Jesse Helms Died This Morning

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RendeR

*sigh* people don't seem to understand that there is no way to rationalize making an ignorant racist statement.

Cracker
WoP
Nigger
Spic

Its all the same, its one color looking at another color and calling them somthing derogetory because of NOTHING MORE THAN COLOR.

Keep defending it all you want, there is absolutely NO good reason to call ANYONE ANY of those names.

If you do you're no better than Helms. Period.

Hmm, I don't really agree that "it's all same."

Some words are a lot more "charged" and carry a lot more power and weight behind them others. While words like "cracker" or "honky" are certainly based on race/color of skin, as is the "n word", I think that simply based on the history of our country and reality, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

I am not condoning the use of any of these words, but they are not equal/the same.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I would say cracker has more of a regional connotation, though. I've only heard it used against southern whites. That certainly doesn't defend it's use, but I think it's a bit different than the other word.

Thats the whole problem though. people keep finding excuses to let this type of thing slip through. Who cares what region its used in? its wrong, period. Wether you or I believe its use is regional or it has 50K different meanings, when its used in derogatory fashion it is a racial slur, period.

I wish that the nit-picking over things that simply need to stop would end. "oh this is wrong, but that? naw over there in BF-Egypt its just fine so don;t stress that one"

If its wrong anywhere its wrong everywhere when it comes to racism.

Why can't people see that?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Hmm, I don't really agree that "it's all same."

Some words are a lot more "charged" and carry a lot more power and weight behind them others. While words like "cracker" or "honky" are certainly based on race/color of skin, as is the "n word", I think that simply based on the history of our country and reality, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

I am not condoning the use of any of these words, but they are not equal/the same.

So they're not the same, but they're still all wrong to use? WTF sense does that make? they all relate to race/creed/color, they're ALL racial slurs, how the hell are they different?

You walk into tiajuana and call someone a spic and see how long you live. They are the same and they are all wrong to use.

[Subby]

Is cracker really considered an offensive term now? Really?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

calling Al Sharpton a Nigger (which I submit is also neither incorrect nor inappropriate)

You stay classy, Tiger.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Thats the whole problem though. people keep finding excuses to let this type of thing slip through. Who cares what region its used in? its wrong, period. Wether you or I believe its use is regional or it has 50K different meanings, when its used in derogatory fashion it is a racial slur, period.

I wish that the nit-picking over things that simply need to stop would end. "oh this is wrong, but that? naw over there in BF-Egypt its just fine so don;t stress that one"

If its wrong anywhere its wrong everywhere when it comes to racism.

Why can't people see that?

I think people can see this, but you're trying to make this into a much simpler issue than it really is, by saying all of them are exactly the same. I think that's a bit shortsighted. All of the words can be wrong, but some can be more wrong than others. For instance, I didn't like the use of cracker or the N word in this thread, and would never direct them at anyone. But I find one of them far more offensive than the other.

I've been called a "mick" before. Do you think that's as bad as the N word? If it is, then I've got some ass kicking to do.

[Subby]

RendeR should change his screenname to CrackeR.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think people can see this, but you're trying to make this into a much simpler issue than it really is, by saying all of them are exactly the same. I think that's a bit shortsighted. All of the words can be wrong, but some can be more wrong than others. For instance, I didn't like the use of cracker or the N word in this thread, and would never direct them at anyone. But I find one of them far more offensive than the other.

I've been called a "mick" before. Do you think that's as bad as the N word? If it is, then I've got some ass kicking to do.

Personally? yeah I think 'mick' is just as bad, since when its going to be used it is to insult or instigate a fight anyway. I'm sure some people's friends will call them 'mick' just as a lot of blacks call one another nigger and I don't think either is a good tihng.

Originally Posted by Subby

RendeR should change his screenname to CrackeR.

You don't really understand this thread at all do you?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Personally? yeah I think 'mick' is just as bad, since when its going to be used it is to insult or instigate a fight anyway. I'm sure some people's friends will call them 'mick' just as a lot of blacks call one another nigger and I don't think either is a good tihng.

