Jesse Helms Died This Morning

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

You've summarized my point reasonably well, but not the reasons for it. I don't want to rehash all of yesterday's conversation, but this has nothing to do with prejudice from putting one racial slur above another. My goal isn't to equate the two or create a ranking scale of how bad different words are. My point is to get us to respect each other more and to remove barriers to that respect. If I use the N-word to lovingly reference a black friend, that friend may or may not get offended, but someone that overhears the word will be offended. If that friend uses the word "cracker" to lovingly refer to me, I may not get offended, but someone else might. There may be different levels of offense to the words, but my point is that we aren't doing anybody any good by using them at all. All we do is generate more hate directly or indirectly. Racism doesn't go away if you remove the words, but a non-racist act is less likely to be wrongly perceived as a racist act if those words aren't involved.

I'll also say again that I'm not comparing white suffering to black suffering. Allowing these words is going to increase suffering either through direct intent or a misunderstanding. White suffering may never reach the level of black suffering, and I don't really care about that. I'm just interested in reducing the suffering of everyone. Those words hurt, and they cause collateral damage.

[RomaGoth]

It seems to me that an entire thread is now being devoted to discussing how one word is worse than another, when in fact, any racial slur, regardless of its past/present/future, is in poor taste. I see both sides of the argument, and I believe that you are all closer to each other's opinions than you realize. So stop arguing semantics here and cut to the chase:

Marisa Tomei is, indeed, hot. (Oh, and Jesse Helms is not)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

Lets not take anytihng out of context or anything, really. Go bck to the beginning of the threa instead of a post halfway through. The entire discussion started because JIMG said Helms could be admired for not giving in and kissing everyone's ass to be popular. (paraphrased of course)

EVERYTHING I've said regarding helms after that fact was simply there to support the fact that While Helms is indeed a scumbag, I could at least understand and SEE someone like JIMG thinking that way. I have REPEATEDLY stated that I despise helms and everything he stands for. but of couse you didn't bother quoting THOSE posts.

Holy FoX fucking news batman, try not to cut and paste for your own benefit or anything, really.

[RendeR]

I'm done here, If you really believe ANY racial based insult is acceptable or MORE or LESS acceptable than any other then I pity you.

Good day gents.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm done here, If you really believe ANY racial based insult is acceptable or MORE or LESS acceptable than any other then I pity you. Good day gents.

You hear that? YOU HAVE HIS PITY.

The Pope of Race Relations is both wise and selfless. Especially if you are a gypsy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Lets not take anytihng out of context or anything, really. Go bck to the beginning of the threa instead of a post halfway through. The entire discussion started because JIMG said Helms could be admired for not giving in and kissing everyone's ass to be popular. (paraphrased of course)

EVERYTHING I've said regarding helms after that fact was simply there to support the fact that While Helms is indeed a scumbag, I could at least understand and SEE someone like JIMG thinking that way. I have REPEATEDLY stated that I despise helms and everything he stands for. but of couse you didn't bother quoting THOSE posts.

Holy FoX fucking news batman, try not to cut and paste for your own benefit or anything, really.

At least I came up with a quote - I'm still waiting for you to do the same for what you've accused me of saying.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

You hear that? YOU HAVE HIS PITY.

The Pope of Race Relations is both wise and selfless. Especially if you are a gypsy.

Woo hoo!

Everyone should PM RendeR before they say anything race-related, so he can clear it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

At least I came up with a quote - I'm still waiting for you to do the same for what you've accused me of saying.

I quoted you, you're proving my point that you don;t actually read anything before you spout off.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I quoted you, you're proving my point that you don;t actually read anything before you spout off.

I thought you were "done here." If you're going to make an annoying grandstanding statement like that, then at least have the decency to live up to it.

also, your quote did not contain the comments that you claimed. Now you may have assumed that's what he meant by those comments, but to do so, you'd have to ignore very clear, direct quotes (that I provided in the thread) where he says it's not OK. So we can either go by your assumption or we can go by molson's clear statements that contradict your assumption. I think it'd be best to go with the latter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I quoted you, you're proving my point that you don;t actually read anything before you spout off.

