Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
If you`d like to step outside the realm of n*gger as an insult, sure, you`ll find that racist people call black people n*ggers without a second thought, without any provocation, as if such a term were acceptable. But my argument doesn`t touch on this face of the word, so it wasn`t necessary to mention it before. Coincidentally, neither did you.
If you`re going to go on believing something I didn`t mean despite persistent rebuttals from me, then what is the point of asking for clarity? My statement is admittedly ambiguous, but me further explaining it doesn`t matter if all you`ll do is disregard said explanations anyway. Hmm, smart.
"Then you should make your mind clear; I`ve been reprimanded enough for having put `words` into your mouth, which you later endup vindicating as the intended."
Hey, what can I say that you aren`t eagerly willing to say for me?
"I`ll let you have the last word; as you would have it, at least..."
I already had it before you tried pulling this sh*t. Try posting somewhere where it`s relevant and expected, for instance a private message relating to the Secret Santa discussion. I`m still waiting for you to "utterly destroy" me.
Then you should make your mind clear; I`ve been reprimanded enough for having put `words` into your mouth, which you later endup vindicating as the intended.
"Wouldn`t it seem as though I had agreed all along?"
I would hope so..
I`ll let you have the last word; as you would have it, at least...
Ah, but you said:
"The color of their skin is what the insult refers to, not some behavioral or personal factors. Who taught you otherwise, Suicism?"
That pretty much narrows it down for me; if you want to dance around semantics, then that`s your problem.
"The word itself has nothing to do with their behavior, as you would imply, aside from what the man did to be called such."
Ah, the behavior? What the man DID? Don`t think it could be referring to anything else, and as long as the behavior is accepted to provoke such an assault, so it is the basis, reguardless of any other racial provocations you`d wish to attach peripherally.
Uh, bullsh*t? I say `instigate` with its antagonistic implications in mind. If you really wished me to clarify my opinion, you wouldn`t count on me checking an age-old thread for your questions; you`d message them to me. As it is, I think your strategy is to wait several weeks (in this case, almost two weeks since your last post in this thread) and post something to ensure you have the last word on the matter. If you really wished to have continued this thread with your last post, as I said, you would have messaged it. There is no reason to post in a nearly forgotten thread than to appear as though one has achieved the last word.
N*gger is directly racially related, so there isn`t any alternative use. You seem to think I had said n*gger is used for other purposes than to insult\condemn someone, but I was only making the statement that n*gger isn`t used with a person`s skin color as basis alone; obviously, there are other circumstances, for instance when it`s used as an insult.
I haven`t made any direct statement on the prerequisite circumstances in which the insult is used, but if you`ll note this quote of myself:
I state that the word n*gger on its own has nothing to do with behavior, excluding the behavior of the man that induced n*gger`s use. Wouldn`t it seem as though I had agreed all along?
"I only do so now to clarify my opinion; you do so to instigate."
I instigate you only to clarify, and I am pleased with the effort you have put toward it.
"...to simply ensure I have the last word."
I wouldn`t expect such a motive from you.
That is what I`ve been saying all along; these insults are behaviourally provoked, but only racially related. Can you at least recognize the relevance of my statements which maintain as much, and insomuch as we agree on this relationship consider the case closed?
"In fact if you look at the first quote, I said the word `used`, referring to the circumstances of n*gger`s usage, and in the second quote I was referring to the insult itself."
Ah, I see. So, when you say:
"... no where did I say the word n*gger is used *only* to refer to someone`s skin color."
would you consider any alternative basis for use, devoid of any racial relation, politically incorrect per the first paragraph of your last post?
The context for both uses of `refer` in the quotes you provided are different and are independent of each other, which makes sense to me. In fact if you look at the first quote, I said the word `used`, referring to the circumstances of n*gger`s usage, and in the second quote I was referring to the insult itself.
If you haven`t anything else, I consider this discussion done with. I`ll return as needed but let it be known that I`m not obsessed enough with my discussions so as to continually visit them weeks after all other activity has expired to simply ensure I have the last word. I only do so now to clarify my opinion; you do so to instigate.
"Second, no where did I say the word n*gger is used *only* to refer to someone`s skin color."
Ha, I guess you did!
Somewhere along the line, you had a grave miscommunication.
First off, no one deserves to be called a n*gger. Second, no where did I say the word n*gger is used *only* to refer to someone`s skin color.
Here`s an example. Say you want to insult an overweight person, so you called them fat. This insult refers to their physical condition, but the reason for calling them fat is because you wanted to insult them: just as the insult `fat` came easiest to mind, so did n*gger.
Excuse me, did I say that? I outlined what racial and racist mean in the post above. You know, just in case you couldn`t find the time to *ask me* what my definitions are.
"...and from what I gather, it could only be deemed `racist` if he somehow applied this put-down to the rest of those who share this feature?"
Are you suggesting I suggested n*gger is only racist when the word is applied to *every* member of that race? When did I say that? How are you infering this? I said n*gger in and of itself is not racist. Saying the word n*gger doesn`t automatically qualify one as racist. You got that much?
"But then again, if he`s somehow criticizing this distinguishing feature exclusively, and this feature is shared by many others (in this case a classifying slur), then how could they not feel offended? I`m just not sure how you draw the line between `racial` and `racist` in this case..."
I`m not saying they have no right to be offended, I`m saying they have no right to claim Richards` use of n*gger is racist.
What`s the line between racial and racist? Well, racial is a quality relating to one`s race and racist is considering someone or a group of people superior\inferior according solely to their race.