I've never heard a black person use that word with the "er" at the end.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

It's a slur, just like nigger, spic, wop, chink, etc.

CU Tiger gets a week. Take the advice of the video above.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

CU Tiger gets a week. Take the advice of the video above.

In fairness Ben, we have been discussing racially focused things and while I think CU's comments were a bit over the line I think you could be lenient on this one and not lose control of the universe.

your call.

[larrymcg421]

My guess is that was already taken into account. If anything, I think a week is pretty lenient. He'd be banned for life on most other boards.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My guess is that was already taken into account. If anything, I think a week is pretty lenient. He'd be banned for life on most other boards.

True enough. I'm just really lenient when the topic at hand is already an on-the-verge type of thing like this thread has been.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

In fairness Ben, we have been discussing racially focused things and while I think CU's comments were a bit over the line I think you could be lenient on this one and not lose control of the universe. your call.

Yeah...JUST A BIT.

Good call there, racial czar.

[RendeR]

I actually just discovered that the term "jipped" as in being taken advantage of, is technically a slur against gypsies.

As in "I just got Gyp'd" meaning I just got cheated/taken advantage of as if by Gypsies"

I never new that was the origin of that term. I think I'll no longer use it.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

CU Tiger gets a week. Take the advice of the video above.

So someone can get away with calling someone a cracker, but call someone a nigger and you get boxed? The double standard lives on.

[molson]

I think it was probably a typo and/or a very poorly constructed sentence, as I still don't understand what the hell he was talking about there.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yeah...JUST A BIT.

Good call there, racial czar.

Thanks for the props asshat-czar.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So someone can get away with calling someone a cracker, but call someone a nigger and you get boxed? The double standard lives on.

I just caught this as well. Ben, if you box one you gotta box the other as well. illinifan999 is right on this.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yeah...JUST A BIT.

Good call there, racial czar.

Assuming no typo....

He said that calling a black guy a nigger was "neither incorrect nor inappropriate". That's a little outside the racial discussions going on in the thread.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it was probably a typo and/or a very poorly constructed sentence, as I still don't understand what the hell he was talking about there.

I suppose we'll find out in a week

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So someone can get away with calling someone a cracker, but call someone a nigger and you get boxed? The double standard lives on.

Without getting into the banning thing, a slur against less-powerful minority is FAR more offensive than a slur against an in-power majority. If you don't understand the difference, I don't think you understand why those words are offensive in the first place.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I just caught this as well. Ben, if you box one you gotta box the other as well. illinifan999 is right on this.

Only a complete fucking cracker would equate those two words.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

Assuming no typo....

He said that calling a black guy a nigger was "neither incorrect nor inappropriate". That's a little outside the racial discussions going on in the thread.

I was being facetious

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

Without getting into the banning thing, a slur against less-powerful minority is FAR more offensive than a slur against an in-power majority. If you don't understand the difference, I don't think you understand why those words are offensive in the first place.

Oh, so it's ok to be racist as long as you're not white. Gotcha.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

Without getting into the banning thing, a slur against less-powerful minority is FAR more offensive than a slur against an in-power majority. If you don't understand the difference, I don't think you understand why those words are offensive in the first place.

Again, the very act of giving them a stronger/less strong position allows the continued usage of terms that for lack of a better term are seriously fucking offensive.

It doesn't matter HOW wrong they are, they're both plain wrong and deserve the same consequences for their use.

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Oh, so it's ok to be racist as long as you're not white. Gotcha.

I'm not saying one's wrong and one's not.

But if you want to throw a tantrum about not being allowed to be as racist as someone else, go nuts.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Oh, so it's ok to be racist as long as you're not white. Gotcha.

Except he said both words were offensive in the very post you quoted, so either you can't read or you felt it was more important to fire off a little one liner than actually utilize some brain power and make an intelligent argument.

[larrymcg421]

BTW, I'm totally waiting for someone to pull an Anna Benson and start rattling off a list of racial slurs and seeing how far they can go without being boxed.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not saying one's wrong and one's not.

