Jesse Helms Died This Morning

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by BrianD

We shouldn't accept hate in any amount.

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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?

I should note that I've enjoyed debating this with RenderR and BrianD........

But....

Broken Record: "I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker"

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

I've enjoyed debating this with RenderR and BrianD.......

Broken Record: "I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker"

You just said that it was justifiable for CU Tiger to be boxed but not Draft (WHO CALLED SOMEONE A CRACKER). So then what are you saying?

[larrymcg421]

Next time someone argues that molson is saying it's okay to call someone a racial slur, please actually quote the comment where he said that. If you can't do it, then don't make the claim.

This fucking strawman bullshit is irritating.

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

You just said that it was justifiable for CU Tiger to be boxed but not Draft (WHO CALLED SOMEONE A CRACKER). So then what are you saying?

A boxing isn't some kind of threshold that exclusively determines when something isn't "OK".

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

I guess I do disagree. To me, the words themselves don't change with power and oppression. The words themselves identify the speaker as a racist. Now a racist in a power position is more dangerous than a racist in an oppressed position, but now we are talking about people and not words. If I hate you and you hate me, I would say we are pretty equally bad. If I hate you and I'm carrying a gun, or if I hate you and have six of my friends with me, I am more dangerous. The point I am trying to make is that hate is bad in any direction. Is it really so bad that I'd like to get rid of the hate from all sides?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

You just said that it was justifiable for CU Tiger to be boxed but not Draft (WHO CALLED SOMEONE A CRACKER). So then what are you saying?

There are alot of things that happen on FOFC that one would not say is "okay", but don't necessarily deserve boxing.

molson never said it was okay. He just said it didn't deserve a boxing.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Next time someone argues that molson is saying it's okay to call someone a racial slur, please actually quote the comment where he said that. If you can't do it, then don't make the claim.

This fucking strawman bullshit is irritating.

I'll run this through for you.

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.

He is saying that it is ok that SkyDog used a double standard. The double standard being this.

Draft calls Helms a cracker. (Nothing happens except this debate)
CU Tiger calls Sharpton a nigger. (He's boxed)

Two racial slurs. One boxing. Double standard was used. Molson say's it's ok because the "the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Putting all that together, I'm sorry if I took it that it was ok to use cracker since it's not conduct that is worthy of punishment. It's a racial slur. Why doesn't it deserve a boxing?

[Radii]

I really wish someone had laid down some odds on a banning coming from this thread when it was first posted. It had to have been pretty high from the start.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

A boxing isn't some kind of threshold that exclusively determines when something isn't "OK".

I don't want to put words in your mouth (at least more than I may already have), but would you agree that his use of the slur at least is worthy of general scorn and a general smack-down from the community?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Next time someone argues that molson is saying it's okay to call someone a racial slur, please actually quote the comment where he said that. If you can't do it, then don't make the claim.

This fucking strawman bullshit is irritating.

You're very wong here. read the thread, the text is there. The next time you want to deride someone's argument have some facts to back it up. molsen admitted the double standard, even though he agreed with it, he admitted it happened.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

I went too far when I implied that whites shouldn't complain about racism towards them. I didn't mean that.

Here's the scenario I find off-putting

-Guy says nigger, and is reprimanded, criticized, etc.
-Guy and his sympathizers are pissed off about the reprimand or criticism, noting that black people say nigger all the time to each other, and even sometimes use white slurs, and don't get the same punishment or criticism.
-The implication there is that a black guy calling another black guy a nigger, or even a black guy using a white slur is just as bad as a white guy calling a black guy a nigger. I find that implication very disturbing, I don't know what to tell you (And I should note I'm a white guy). It's like the white guy and his sympathizers are trying regain power, by elevating "cracker" to the level of "nigger" and also minimizing the latter term.

I know this isn't an original thought I'm expressing, I wish there was some master's student around here who could articulate it better than me.

Anything I said or implied beyond that, I retract.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You're very wong here. read the thread, the text is there. The next time you want to deride someone's argument have some facts to back it up. molsen admitted the double standard, even though he agreed with it, he admitted it happened.

WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OK???????????

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

It's a racial slur. Why doesn't it deserve a boxing?

Multiple people have tried to explain this in multiple ways, but, in essence, it's because not all racial slurs are created equally. That's just the reality of it. You may not like that reality or agree with it, but it's the way things are, at least for the time being.

Why is ok to call someone a jerk on TV? But if you were to call someone a fucking asshole on TV the FCC would come down on you? Because not all insults are created equally either.

The word "bitch" is used on primtime TV all the time now, but do you ever heard the word "cunt"? No. Because not all insults are created equally.

Didn't Chef (before he went all psycho) used to refer to the kids in South Park as his little "crackers"? But, even the South Park dudes/Comedy Central wouldn't allow the "n-word" to be thrown around (even in bleeped out form). Why? Because not all insults are created equally. (I could be wrong on this, since I haven't really watched South Park in forever, but I'd be surprised.)

There are societal norms that say certain words/slurs are more acceptable than others. (For reasons why that is, see above).

As for the boxing, societal norms aren't really a factor. As always, it comes down to whether The Dark Jedi feels it deserves a boxing. If he feels that calling someone the n-word is worth a 1 week boxing, and calling someone a "crack" isn't? Well, then that's the way it is here. That's FOFC's "societal" norm for you.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You're very wong here. read the thread, the text is there. The next time you want to deride someone's argument have some facts to back it up. molsen admitted the double standard, even though he agreed with it, he admitted it happened.

Nope. Try again. It's not that hard.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't want to put words in your mouth (at least more than I may already have), but would you agree that his use of the slur at least is worthy of general scorn and a general smack-down from the community?

It's a poor choice of words, bad form, not-OK, and I wouldn't do it myself. General scorn is fair. I wouldn't defend him from a general smack-down from the community, though I probably wouldn't join in myself to any great degree because I don't think the word's that huge a deal, like nigger is. Maybe some white person can try to exagerate and build-up how deeply offended he is by such a word, but I don't buy it. They're annoyed/irritated by what they see as blacks getting away with something, but there just isn't the cultural and societal history for that word to do any real comparable damage to anybody.

[st.cronin]

In before the lock!

[larrymcg421]

For those that are having trouble reading the thread:

Originally Posted by molson

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

Originally Posted by molson

If someone thinks both words should be banned from FOFC, that's fine .

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

-The implication there is that a black guy calling another black guy a nigger, or even a black guy using a white slur is just as bad as a white guy calling a black guy a nigger. I find that implication very disturbing, I don't know what to tell you (And I should note I'm a white guy). It's like the white guy and his sympathizers are trying regain power, by elevating "cracker" to the level of "nigger" and also minimizing the latter term.

I can appreciate this. I would agree that use of the N-word within the black community isn't as bad as when it crosses racial lines, but I would say that use still slows progress. I can understand trying to remove power from the word, but then you are left with the confusion of why it is only bad some of the time. Either let the word be used and remove the power from it, or complain when anyone uses it. Trying to do both at the same time removes the focus from where it should be.

For the second point, I don't see it is trying to elevate "cracker" to the level of "nigger". To me, hate is hate. There is no place for it, and it should be stomped on wherever it shows up. To keep them separate is like giving one group some free shots until "cracker" is elevated and we are all even. In my mind, fighting against all words and feelings of hate equally is the best way to make progress. To me, nothing sends a stronger message than saying "you can do better and so can I".

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

They're annoyed/irritated by what they see as blacks getting away with something,

This is the main point I would argue against. I (and I'll only speak for myself) wouldn't be annoyed because a black person was getting away with something I can't get away with. I would claim that displaying racism while complaining about racism isn't productive. All that does is puts people on the defensive and prevents progress. It would be like me calling you names while arguing with your points. We would start to focus on the name calling and not the points raised.

[Zelig]

Jesse Helms seems to be one relevant son of a bitch!

