Jesse Helms Died This Morning

[Noop]

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? 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?

I got lambasted for saying this in class but Jewish people are still Jewish people. I can not say the same about black people because they have long since been removed from Africa they could go back home even if they wanted too. I say this with the upmost respect to the people of the Jewish faith but I don't think that analogy is a good one.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

What racial epithets are associated with those events?

Sadly enough, in both cases, it seems Jew was all it took.

[Noop]

I think this thread is going to be locked by the way.

[molson]

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.

Cracker as a "hateful" comment is really a stretch. There's hardly any basis for that in history whatsoever.

Facts are facts. And the fact that you finally admit that you think calling someone a nigger is "equally wrong" to calling someone a nigger, and the fact that you used the word "admirable" to describe Helms earlier in thread convince me I'm on the right side here and I can move on.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

I got lambasted for saying this in class but Jewish people are still Jewish people. I can not say the same about black people because they have long since been removed from Africa they could go back home even if they wanted too. I say this with the upmost respect to the people of the Jewish faith but I don't think that analogy is a good one.

So, in 1948, all those displaced Jews from Russia, Poland, Germany, eastern Europe weren't long enough removed from the Middle East to not be able to go back home if they wanted to? Jeez, they were gone several centuries.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So, in 1948, all those displaced Jews from Russia, Poland, Germany, eastern Europe weren't long enough removed from the Middle East to not be able to go back home if they wanted to? Jeez, they were gone several centuries.

No no no no. I meant that they were still Jews and could go to their homeland (Israel) blacks can not identify where they come from other then saying they come from somewhere in Africa. Now that I have said that inane comment. I am going to try to leave this alone because what I have said usually causes a raucous.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Cracker as a "hateful" comment is really a stretch. There's hardly any basis for that in history whatsoever.

This may sound flippant, but hate as an emotion doesn't require history.

[molson]

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? 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?

Are you asking if its OK for Jews to say Nigger because their suffering is worse?

Who's arguing that??

[Noop]

Jesus?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

No no no no. I meant that they were still Jews and could go to their homeland (Israel) blacks can not identify where they come from other then saying they come from somewhere in Africa. Now that I have said that inane comment. I am going to try to leave this alone because what I have said usually causes a raucous.

Hey, like I've told you, you'll have to get used to rucusses if you want to hold an opinion around here. I think you're doing just fine on this one.

Yes, the Jews could go to Israel. Well, first it had to be created again but you do bring up a good point.

I never really thought of it that way because the argument about going back where you came from really is the most absurd argument in this case unless you're native american and you want everyone to leave. Why on earth should the concept be given any merit? Too many people of all races have fought and died in that battle for anyone to be told that. I think it's optimistic that for the most part, when the discussions of race come up now we're down to fighting the words. It can be depressing fighting the words but if you remember that not that long ago, it wasn't about words at all.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you asking if its OK for Jews to say Nigger because their suffering is worse?

Who's arguing that??

Anyone that says that one racial slur isn't as bad as another one. That's my point. That's the crux of what I'm trying to say.

There are two discussions. One deals with the history and power invested in certain words. The second deals with allowing any words but disallowing others. The double standard deals with this position and we had an example where one slur got a boxing the other didn't.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Noop

No no no no. I meant that they were still Jews and could go to their homeland (Israel) blacks can not identify where they come from other then saying they come from somewhere in Africa. Now that I have said that inane comment. I am going to try to leave this alone because what I have said usually causes a raucous.

I ask this in all sincerity...why is this relevant? To be honest, most blacks in this country come from America. I could say I come from Europe, but I have no idea where.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Noop

Jesus?

\

Why would the Mexican care?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This may sound flippant, but hate as an emotion doesn't require history.

True. But someone can say "Nigger" without hate behind it. "Cracker" too.

The issue isn't really what the speaker means, the issue is that some words have required a stigma where they're "penalized" by society, regardless of the intent of the speaker. The only way a word can obtain this kind of stigma is its history. History is everything.