But if you want to throw a tantrum about not being allowed to be as racist as someone else, go nuts.

I think he was more concerned about someone being allowed to be racist. He's not complaining that he can't use the N-word, he is complaining that someone else is allowed to use the C-word. The fact that CU got boxed for calling one man - Sharpton the N-word while Draft is allowed to call one man - Helms the C-word is hypocritical. I can understand that the N-word is more racially charged, but the proper thing to do is not to make both words meet in the middle, but to remove the hate from both sides so nobody cares to use either of them. Much better for equality in love rather than equality in hate.

Edit: The more I think about this post, the more it bothers me. You may not have said that one was wrong and the other wasn't, but you did say that one was more wrong that the other. That is pretty much the same as saying that one is more OK than the other. I don't think there should be any amount of OK here. Both are completely wrong.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think he was more concerned about someone being allowed to be racist. He's not complaining that he can't use the N-word, he is complaining that someone else is allowed to use the C-word. The fact that CU got boxed for calling one man - Sharpton the N-word while Draft is allowed to call one man - Helms the C-word is hypocritical. I can understand that the N-word is more racially charged, but the proper thing to do is not to make both words meet in the middle, but to remove the hate from both sides so nobody cares to use either of them. Much better for equality in love rather than equality in hate.

Edit: The more I think about this post, the more it bothers me. You may not have said that one was wrong and the other wasn't, but you did say that one was more wrong that the other. That is pretty much the same as saying that one is more OK than the other. I don't think there should be any amount of OK here. Both are completely wrong.

Thank you! This is the point I was trying to get across.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Equating the two is completely ignoring all historical and cultural contexts. So, if you're comfortable doing that and thinking that's intellectually honest, then yes, they are equal.

Again, trying to rationalize the terms and their usage because of historical context and cultural context is exactly WHY we keep running into the problem to begin with.

It shouldn't MATTER how this shit started, what matters is that these terms, these Racial Slurs/descriptors/insults WHATEVER you want to call them, these words incite anger, hate, and more. They need to be stopped, period.

Equating them makes that easier to do, they're ALL wrong, so stop using them and perhaps one day this racial bias MIGHT go away. (yes I know there are a thousand OTHER reasons for it but its a START damnit)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think he was more concerned about someone being allowed to be racist. He's not complaining that he can't use the N-word, he is complaining that someone else is allowed to use the C-word. The fact that CU got boxed for calling one man - Sharpton the N-word while Draft is allowed to call one man - Helms the C-word is hypocritical. I can understand that the N-word is more racially charged, but the proper thing to do is not to make both words meet in the middle, but to remove the hate from both sides so nobody cares to use either of them. Much better for equality in love rather than equality in hate.

Edit: The more I think about this post, the more it bothers me. You may not have said that one was wrong and the other wasn't, but you did say that one was more wrong that the other. That is pretty much the same as saying that one is more OK than the other. I don't think there should be any amount of OK here. Both are completely wrong.

Thank you.

[larrymcg421]

Committing a crime is wrong. We want crime to stop. So how dare anyone say that one crime is worse than the other. After all, that's saying that one crime is more okay than the other.

[illinifan999]

Now who's trying to compare apples to oranges?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Committing a crime is wrong. We want crime to stop. So how dare anyone say that one crime is worse than the other. After all, that's saying that one crime is more okay than the other.

Of course.

If someone thinks both words should be banned from FOFC, that's fine (though there's the argument that villifying a word only gives it more hateful power).

But if someone's going to "call me out" for distinguishing those terms, I'll respond by pointing out that they're VERY, VERY different, and it's an important distinction. Lumping in Cracker with Nigger is just wrong. A super-left view would consider a grouping like that in itself racist and offensive to blacks, though I wouldn't go that far.

There's a lot of weird arguments in this thread.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Committing a crime is wrong. We want crime to stop. So how dare anyone say that one crime is worse than the other. After all, that's saying that one crime is more okay than the other.