You're just a liar.

I posted in big font "WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OK??????????? "

Responding to that, you quoted me as saying:

"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"

1. Nowhere in there did I say calling someone a cracker is OK. Not even close. I didn't say it's OK, and I'm not saying right now it's OK. It's not OK. You just can't wrap your mind around this for some reason.

2. You bitch at me about taking something out of context when I used the FIRST line of a prior post you made. Here, you left out the whole part about the literal definition of "double standard" by Webster, which defines that term as different groups being treated differently REGARDLESS of whether there's actual justified differences between the two. By that literal definition, of course it's a double standard to ban one person for saying nigger, not banning one for saying cracker, and not banning another (you) for just being an obnoxious liar. That's a double standard. But double standards are not inherently bad things (according to the strict definition). They're only bad if the two groups of behavior are not different, and I've contended that they ARE very different

The thing I find most annoying about this discussion (besides RenderR), is that a lot of us are stating an opinion about what's worse, and the real counter of that from the other side is that we shouldn't even SAY that. Whether it's true or not, we shouldn't even say something like that in public. We should all just be quiet. We're not really disagreeing about how bad the word cracker is, we're arguing about whether we should even be allowed to have an opinion about it. Suppressing speech (especially non-hate speech) isn't the solution to anything.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I thought you were "done here." If you're going to make an annoying grandstanding statement like that, then at least have the decency to live up to it.

also, your quote did not contain the comments that you claimed. Now you may have assumed that's what he meant by those comments, but to do so, you'd have to ignore very clear, direct quotes (that I provided in the thread) where he says it's not OK. So we can either go by your assumption or we can go by molson's clear statements that contradict your assumption. I think it'd be best to go with the latter.

I shouldn't get into the middle of this, but I will. molson has said that white racial slurs like Draft's "cracker" is not OK. He has also said that while he wouldn't defend Draft if people want to jump on him for it (since it was "poor form"), he didn't see it worthwhile to join in with those jumping on him. I can only assume that RendeR is taking the position that if it isn't a big enough deal to speak out against, that it must be OK. The question is, do the supporting statements enforce or weaken the idea that it isn't OK.

I'm not taking RendeR's side of this argument, but I can at least see where he is coming from. My disagreement with molson is of a different nature.

[DrAFTjunkie]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm done here, If you really believe ANY racial based insult is acceptable or MORE or LESS acceptable than any other then I pity you.

Good day gents.

But doesn't the fact that you pity people who don't share your opinion sort of validate the opposing argument? To me, it suggests a certain degree of closed-mindedness. I think that everyone who posted an opinion in this thread is admirable to an extent. At least we've all had the balls to speak about what we feel on what is a very touchy issue. I pity the people who read this thread, had an opinion, but didn't have the juevos to say what they felt.

[Noop]

In before lock.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

In before lock.

I'm going to set a cap on these at 10 per thread. I think we're getting close.

[sabotai]

In before cap on "in before lock" is reached.

[Subby]

In before The Cock.

(j/k RendeR)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DrAFTjunkie

But doesn't the fact that you pity people who don't share your opinion sort of validate the opposing argument? To me, it suggests a certain degree of closed-mindedness. I think that everyone who posted an opinion in this thread is admirable to an extent. At least we've all had the balls to speak about what we feel on what is a very touchy issue. I pity the people who read this thread, had an opinion, but didn't have the juevos to say what they felt.

From my personal point of view, trying to prove that one hate statement is "less wrong" than aonther one is a pityable position because it shows an empathy for those who would BE racist.

It simply validates Helms entire lifestyle. Everyone condemns him as a racist and a pig, which he is, but then try to defend the rights to use racial slurs against him. It just cannot be a double standard, you cannot condemn racists on one hand and then turn around and defend them on the other, no matter the history of terminology or the lelvel of oppression anyone ever dealt with.