A person can call you a "jerk" and mean it with all the hate of the biggest racist ever. But since that word doesn't have a racial history, the word itself doesn't have that stigma.

That's the problem with using the term "hate-mongering" to describe ANY word that references race. We don't know the intent of the person saying cracker or honkey, we don't know if it's hate-motivated at all. Same with nigger, but with that word, it doesn't matter, because it's distinguished by its history. We've decided it's a hate term no matter the context. It's different.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I ask this in all sincerity...why is this relevant? To be honest, most blacks in this country come from America. I could say I come from Europe, but I have no idea where.

I was off on a tangent... that statement some how seems wrong to me but hey to each his own.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I ask this in all sincerity...why is this relevant? To be honest, most blacks in this country come from America. I could say I come from Europe, but I have no idea where.

I'm pretty sure this was a tangent here based on my mentioning the Jewish people but I can't speak for him obviously. That's how I took it anyway.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Noop

I was off on a tangent... that statement some how seems wrong to me but hey to each his own.

I guess my point was that most white people don't know where they come from either. There have been enough generations in this country that the origins aren't all that important anymore. There may be more to it than I understand, but it seems to be fairly universal around here.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'm pretty sure this was a tangent here based on my mentioning the Jewish people but I can't speak for him obviously. That's how I took it anyway.

You would be correct.

[Noop]

Marisa Tomei is hot. Sorry I had to mention.

[Subby]

Is it okay if a white person calls another white person a cracker? Because Axxon is a totally hilarious cracker!

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Subby

Is it okay if a white person calls another white person a cracker? Because Axxon is a totally hilarious cracker!

But I'm not a white person . I don't care though. Cracker it is then.

[Subby]

Oh my bad. I thought Phoenix was Crackertown.

[Subby]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (7 members and 1 guests) Subby, Axxon, CU Tiger, Honolulu_Blue, illinifan999, Noop, sabotai

Hey that racist cracker CU Tiger is reading this thread right from the penalty box! Sweet.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Subby

Oh my bad. I thought Phoenix was Crackertown.

I'm from Tampa. I moved to Phoenix. I didn't read the bylaws so I didn't know I had to be a Cracker to come here.

Of course, Florida has a particular cracker of it's own. They're proud of it. There's definitely a different meaning with "florida cracker" and though I'm not one, I've heard the term for years and never in the negative, not even among other races. Just a random thought but maybe that's why they let me in Phoenix?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Subby

Is it okay if a white person calls another white person a cracker? Because Axxon is a totally hilarious cracker!

Of course not cracker. A racial slur is a racial slur, and a ghost can hate his own honky race. A mayflower just simply can not call other palefaces a racial slur just because they also happen to be a snowman. This is one of the way that people turn words against other races. A howdy may call his ivory friend a ghoul, and then before you know, someone is calling all of the eggs a ghoul, and then it steam rolls into hate speech.

So no, just because you happen to be crisco doesn't mean you get to call other marshmallows by a racial slur.

That's just ignorant.

[Subby]

Well don't I feel like a dumbass cracker.

Thanks sabotai. :\

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Subby

Well don't I feel like a dumbass cracker.

Thanks sabotai. :\

No problem casper.

[BrianD]

I think we've now reached a point where the thread should be locked.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Originally Posted by Subby

Oh my bad. I thought Phoenix was Crackertown.

If you watch the news, you'd believe that Phoenix was a small group of morally upstanding white people under seige from millions of Mexicans ready to rape and rob them if they step outside the house.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by sabotai

Of course not cracker. A racial slur is a racial slur, and a ghost can hate his own honky race. A mayflower just simply can not call other palefaces a racial slur just because they also happen to be a snowman. This is one of the way that people turn words against other races. A howdy may call his ivory friend a ghoul, and then before you know, someone is calling all of the eggs a ghoul, and then it steam rolls into hate speech.