Bad analogy.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

If someone thinks both words should be banned from FOFC, that's fine (though there's the argument that villifying a word only gives it more hateful power).

One of the words has been sufficiently villified as to result in a boxing...

But if someone's going to "call me out" for distinguishing those terms, I'll respond by pointing out that they're VERY, VERY different, and it's an important distinction. Lumping in Cracker with Nigger is just wrong. A super-left view would consider a grouping like that in itself racist and offensive to blacks, though I wouldn't go that far.

There's a lot of weird arguments in this thread.

I would consider that super-left view racist. Both terms are racist. Racism = bad. Saying my racism isn't as bad as your racism is wrong. Racism = bad. White racist have done much more damage than black racists, but the key to ending racism is to stamp it out in all forms, not just stamp out some while letting others pass.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Saying my racism isn't as bad as your racism is wrong.

I have NO idea why that would be wrong, unless someone is annoyed that blacks have more "leeway" using racial slang than whites do, which is the vibe I got from illinifan999 (and which is a pretty commonly expressed idea).

He also called it a "double standard", which is absolutely wrong, because the words are very different.

larrymcg421's analogy is right on.

Crime=Bad. Murder and Aggravated Battery are both "completely wrong", but one deserves a harsher sentence than the other, because it's clearly worse. If someone argues that Murder is worse than Aggravated Battery, and thus should have a harsher sentence, that's not "wrong", and its certainly not saying that Aggravated Battery is "OK", or even "more OK", because neither are remotely "OK".

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

I have NO idea why that would be wrong, unless someone is annoyed that blacks have more "leeway" using racial slang than whites do, which is the vibe I got from illinifan999 (and which is a pretty commonly expressed idea).

He also called it a "double standard", which is absolutely wrong, because the words are very different.

Are they both a racial slur? You can't argue that they aren't since you've already stated that one is less offensive, to which I would say, so what? Less offensive is still offensive. The simple fact is that CU Tiger and Draft both used racial slurs. And yet, only one was boxed. How is that not a double standard?

I actually called it in one of my earlier posts that if someone were to call someone a nigger they would be boxed, while nothing would happen to the person who called someone a cracker.

Webster defines a double standard as:

a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

What SkyDog did is the exact definition of a double standard.

[DrAFTjunkie]

We're not going to stamp out racism if we continue to ignore it. We have to discuss it and I think we're doing a good job of it here. I don't think CU should've been banned, but if has been, then I suggest that I get one week too. It'll suck to not have answers to any of my n00b FOF questions for a week, but fairness is more important to me, and to this discussion.

And Illini, man...I've said time and time again that everything I've said is IMHO, in my eyes, etc. My apples and oranges are exactly the same as they were before and no amount of people agreeing with you and your stance is going to change that. In my opinion both words are not equally offensive. One refers to a very specific kind of white person, and the other refers to an entire race of people. Surely, one white person can be bad, but can an entire race of people?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

I have NO idea why that would be wrong, unless someone is annoyed that blacks have more "leeway" using racial slang than whites do, which is the vibe I got from illinifan999 (and which is a pretty commonly expressed idea).

I believe this position slows progress in improved race relations. Having one group say "what you do is completely wrong and unacceptable in all situations but when I do it, it isn't quite so bad" is a divisive position. Changing that to "what you do is completely wrong and unacceptable in all situations and I'm not going to do it either" is a healing position. Like I said before, there needs to be a standard of acceptability and everybody needs to get to that point. We don't want to meet somewhere in the middle.

Crime=Bad. Murder and Aggravated Battery are both "completely wrong", but one deserves a harsher sentence than the other, because it's clearly worse. If someone argues that Murder is worse than Aggravated Battery, and thus should have a harsher sentence, that's not "wrong", and its certainly not saying that Aggravated Battery is "OK", or even "more OK", because neither are remotely "OK".