Wrong is just wrong. I pity people that can't understand that concept because, for me, it seems like a very simple ethical standard to grasp.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Wrong is just wrong. I pity people that can't understand that concept because, for me, it seems like a very simple ethical standard to grasp.

Some "wrong things" are just worse than other "wrong things". I pity people that can't understand that concept because, for me, it seems like a very simple ethical standard to grasp.

Does that help?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Everyone condemns him as a racist and a pig, which he is, but then try to defend the rights to use racial slurs against him. It just cannot be a double standard, you cannot condemn racists on one hand and then turn around and defend them on the other, no matter the history of terminology or the lelvel of oppression anyone ever dealt with.

Sigh

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

You're just a liar.

I posted in big font "WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OK??????????? "

Responding to that, you quoted me as saying:

"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"

1. Nowhere in there did I say calling someone a cracker is OK. Not even close. I didn't say it's OK, and I'm not saying right now it's OK. It's not OK. You just can't wrap your mind around this for some reason.

2. You bitch at me about taking something out of context when I used the FIRST line of a prior post you made. Here, you left out the whole part about the literal definition of "double standard" by Webster, which defines that term as different groups being treated differently REGARDLESS of whether there's actual justified differences between the two. By that literal definition, of course it's a double standard to ban one person for saying nigger, not banning one for saying cracker, and not banning another (you) for just being an obnoxious liar. That's a double standard. But double standards are not inherently bad things (according to the strict definition). They're only bad if the two groups of behavior are not different, and I've contended that they ARE very different

The thing I find most annoying about this discussion (besides RenderR), is that a lot of us are stating an opinion about what's worse, and the real counter of that from the other side is that we shouldn't even SAY that. Whether it's true or not, we shouldn't even say something like that in public. We should all just be quiet. We're not really disagreeing about how bad the word cracker is, we're arguing about whether we should even be allowed to have an opinion about it. Suppressing speech (especially non-hate speech) isn't the solution to anything.

You still haven't actually read or comprehended a damn thing I've posted.

I bolded the text that proves my point. If you truly believe its NOT OK, then its wrong, period and deserving of punishment. period, not lesser or more, but punishment. you're talking out your ass here and I'm sick to death of you spouting insults and rhetoric about me to try and defend your lackluster, at best, position.

I haven't lied once in this thread, thats a fact. You say you quoted the first line of a post, yes you did, unfortunately that post was well after other posts that help define its meaning. Again, learn to COMPREHEND what you read, and first, try reading everything to begin with. You can't stand up for a position in a debate when you aren't willing to at elast read the entire debate before sticking your foot in your mouth.

You're right though, its NOT OK to use those terms in relation to people, period. that much I've been stating all along. you seem to think I'm somehow defending helms, which I have NOT done in this thread. CONTEXT, learn what it means. Seriously.


Now lets get this locked before more of us get boxed for saying shit that doesn't need to be said. I'm done (again) Sorry for backtracking after I said that before folks.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Some "wrong things" are just worse than other "wrong things". I pity people that can't understand that concept because, for me, it seems like a very simple ethical standard to grasp.

Does that help?

yes, it proves you can be an asshat and reword someone's sentence to mean something it doesn't.

We're not talking about DIFFERENT wrong things here, we're talking about the same wrong thing, Racial slurs, ONE TOPIC, ONE GROUP, not two.

Why are you trying to create two things? they are NOT different they are both racial slurs. Not murder and assualt, not Chicken and beef, not apples and oanges, RACIAL FUCKING SLURS, one topic, one focus, stop creating problems.

[Lorena]

in b4 da lock

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I bolded the text that proves my point. If you truly believe its NOT OK, then its wrong, period and deserving of punishment. period, not lesser or more, but punishment.

Nothing you say follows the rules of logic whatsoever, that's why its fun to argue to with you. I mean what the hell does this even mean? If I truly believe something's bad I'm not allowed to have an opinion on how bad?

It's kind of funny how you're going apeshit against people who won't conform to YOUR construct of combining slurs, yet you're all equally pissed off when I reference your earlier stated views about Helms that you insist be seperated.

