kike, or honky. It is the concept of the subject of the term being inferior to and of less value than the speaker. It is demeaning, it is insulting, but it is not the word ****** that is this, it is the thought that is expressed by the word. Brazil does have racism problems, as does everywhere where there are mixed ethnic populations.

What I found objectionable here was the insistance by Rotovia that only '******' was to be discussed. This is general, not II or NS. The OP cannot define this in that way. Additionally, in doing so, he is missing the point completely. He is failing to see the problem, and potential solutions to it. Trying to decree that the word 'XXXXX' is not to be used will not solve any problems, as the failure of PC has shown. Alll that happens is that the concept gets carried over to whatever new, non derogatory, term is chosen to replace the old one. If I were to tell you that your daughter was 'specially abled' when she has no handicap at all, would you think I had cracked up. Now if I chage the term ****** for afro-XXXian what happens, afro-XXXian takes on the negative connotations and the offensive nature of ******. The problem is not the word, it is the idea behinfd the word, and while we argue about permission to say this word or that we are not dealing with the root problems.

These root problems are those of ethnic discrimination and mistrust, as represented in the terms used. This is why it is OK for a black person to call another black person niggah, but not for a white person to do so. There is no ethnic basis for mistrust between two people of the same ethnicity. However to deal with the issue, wqe can not focus on the word ****** to the exclusion of all other ethnic slurs. It si not a matter of a shouting match - of 'well you caled me XXXX' - it is a matter of understanding when and why some terms are offensive and when and why they are not. And of universilising this to all ethnic relations.

Now get off your high horse, and actually think about what I am asking for and why I am asking for it.

This thread, to achieve anything, has to deal with more than one word.

this remindes me of the movie Cabin Fever.

White College Students going up to the hills for a camping trip stop at a local store for food and supplies...

one comments on a rifle hung above and behind the register and the white old man calmly replies, in a thick southern accent.
"Oh, that's for the niggas."

the students silently leave and the movie continues.

at the end, tho. a car pulls up and several black college students get out and the old man reenters his store. inside, the students walk up to this old man, who has taken down the gun, and say
Students: "Hey pops, what's happening?"
Old Man (as he high fives the students and it's obvious that the students like this man): "Hey my niggas, here ya go, all cleaned up and repaired. you'll hunt some fine deer up in these hills, good hunting!"

The point is, it's just a word. and like a two edged weapon, it's 1) how you use it, and 2) how the reciever perceives the useage.

If I am not comfortable in using a word, I will find another, suitable word to replace it. If I know that the person I am talking to is uncomforatable with my using a word, (and lets me know) I will respect their feelings and find another word to use. Language has many words that can be use, thus one is not 'forced' to use any one particular word when there are other choices.
Funny story ;D

But it highlights an important point.

The word is going to be offensive, and taken as such, unless you have a certain degree of familiarity with a person, and it is clear to that person that you do not mean it in an offensive way, and they've given you permission to use that word.

I use 'savage' 'injun' 'redskin' and 'abo' all the time when talking to other native people (only if they realise I too am native though)...but I wouldn't accept it from a non-native, unless I knew them really well. My husband for example (who I also get to call spic, but I would never use this name on other hispanic people).

Read will ya Sin. I am not denying that the using the N word is to be offensive, I am denying that it is the letters and phonemes that make up the word that are offensive. They simply cannot be as they carry no meaning independently of the concept.

*stops reading*

You're pointing out the painfully obvious. Not one person has suggested that discrete sounds in and of themselves are offensive. The context is key. You are claiming that there is no context for you...fine. I don't think a single other poster on this thread has made that similar claim...that they live somewhere were it does not have a context.

You're arguing a point no one has made...and going to great lengths to do so. Why?

As for not wishing to discuss 'honkey' etc...I think he had good reason for that. You may not like the parameters, and feel that you should be able to dictate the flow of the conversation and not him...fine...but if he doesn't bite, or if others don't bite, don't be sad and claim we are therefore wrong because we won't go your direction.

Start another thread.

Now get off your high horse, and actually think about what I am asking for and why I am asking for it. Not interested. If I wanted to go beyond the scope of this word, I would, but I don't at this time. High horse? Na, I'm just tired. So kiss this high ass.

This thread, to achieve anything, has to deal with more than one word.
What twilight zone are you living in that you think a thread in NS General is going to achieve anything?

Not interested. If I wanted to go beyond the scope of this word, I would, but I don't at this time. High horse? Na, I'm just tired. So kiss this high ass.


What twilight zone are you living in that you think a thread in NS General is going to achieve anything?

My own little private world (But Tactical Grace seems to have moved in - see his loc).

Tying things down to one word, made a meaningful discussion impossible - it resulted in a 'I'll say it coz I can" vs "You shouldn't say it coz it hurts" thread. Brilliant.

*stops reading*

You're pointing out the painfully obvious. Not one person has suggested that discrete sounds in and of themselves are offensive. The context is key. You are claiming that there is no context for you...fine. I don't think a single other poster on this thread has made that similar claim...that they live somewhere were it does not have a context.

You're arguing a point no one has made...and going to great lengths to do so. Why?

As for not wishing to discuss 'honkey' etc...I think he had good reason for that. You may not like the parameters, and feel that you should be able to dictate the flow of the conversation and not him...fine...but if he doesn't bite, or if others don't bite, don't be sad and claim we are therefore wrong because we won't go your direction.

Start another thread.


If you wont read, you cant comment. :p

I love you too, AB:p