Here is the analogy you are making in SAT format: Murder is to aggravated battery as racism is to racism. Now if you want to break racism down and discuss different racist acts and compare them to different crimes, we'd have a better analogy. But in this situation we are talking about hate-filled speech in one direction versus hate-filled speech in another direction.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by DrAFTjunkie

One refers to a very specific kind of white person, and the other refers to an entire race of people. Surely, one white person can be bad, but can an entire race of people?

That's not the case anymore. Cracker is used against white people as a whole. It's no longer used to describe a specific kind of white person. It may have used to have been, but it's really not the case these days. I was playing basketball last weekend and a black person told me I ran pretty fast for a cracker. How is that ok?

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Webster defines a double standard as:

a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

What SkyDog did is the exact definition of a double standard.

Well, I learned something today, "double standard" is actually a neutral term, and it doesn't necessarily carry the negative connotation that we have given to it.

By that definition, sentencing a murderer to life in prison, and aggravated batteror to one year in jail, is a "double standard", because you're treating groups of people differently. In that case, its certainly a justified double standard, but its still a double standard, says Webster.

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, I learned something today, "double standard" is actually a neutral term, and it doesn't necessarily carry the negative connotation that we have given to it.

By that definition, sentencing a murderer to life in prison, and aggravated batteror to one year in jail, is a "double standard", because you're treating groups of people differently. In that case, its certainly a justified double standard, but its still a double standard, says Webster.

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

A double standard implies equality in the facts that matter but inequality from facts that don't. Murder and battery are different things so they get different punishments. Punishing a male murderer and a female murder differently only because of gender would make it a double-standard.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I

Here is the analogy you are making in SAT format: Murder is to aggravated battery as racism is to racism. Now if you want to break racism down and discuss different racist acts and compare them to different crimes, we'd have a better analogy. But in this situation we are talking about hate-filled speech in one direction versus hate-filled speech in another direction.

I've been breaking it down in this entire discussion, again and again, distinguishing racism towards an oppressed minority v. racism towards a entitled majority.

I would say "Murder is to nigger as public urination is to cracker"

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

So it's ok to call someone a cracker, but it's not ok to call someone a nigger? You're saying it's ok to call someone a racial slur? So then breaking it down further, you're saying it's ok for people to be racist as long as they are racist towards the people who it may not offend as much?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

A double standard implies equality in the facts that matter but inequality from facts that don't. Murder and battery are different things so they get different punishments. Punishing a male murderer and a female murder differently only because of gender would make it a double-standard.

Right, and to me (and you may disagree), the difference between the offensiveness of cracker v. nigger is NOT simply race, and thus it's not a double standard. It's about real differences like power and oppression, HUGE differences that give those words their offensive meanings in the first place.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, I learned something today, "double standard" is actually a neutral term, and it doesn't necessarily carry the negative connotation that we have given to it.

By that definition, sentencing a murderer to life in prison, and aggravated batteror to one year in jail, is a "double standard", because you're treating groups of people differently. In that case, its certainly a justified double standard, but its still a double standard, says Webster.

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

Your analogy is wrong, in your example there are two completely unrelated groups, one being murderers, one being someone who beat someone up. its a huge difference.

people are people. no difference beyond appearance. In your opinion one group has less rights to complain than others, that in itself is racist. until everyone decides to stop whining about how they're mistreated or how they're better than others its just never going to end.

Start with your own position, think about it. You automatically believe that since blacks are a minority and 200 years ago they were enslaved and 50 years ago they finally broke through to equality, that the white folks shouldn't be allowed to bitch when they're mistreated?

Do You really really believe ANY of that stuff from the past makes a real difference in how 1 white man and 1 black man SHOULD interact today?

Humanity needs to LEARN from the past and stop living in it. No one is better than anyone else and no one owes anyone anything.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

Does it matter at all to you if the white person complaining about racism toward them is also speaking out against racism toward black people? And did you really just compare hate-speech to not having a big enough pool? That is offensive in itself. I'm all for ending the suffering of all minorities in this country, but I don't see the growth of my suffering (however small by comparison) as helping the matter. Even if there is inequality of perceived insult, not calling both out equally seems hypocritical. We shouldn't accept hate in any amount.