So no, just because you happen to be crisco doesn't mean you get to call other marshmallows by a racial slur.

That's just ignorant.

Apparently 13 white racial slurs is still considered OK.

[Oilers9911]

Dunno about the rest of you guys but I find it very hard to be upset by any of these "slurs" towards white people.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'll have comments on this once Danny Glover, the rest of the Canadians, and myself get together and have a meeting.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Of course not cracker. A racial slur is a racial slur, and a ghost can hate his own honky race. A mayflower just simply can not call other palefaces a racial slur just because they also happen to be a snowman. This is one of the way that people turn words against other races. A howdy may call his ivory friend a ghoul, and then before you know, someone is calling all of the eggs a ghoul, and then it steam rolls into hate speech.

So no, just because you happen to be crisco doesn't mean you get to call other marshmallows by a racial slur.

That's just ignorant.

I LOL'ed.

[DrAFTjunkie]

If this thread had gone off topic, which it hasn't, then maybe it should be locked. But this thread has been very active today, with opinions from a shitload of different people. It's abOOt dipolmacy (j/k somebody mentioned South Park) it's a topic that, from what I've seen, a lot of people are really reluctant to talk about. Ya can't shut that down, man...even if it can get painful.

I'm surprised to see Jeff Foxworthy and Richard Pryor mentioned, but not Chris Rock. His black people/niggas philosphy is well known, and although I laughed because it sort of made sense to me, it threw me off a bit to tell you the truth. It think that, for a lot of people it cemented home the idea that, yes, there is such thing as a black person, but for a lot of other people it might have sent a mixed message. "He's allowed to say crack-ass-cracka, but I'm not allowed to say nigga." It does seem like a bit of a double standard, but I realize that since he's using it in a comedic manner, he's difusing the dirty words in some manner. They are just words after all; it's malice that gives them power. And I do think there are inherent differences between all races. Comedy seems to be a good way to get people to take themseleves less seriously, to acknowledge that differences exist and don't have to be a good or a bad thing. It allows us to cross culture lines with a light heart.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

Cracker as a "hateful" comment is really a stretch. There's hardly any basis for that in history whatsoever.

Facts are facts. And the fact that you finally admit that you think calling someone a nigger is "equally wrong" to calling someone a nigger, and the fact that you used the word "admirable" to describe Helms earlier in thread convince me I'm on the right side here and I can move on.

See and this post proves to me that you haven't atually read or understood a damn thing I've posted.

*I* do not admire Helms. I started this whole fiasco out by defending the fact that some people (in this case JonInMiddleGeorigia) MIGHT find that trait about helms admirable.

Cracker and Nigger ARE equally wrong IMO. You can't win that argument with me because I think and truly BELIEVE its an ignorant and racist PoV to try defending the use of one over the other just because one side was persecuted and the other wasn't. its about hate and its about degredation from both sides.

I'm not trying to say there isn't a stronger and more powerful HISTORY behind each word, there obviously isn't. But we're not arguing the words' history, we're arguing wether or not its right or racist to USE either word in today's day and age.

If you use Cracker to describe a white guy, you should be villified and rightly so, if you use nigger you should be villified, and rightly so. THIS is why I believe draft should have been boxed right along with CU Tiger. It doesn't matter what the histories of the word are, all that matter is they directly used racial slurs against someone.

Can we agree to disagree now?

[Noop]

Why stop at cracker? What about redneck? Honky?

[Subby]

I agree that you are a pontificating cracker.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why stop at cracker? What about redneck? Honky?

Honky I agree with, Redneck I dunno, possibly. I find Redneck to be more if a class of people insult than a racial one, but I could be wrong there too.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Subby

I agree that you are a pontificating cracker.

Yeah but we already understand your ignorance Subby, so its all good.