[Axxon]

Can't we all just get along? In the spirit of getting along, let us not forget National Brotherhood Week.

One week of every year is designated National Brotherhood Week. This is just one of many such weeks honoring various worthy causes. One of my favorites is National Make-fun-of-the-handicapped Week which Frank Fontaine and Jerry Lewis are in charge of as you know. During National Brotherhood Week various special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood. This year, for example, on the first day of the week Malcolm X was killed which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is. I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that. Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week.

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

BTW, messed up fact but it's indeed true that Malcolm X was murdered on the first day of National Brotherhood Week in 1965. Ponder that irony for a bit fellas.

[Axxon]

Another bit of an offering for my man Jesse. I'm sure he agreed with the sentiments again of my man Tom Lehrer who wrote about a subject dear to all of our hearts. Sadly, so much of these songs are still relevant over 40 years later.

I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!

[Noop]

DrAFTjunkie. Amen.

[Noop]

I don't think cracker and nigger are equal in my opinion. One word (nigger) has a deep and hatred filled history in this country. While the other (cracker) is a racial slur but does not and should not be put on the same level as the other word.

As for Helms there is nothing admirable about a man who stuck to his ignorant and hateful beliefs.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OK???????????

Here:

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.

[Noop]

As for Al Sharpton, I believe he has done more to create racism in this country then end it. I dislike the man and do not consider him my leader as a black person.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

I don't think cracker and nigger are equal in my opinion. One word (nigger) has a deep and hatred filled history in this country. While the other (cracker) is a racial slur but does not and should not be put on the same level as the other word.

As for Helms there is nothing admirable about a man who stuck to his ignorant and hateful beliefs.

I agree about Jesse and while it probably feels good to agree with the first paragraph here's my problem.

If we start trying to justify racial terms on some kind of sliding scale, we're really saying some racism is ok and really, the only way to get past racism is not doing this. It's only going to give people who are now on the short stick ( in this case a cracker ) a grievance point and a reason to perpetuate their racism since their opinion of what's the worse slur isn't necessarily going to be anyone elses.

I think you either have to go one extreme or the other. Either respect free speech or censor it all. No, well, your slur isn't so bad so you can keep doing it but Johnny's slur, that's a bad slur. Lets ostracize Johnny. He's a bad person. That can't end well IMHO.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noop

I don't think cracker and nigger are equal in my opinion. One word (nigger) has a deep and hatred filled history in this country. While the other (cracker) is a racial slur but does not and should not be put on the same level as the other word.

As for Helms there is nothing admirable about a man who stuck to his ignorant and hateful beliefs.

hate mongering is hatemongering, one is not "more aceptable" than another. its equally wrong from either side. period.

This is the crux of my position. You cannot validate one hateful comment while villifying another. No matter how you personally feel one might be MORE or LESS evil than the other, BOTH are hate statements. Trying to maintain a one is better than the other position simply keeps the whole racist bullshit steaming along.

[Noop]

You can not ignore the history of the word. I recognize that both are racial slurs however the history of both are not equal.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RendeR

hate mongering is hatemongering, one is not "more aceptable" than another. its equally wrong from either side. period.

This is the crux of my position. You cannot validate one hateful comment while villifying another. No matter how you personally feel one might be MORE or LESS evil than the other, BOTH are hate statements. Trying to maintain a one is better than the other position simply keeps the whole racist bullshit steaming along.

You know, you coulda just posted +1.

Down to even talking about how it feels right to validate some words and not others. I think it's safe to say on this issue we agree.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RendeR

hate mongering is hatemongering, one is not "more aceptable" than another. its equally wrong from either side. period.

This is the crux of my position. You cannot validate one hateful comment while villifying another. No matter how you personally feel one might be MORE or LESS evil than the other, BOTH are hate statements. Trying to maintain a one is better than the other position simply keeps the whole racist bullshit steaming along.