I get it, you think Helms in an asshole, but one can admire him for his conviction. It's not a reading comprehension issue, I just stated my disagreement (like others). You think that if people don't look at the world the exact same way as you, they MUST not understand you.

[RomaGoth]

Did I make it in before the cap on "in before lock" is reached?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RendeR

yes, it proves you can be an asshat and reword someone's sentence to mean something it doesn't.

We're not talking about DIFFERENT wrong things here, we're talking about the same wrong thing, Racial slurs, ONE TOPIC, ONE GROUP, not two.

Why are you trying to create two things? they are NOT different they are both racial slurs. Not murder and assualt, not Chicken and beef, not apples and oanges, RACIAL FUCKING SLURS, one topic, one focus, stop creating problems.

There are gradations of bad within one topic. First Degree Murder, for example, is worse than second degree murder, while second degree murder is worse than involuntary manslaughter.

Just like there are gradations of bad for words. Fuck is considered a more offensive word than, say, damn. Cunt, is considered a more offensive word for a woman than, say, bitch. Just like the "n word" is a more offensive slur than, say, pretty much any other and, in particular, more offensive (i.e., worse) than cracker.

There. I stayed within one topic, one focus, four separate times all showing that there are things within one topic, one focus that are worse than other things in that very same one topic, one focus.

I DO NOT CREATE PROLBEMS SIR I SOLVE THEM

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lorena

in b4 da lock

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Did I make it in before the cap on "in before lock" is reached?

Neither of you did. Please go create your own thread and post whatever type of "in before lock" type messages you deem fit.

The quota has been reached.

[RendeR]

*sigh*

Look, I am sorry this at one point solid discussion went to shit. for myself its like this:

helms was a fucking rascist pig who should never have been allowed into public office.

JIMG stated that he admired Helms steadfastness in not cowtowing to the public.

I agreed that you could make an argument for admiring that. Not the WAY he was, but the way he clung to his principles.

Knowing JIMG we all ought to understand why he would see it that way.

I believe racism is wrong, no matter how slight and that to allow even the lisghtest bit of it to continue simply allows it to fester in our society.

I don't care about the terminology's history, I don't live in history, I live in today and to say something to another person which infers they are lesser than you by races creeds or nationalities is just plain wrong. hell I'm guilty of that myself because I insult Canadians regularly and I feel bad about it and am trying to stop, but I live in Buffalo so its hard, but I am trying.

thats it. End of my involvement. take it or leave it.

[molson]

I say we ban everyone who posted in this thread for 10 minutes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

There are gradations of bad within one topic. First Degree Murder, for example, is worse than second degree murder, while second degree murder is worse than involuntary manslaughter.

Just like there are gradations of bad for words. Fuck is considered a more offensive word than, say, damn. Cunt, is considered a more offensive word for a woman than, say, bitch. Just like the "n word" is a more offensive slur than, say, pretty much any other and, in particular, more offensive (i.e., worse) than cracker.

Apparently this concept doesn't apply to race. Religion, gender, murder, it's pretty intuitive. For race, every slur and context is exactly the same for some reason.

I'll tell you what though, next time someone calls me a cracker I'm knocking him out.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Neither of you did. Please go create your own thread and post whatever type of "in before lock" type messages you deem fit.

The quota has been reached.

That hurts. I mean, it really really hurts. Where's Pumpy.....

[molson]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

That hurts. I mean, it really really hurts. Where's Pumpy.....

I'm not sure if "In before the cock" counts against the quota, so you may still be in.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure if "In before the cock" counts against the quota, so you may still be in.

That is good news, but I am not going in without Lorena. We were, after all, both told to start our own thread.

[Axxon]

In before the

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Look, I am sorry this at one point solid discussion went to shit

Don't worry about that; this was never a solid discussion.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Don't worry about that; this was never a solid discussion.

Some of us have been having an adult conversation in here, so you can kiss my ass.

[Zelig]

Don't you people have jobs?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Some of us have been having an adult conversation in here, so you can kiss my ass.