[Noop]

Funny how that works. Mr. Kitten

[BrianD]

While the words themselves can be annoying, the sad part of this conversation it trying to determine which racial insults are really bad and which are only a little bad. If real progress was being made, we wouldn't need any of them.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by BrianD

While the words themselves can be annoying, the sad part of this conversation it trying to determine which racial insults are really bad and which are only a little bad. If real progress was being made, we wouldn't need any of them.

That's what I've been saying, as has Axxon. If we're ever going to get beyond racisim we simply can't have a better/worse mentality, its all wrong.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

And I, and others, think that that's a great idea but miles away from reality. I'm set for agree to disagree, there doesn't appear to be any new ground here.

And since it is so far away from reality, let's not even try. I'm pretty sure I can agree to disagree with that.

[KWhit]

Wow, this thread went off the deep end.

Are people really trying to equate Cracker with the N word? Really?

That's ridiculous.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See and this post proves to me that you haven't atually read or understood a damn thing I've posted.

*I* do not admire Helms. I started this whole fiasco out by defending the fact that some people (in this case JonInMiddleGeorigia) MIGHT find that trait about helms admirable.

RenderR: "It is admirable that he stuck to who he was and held his belief's so dear."

That's a quote - it's not like when you accused me of saying something 10,000 times when I hadn't.

This is all about people being upset that one person was boxed for a black slur and another wasn't for a white slur. That's what pisses you off.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Noop

Why stop at cracker? What about redneck? Honky?

Let's not forget about my all-time favorite -- "peckerwood"!

[KWhit]

Dillweed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Wow, this thread went off the deep end.

Are people really trying to equate Cracker with the N word? Really?

That's ridiculous.

Some (RederR) actually claim that they're equal.

Others (BrianD) still haven't gone that far, but claim that it's problematic to even put one ahead of another.

The second is somewhat more sympathetic and reasonable a point. I THINK the general idea is that putting one "racial" thing ahead of another invokes exactly the spirit of prejudice that we're talking about in the first place.

I (and most) think its completely ridiculous to consider it some kind of "racial prejudice" to acknowledge that nigger is worse that cracker. It's likewise not a kind of prejudice to acknowledge (and emphasize) that minorities, and not the power majority, are the most disadvantaged victim of racism. Further, sweeping those kind of power differences and history of oppression under the rug, while certainly convienient for white people in power, is some kind of odd white power play in its own right. It's putting "white suffering" at a level playing field, and it completely disregards racial realties.

You don't fix racism by pulling wool over everyone's eyes and inventing truths that aren't there, by saying, "From now on, all racial words are bad, and we won't say any of them, got it? great". Maybe if that would actually work, and everyone's attitudes and actions changed 100% at exactly the same time, per this social contract you're proposing, it MIGHT be worthwhile to ignore reality like you're asking us to.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think we've now reached a point where the thread should be locked.

Despite everyone still beating the unfunny "in before the lock" joke into the ground, there aren't many threads around here that are just randomly locked because of the content anymore, which is a great move, IMO. This thread will fizzle out like every other thread, and that's much better than some higher-power ending the conversation. I never understood what the latter gained. Anyone can certainly stay out of the thread if they want, and Skydog locking a thread like this would just incite, rather than difuse anything.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Despite everyone still beating the unfunny "in before the lock" joke into the ground, there aren't many threads around here that are just randomly locked because of the content anymore, which is a great move, IMO. This thread will fizzle out like every other thread, and that's much better than some higher-power ending the conversation. I never understood what the latter gained. Anyone can certainly stay out of the thread if they want, and Skydog locking a thread like this would just incite, rather than difuse anything.

At the point that I wrote that, sabotai's and Subby's were really getting to me. I don't care who is using racial slurs and whether or not they are crossing racial lines, throwing as many as you can in one post is childish and extremely poor form. It is exactly the kind of thing which is going to piss some people off enough to send this thread down a really bad path. Considering the reasonably intelligent discussion we were all having up to that point, I consider the posts to be especially bad form. Of course I then remembered my own little ignore button and now I don't really care anymore.