There was an example earlier in this thread about crime. I thought it was a decent example. Crime is crime. Except if we're talking about murder or selling drugs. I do not believe someone who steals should get the same about of time as someone who murders. If society can accept giving someone who murders more time then someone who steals(for example bread) then why is it improbable to understand(not accept) that there is an identifiable difference between the words.

If we're talking in general terms then yes crime is crime and hate-mongering is hate-mongering. However as the example of the thief and the murdered has shown two crimes are not created equal.

Neither is appropriate to say but their is a difference that is all I am trying to point out.

[RomaGoth]

No matter how you dress up a pig, he is still a pig. I do not admire Helms for standing by his beliefs. I do not believe that he is a bigger man because of that. He was ignorant, a bigot, and just plain wrong with his opinions on race. Just because he didn't change his beliefs over his lifetime does not make him a man of convictions. He was a piece of shit.

What we need in office in the U.S. is real people with real conviction. This means people who believe that taking bribes is wrong. That racism is wrong. That sexism is wrong. That outsourcing all of our manufacturing for a song is wrong. The list goes on and on but hopefully my point is made.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

No matter how you dress up a pig, he is still a pig. I do not admire Helms for standing by his beliefs. I do not believe that he is a bigger man because of that. He was ignorant, a bigot, and just plain wrong with his opinions on race. Just because he didn't change his beliefs over his lifetime does not make him a man of convictions. He was a piece of shit.

What we need in office in the U.S. is real people with real conviction. This means people who believe that taking bribes is wrong. That racism is wrong. That sexism is wrong. That outsourcing all of our manufacturing for a song is wrong. The list goes on and on but hopefully my point is made.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

You can not ignore the history of the word. I recognize that both are racial slurs however the history of both are not equal.

What does history have to do with anything when remembering it actually perpetuates the situation you want to resolve? At some point, to get past it, someone has to give up the comfort of hatred that the word gives them and venture into the scary new world where others are trying to get past it.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not advocating everyone just up and reclaim the word but there's a point where it's a given the word sucks and now we move on and let other words slip into the suck hall of fame. It's like putting in Baseball Players who were only sorta good into their Hall of Fame because the really good ones are already there. No one thinks that Phil Rizutto is as good as Honus Wagner but we kinda understand why he's there.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

There was an example earlier in this thread about crime. I thought it was a decent example. Crime is crime. Except if we're talking about murder or selling drugs. I do not believe someone who steals should get the same about of time as someone who murders. If society can accept giving someone who murders more time then someone who steals(for example bread) then why is it improbable to understand(not accept) that there is an identifiable difference between the words.

If we're talking in general terms then yes crime is crime and hate-mongering is hate-mongering. However as the example of the thief and the murdered has shown two crimes are not created equal.

Neither is appropriate to say but their is a difference that is all I am trying to point out.

Bad analogy IMHO. There is a tangible physical difference and effect between murder and theft. It doesn't take any real rationalization to understand the difference because the difference is unarguably clear.

With words though, that's not the case at all. It's a much grayer area and it's equally sustainable an argument that no words should be censured because in and of themselves, they have no effect. The effect is solely in the reactions, not the actions themselves, quite unlike murder or theft.

You can yell anything you like to a blind, deaf guy and no one at all will be hurt. Murder and theft, not so much.

[Flasch186]

[Noop]

Sigh.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

Sigh.

In case that was in regards to any of my posts would you care to elaborate just a bit?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Axxon

In case that was in regards to any of my posts would you care to elaborate just a bit?

It was in regards to your post. You and I won't be able to agree on this(which is fine) and I realized that this debate would just keep going back in forth with no progress being made. I understand what your trying to say though but I feel like I have already given my opinion and anything else would just be extra.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

It was in regards to your post. You and I won't be able to agree on this(which is fine) and I realized that this debate would just keep going back in forth with no progress being made. I understand what your trying to say though but I feel like I have already given my opinion and anything else would just be extra.