"They're the same."
"They're different."
"Nuh uh!"
"Yeah huh!"

over and over for several pages is not an adult conversation. If you think that is what has been going on here, you need to get out more. A lot more.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sabotai

"They're the same."
"They're different."
"Nuh uh!"
"Yeah huh!"

over and over for several pages is not an adult conversation. If you think that is what has been going on here, you need to get out more. A lot more.

I'm sure all 15 billion of your posts were nothing but solid contributions to the FOFC community.

[KWhit]

In before the Rock.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by RendeR

thats it. End of my involvement. take it or leave it.

Take 2.


Who's ready for 3?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

"They're the same."
"They're different."
"Nuh uh!"
"Yeah huh!"

over and over for several pages is not an adult conversation. If you think that is what has been going on here, you need to get out more. A lot more.

This shows me either your reading comprehension sucks, or you didn't actually read. There was plenty of thought and reasoning behind many posts. I don't know that anyone changed the minds of anyone else, but I at least have a better understanding of where different people are coming from. If you aren't getting anything out of it, you are welcome to go away and find someplace more worthy of your time.

[Glengoyne]

It's funny, 'cause I agree with both parties to this argument.

It is crazy to believe that Cracker is essentially equivalent on the racist slant scale.

It is equally crazy to believe that it is appropriate to criticize someone for being a racist, and to call them a derogatory racist name in essentially the same sentence.

Okay, I'm not equally agreeing with both sides. They are both making a good point, I'm just thinking that a lot of folks are saying that Axxon did something that I don't think he did.

Has anyone played the Nazi card yet? That looks to be about the only thing that hasn't really happened so far.

[Glengoyne]

Oh yeah I came to this thread to see if anyone was discussing the director of some lab in the NC Department of Agriculture that quit rather than fly the facility's flag at half mast.

He took retirement when he couldn't either raise the half mast flag to full mast or to simply take the flag down and not fly the flag over the lab.

He said he felt the same way when the flag was ordered to be flown at half mast when President Nixon died. In that case two days of rain prevented the flag from being flown at all on those days. So he didn't have to take his stand then.

I think it is a perfectly appropriate action to take on his part. I also believe his chain of command took appropriate action to tell him it wasn't his position to question the order to fly the flag at half mast.

[CU Tiger]

Well, my week has passed.

And I should probably just let this go without even a reply, but that is not my personality. Sorry.

First of all I find it interesting that in boxing me, Ben actually proved my point. My point was simply that society as a whole, and this as an example have more sensitivity towards racism when it is aimed at a minority; this however does not lesson thee impact, hurtfulness or morality of a racist act when perpetrated against a dominant (in number not superiority) race.

Secondly, for those who care, I am neither black nor white. I have lived my life as a racial outcast and can probably relate to ostracization more than anyone on this board. I am the child of a multiple mixed family, my father is black my mother is mixed. I have lighter skin than most african americans, but darker than any "white" person. I grew up in the government housing and have often described myself as "the only white kid in the projects" mainly because of the discriminatio that I faceed as a kid. Once I entered midddle school (my elementary school was 99.5% black) I then felt the opposite sting off racism that is felt by many black people because of some white people.

Finally, I firmly stand behind the belief that led to my boxing, Whether anyone likes it, the likes of Al Sharpton and Rev. Ferricon have done more to promote racism then they ever will to supress it. My Father taught me a very important leesson at a very young age, he said to me "You have to suceed by overpowering regardless of circumstance. If you take charity because of your status you will never win. Son you will never be white and you will never be black, just be and destroy anyone who challenges you. When you win, you will know your back carried the load." I was 13 years old, those were the last words he spoke to me, I disregarded them at the time, but I never saw him again. I dont reveal my life story for sympathy, empathy or validity. I do it to drive homee my point. It is impossible to respeect a man who asks for a hand out, Sharpton (and others) never achieeve what theey ccould because they blame others for their failures or shortcomings. No one ever has or ever will own me, there for no one owes me a damn thing. So my great grandad was a slave.....so what. If your grandad was a german during the holocaust would you go around apologizing to jews? If your great-great grandfather was a pilgrim would you spend your life re paying native americans?
When does it end?