Ok, but whatis this point we can't agree on? It sounds like you're projecting thoughts into my mind and assuming that something is impossible with no possible way to know that. It's even possible that there's no disagreement at all simply we're not getting the point through the words we each chose to use and what those words mean to us. ( )

I'm not asking you to start a prolonged discussion but I really do want to know what part is it that we disagree on. I won't press you past that. It's ok to disagree but I'd like to know if that's true or not.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Ok, but whatis this point we can't agree on? It sounds like you're projecting thoughts into my mind and assuming that something is impossible with no possible way to know that. It's even possible that there's no disagreement at all simply we're not getting the point through the words we each chose to use and what those words mean to us. ( )

I'm not asking you to start a prolonged discussion but I really do want to know what part is it that we disagree on. I won't press you past that. It's ok to disagree but I'd like to know if that's true or not.

You must be a lawyer. LOL. I think the history of the word is important. You don't think it is relevant and I disagree with that notion. Too me cracker, redneck, honky(I know a few friends who hate this word) are one in the same, in fact Jeff Foxworthy has made his career telling redneck jokes. All of those words were created in response to the word nigger.

Peace.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Noop

I don't think cracker and nigger are equal in my opinion. One word (nigger) has a deep and hatred filled history in this country. While the other (cracker) is a racial slur but does not and should not be put on the same level as the other word.

I agree.

Could you imagine a white person trying to convince anyone that "cracker" harkens back to decades of being lynched, tortured, castrated, having their church burned down, or having a cross burned in their yard.

"Cracker" might be an offensive term to some, but it's not even in the same zip code as the "N" word.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

You must be a lawyer. LOL. I think the history of the word is important. You don't think it is relevant and I disagree with that notion. Too me cracker, redneck, honky(I know a few friends who hate this word) are one in the same, in fact Jeff Foxworthy has made his career telling redneck jokes. All of those words were created in response to the word nigger.

Peace.

The history of the word is important. No disagreement there.

I don't think in terms of acceptable racial slurs it's history is relevant. Two different things being discussed here. It's not relevant because neither word should be accepted in racial terms. They're both wrong. That's what's relevant to that discussion.

An interesting thing about you mentioning Foxworthy. Let's consider Richard Pryor who oh yes, added the er ( to the up post about never hearing a black person add this ) and used it a lot. Research Pryor's use and then disavowment of the word, both well thought out opinions and I respect both his points on the subject. Honestly, he sounds like someone who tried to make the word irrelevant then realized that he couldn't make that happen then absolutely realized the history of the word and stopped using it. Fascinating stuff but it's not easy to find on the internet.

Just wanted to give my man Richard some props and kinda laugh that Foxworthy is mentioned for something Rich had covered decades ago.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Noop

All of those words were created in response to the word nigger.

This is one of the reasons I think the words contain as much hate even if they don't have the history.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I agree.

Could you imagine a white person trying to convince anyone that "cracker" harkens back to decades of being lynched, tortured, castrated, having their church burned down, or having a cross burned in their yard.

"Cracker" might be an offensive term to some, but it's not even in the same zip code as the "N" word.

Well, if we're going to start down this one I'd bet there's a lot of Jewish guys with centuries, not decades to harken back to ( does the inquisition or some guy in the 1940's ring a bell? Just to mention a few examples actually ) and just may find that the black perjorative is even on the same continent to their perjoratives. Does that make it ok for them to use the N word in that case, you know, since the words are not equal and all and theirs is worse?

[Noop]

Understood Axxon.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

You cannot remove the history of slavery, prejudice, power, segregation, and imposition of supremacy from the word nigger, though I do find it idealistic and sympathetic to want to.

Cracker has none of that attached to it.

They are equal on one level, but far from equal on another (and I believe) deeper level.

To make it clear, I don't want to do what you mentioned. I really don't have a dog in that race so sympathy isn't it.

I just think we're talking about two separate issues here like I posted to Noop.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

Understood Axxon.

Peace Noop. Good debating with you again.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Well, if we're going to start down this one I'd bet there's a lot of Jewish guys with centuries, not decades to harken back to ( does the inquisition or some guy in the 1940's ring a bell?

What racial epithets are associated with those events?