Finally, I have a hard time undderstanding the morals of a man who chooses to punish someonee for insulting Sharpton yet refers to HIMSELF as the head nigger in charge....obviously he is not a disciple of Sharpton's teachings. Or he would never "degrade himself even in jest"...

Come on, stand on one side or the other....
The reaction taken seems a bitt like an Uncle Tom to me.

To react is to validate, to retaliate is to impower.....

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Well, my week has passed.

And I should probably just let this go without even a reply, but that is not my personality. Sorry.

First of all I find it interesting that in boxing me, Ben actually proved my point. My point was simply that society as a whole, and this as an example have more sensitivity towards racism when it is aimed at a minority; this however does not lesson thee impact, hurtfulness or morality of a racist act when perpetrated against a dominant (in number not superiority) race.

Secondly, for those who care, I am neither black nor white. I have lived my life as a racial outcast and can probably relate to ostracization more than anyone on this board. I am the child of a multiple mixed family, my father is black my mother is mixed. I have lighter skin than most african americans, but darker than any "white" person. I grew up in the government housing and have often described myself as "the only white kid in the projects" mainly because of the discriminatio that I faceed as a kid. Once I entered midddle school (my elementary school was 99.5% black) I then felt the opposite sting off racism that is felt by many black people because of some white people.

Finally, I firmly stand behind the belief that led to my boxing, Whether anyone likes it, the likes of Al Sharpton and Rev. Ferricon have done more to promote racism then they ever will to supress it. My Father taught me a very important leesson at a very young age, he said to me "You have to suceed by overpowering regardless of circumstance. If you take charity because of your status you will never win. Son you will never be white and you will never be black, just be and destroy anyone who challenges you. When you win, you will know your back carried the load." I was 13 years old, those were the last words he spoke to me, I disregarded them at the time, but I never saw him again. I dont reveal my life story for sympathy, empathy or validity. I do it to drive homee my point. It is impossible to respeect a man who asks for a hand out, Sharpton (and others) never achieeve what theey ccould because they blame others for their failures or shortcomings. No one ever has or ever will own me, there for no one owes me a damn thing. So my great grandad was a slave.....so what. If your grandad was a german during the holocaust would you go around apologizing to jews? If your great-great grandfather was a pilgrim would you spend your life re paying native americans?
When does it end?

Finally, I have a hard time undderstanding the morals of a man who chooses to punish someonee for insulting Sharpton yet refers to HIMSELF as the head nigger in charge....obviously he is not a disciple of Sharpton's teachings. Or he would never "degrade himself even in jest"...

Come on, stand on one side or the other....
The reaction taken seems a bitt like an Uncle Tom to me.

To react is to validate, to retaliate is to impower.....

Look on the bright side, he hasn't renamed you Anthony.

[molson]

I'm pretty shocked that that wasn't a typo.

You weren't boxed for insulting Sharpton, you were boxed for saying it wouldn't be "incorrect or inappropriate" to call him a nigger. That's some heavy shit, and far beyond the pissing match that me and some others let go on for too long after you left.

There was something resembling a real conversation in this thread that got a tad carried away at times, but I think everyone would agree that your comment was bullshit and offensive to pretty much everyone (not just "PC offensive").

I'm pretty surprised the punishment was so light.

You come off like you have a sense of entitlement - that because of your background, your experiences are more relevant than anyone elses, and that gives you some kind of right to be an asshole to everyone, and drop racial slurs without context to make some kind of point.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by molson

...

You weren't boxed for insulting Sharpton, you were boxed for saying it wouldn't be "incorrect or inappropriate" to call him a nigger. ...

He can't have seriously been boxed for saying it was be acceptable to call someone a racial slur. That seems to be the height of stupidity as well as an over reaction.

Note I'm not going to go back and re-read CU's actual post. I'd rather make my judgement based on Molson's account and call the mods ridiculously reactionary and sensitive. It's my way.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

You come off like you have a sense of entitlement - that because of your background, your experiences are more relevant than anyone elses, and that gives you some kind of right to be an asshole to everyone, and drop racial slurs without context to make some kind of point.

Im not sure what or where I gave you the impression I was entitled to anything that anyone else is not. I would like to respond to this statement, but Im not sure where that impression came from, perhaps you could help me out a bit here?

Originally Posted by molson

I'm pretty shocked that that wasn't a typo.

You weren't boxed for insulting Sharpton, you were boxed for saying it wouldn't be "incorrect or inappropriate" to call him a nigger. That's some heavy shit, and far beyond the pissing match that me and some others let go on for too long after you left.

There was something resembling a real conversation in this thread that got a tad carried away at times, but I think everyone would agree that your comment was bullshit and offensive to pretty much everyone (not just "PC offensive").

I'm pretty surprised the punishment was so light.

You are proving my point though in attempting to combat it. Jesse Helms was a man who did much good in this world, however he was never able to overcome the ignorance of his racist ways, that is a fatal character flaw that he will be emblazoned with. Al Sharpton could be described exactly the same way, as a man who did much good but will always be discredited by many because of his extreme racial views.

Now using a racial slur against Helms while not necessarily acceptable, goes unpunished. However using a racial slur against Sharpton brings swift vengence.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Perhaps you should have considered adding some of that context to the original quote. Not sure it would have changed anything, but would have made you seem like less of an asshole.

My point isn't how Im perceived, its the overall impression of everyone (not just this message board, but American society as a whole). We need to stop looking for retribution and start looking for equality.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Well, my week has passed.

And I should probably just let this go without even a reply, but that is not my personality. Sorry.

First of all I find it interesting that in boxing me, Ben actually proved my point. My point was simply that society as a whole, and this as an example have more sensitivity towards racism when it is aimed at a minority; this however does not lesson thee impact, hurtfulness or morality of a racist act when perpetrated against a dominant (in number not superiority) race.

Secondly, for those who care, I am neither black nor white. I have lived my life as a racial outcast and can probably relate to ostracization more than anyone on this board. I am the child of a multiple mixed family, my father is black my mother is mixed. I have lighter skin than most african americans, but darker than any "white" person. I grew up in the government housing and have often described myself as "the only white kid in the projects" mainly because of the discriminatio that I faceed as a kid. Once I entered midddle school (my elementary school was 99.5% black) I then felt the opposite sting off racism that is felt by many black people because of some white people.

Finally, I firmly stand behind the belief that led to my boxing, Whether anyone likes it, the likes of Al Sharpton and Rev. Ferricon have done more to promote racism then they ever will to supress it. My Father taught me a very important leesson at a very young age, he said to me "You have to suceed by overpowering regardless of circumstance. If you take charity because of your status you will never win. Son you will never be white and you will never be black, just be and destroy anyone who challenges you. When you win, you will know your back carried the load." I was 13 years old, those were the last words he spoke to me, I disregarded them at the time, but I never saw him again. I dont reveal my life story for sympathy, empathy or validity. I do it to drive homee my point. It is impossible to respeect a man who asks for a hand out, Sharpton (and others) never achieeve what theey ccould because they blame others for their failures or shortcomings. No one ever has or ever will own me, there for no one owes me a damn thing. So my great grandad was a slave.....so what. If your grandad was a german during the holocaust would you go around apologizing to jews? If your great-great grandfather was a pilgrim would you spend your life re paying native americans?
When does it end?

Finally, I have a hard time undderstanding the morals of a man who chooses to punish someonee for insulting Sharpton yet refers to HIMSELF as the head nigger in charge....obviously he is not a disciple of Sharpton's teachings. Or he would never "degrade himself even in jest"...

Come on, stand on one side or the other....
The reaction taken seems a bitt like an Uncle Tom to me.

To react is to validate, to retaliate is to impower.....

What happened to your father? I don't mean to pry; I'm just curious about it.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Wow. I wish we had discussed this point in this thread instead of whatever it was we ended up discussing ad nauseum.