"So you believe n*gger can be employed as an insult devoid of any racist connotation..."
It is entirely possible to call a black man a n*gger without having any "racist connotation" or racist agenda: like I said, Richards used it as an insult because it wasn`t accompanied by any racist dialogue.
"I`m sure there are very few in the `African-American` community who would agree, especially if you walked up and shared this revelation with them straight-up while drinking your juice in the `hood."
Be that as it may, the majority of the African-American community is wrong in this respect because although they have a right to be offended by the insult, they don`t necessarily have the right to call me racist were I to use it as an insult.
I don`t understand how I could have been `painting myself as a bigot` a page earlier by using this word, and suddenly now it is devoid of any racist connotation, whatsoever...
Seems a bit of the ol` convenience ala Overmann, if you ask me...
See, I agree; it`s related to race, but that`s not necessarily its basis; though if that`s the case, something else must be acting as its basis and for me, there is no way to insult somebody`s skin color alone. So you believe n*gger can be employed as an insult devoid of any racist connotation, whatsoever though without an alternative basis, such as behavior? Care to give an example?
Can you describe the word n*gger in a non-racist context?
Yeah, but after doing so, you said:
"aside from what the man did to be called such."
Which is exactly what I was talking about! The behavior!
We have differing views on what the word *itself* means when applied by ourselves, or others. For me, it was one which basically represented a poorly-behaving or unacceptably rude, low-class black; for you, it has to do with an insult toward the skin-color first. That`s what makes discussions like this so interesting, and important today: no one wants to explore the roots of their outrage, anymore than *true* racists wish to plumb the depths of their hate; and perhaps with enough dialogue on the issue, we can finally achieve a more widespread awareness of the Golden Rule you laid-out below:
"Racism is a system of beliefs, not words."
Not at all. I`m referring to the word itself, not the behavior that induced it to be used as an insult against an individual. Get a grip, huh?
"Yeah, that`s exactly what n*ggers need to `fecking` get over in this country, eh Kelly?"
Your words, not mine. Care to paint yourself as a bigot some more?
Racism is in fact a system of beliefs and not merely a system of insults. You telling me you believe that last part?
Isn`t that as much of an oxymoron as I was worried my juxtoposition of "astronomical" and "microscopic" would be?
"Racism is a system of beliefs, not words."
Yeah, that`s exactly what n*ggers need to `fecking` get over in this country, eh Kelly?
Feck off, one-star.
"...it`s more of an obscenity against them as an individual in LIGHT of their group..."
Exactly. It refers to their skin color but is used as an insult to them personally. The word itself has nothing to do with their behavior, as you would imply, aside from what the man did to be called such.
Because of this, the word does not automatically imply someone is racist for using it. Racism is a system of beliefs, not words.
"I made this post earlier but it didn`t show up for some reason. Browser error or something."
I was wondering where you were!
That has simply been the default conception of it for me and everybody I know, except members of the KKK. Like calling a Mexican a cholo because the act like some kinda Wab gangster piece of sh*t, or a wetback for those who don`t have the basic respect to come here legally and can`t learn our language but expect free Medicare. It`s all based on the behavior of the individual, and this one word basically combines their group identity with their individual behavior; it`s more of an obscenity against them as an individual in LIGHT of their group, rather than as a statement against the group itself. The Italian slur Mulingani, which I grew up with, actually means "low-class black.
"To say that this word is never used to reflect a poor COMPONENT of the black race, rather than the race itself, is categorically irresponsible."
Categorically irresponsible? Can`t you just say politically incorrect?
When someone calls a black person a n*gger, they are surely addressing (speaking to) that one person. Duh. But the word n*gger refers to a black person by the color of his skin, implying that anyone with that skin color can be a n*gger. N*gger is just an obscene, derogatory name for negro, and as any black person can be considered a negro, so too can the insult n*gger be applied to any black person. The color of their skin is what the insult refers to, not some behavioral or personal factors. Who taught you otherwise, Suicism?
it isn`t as astronomic is an adverb to microscopic, meaning it`s astronomically whatever. In this case, small
-From the Jesse Jacksons of the world who wish to keep racism alive, so they can continue making a living off of it.-
I`d imagine it`s every person who believes fervently in black brotherhood that is at issue. Where every one with dark pigment is a freind for life, every whitie is a stranger.
As I mentioned: " it seems this very reaction IS actually instinctive to blacks, and minorities in general..."
`Socially` instinctive (and perhaps racially, we haven`t studied that yet or isolated the "defensive" or "entitlement" genes) is the qualifier I was presuming, for the exact reasons you mentioned above.
Well, they could except (as you know) downsyndrome is technically a genetic mutation (the absence of 1 essential chromosome. People can find any basis by which to seperate eachother, such as height or nose-shape as you mentioned, and more general classifications of race may be one of them. However, I think it`s an interesting study, and as tribal animals it`s no surprise to me. If you were to look back at the ancient migrations of earlier hominids, you`d see this type of pattern among breeding populations, and even in current primates: smell differentiations, mating signals (such as the bonobo chimp female`s flaming ass), and even aggression patterns pave the way for these breeding populations. (not finished...)
Yes, but blacks have something physically differentiating them, so they can be more effective in there racist views. If you`ve ever seen National Security, you can`t help but feel sick as no one says anything and it was a major hollywood movie, yet is the most horrifically racist movie I`ve seen in a while.
So basically you`ve given up?
Well, if I might continue Sucism-Though years of selective breeding required to create the skin pigment gene may have also created certian associated genetic similarities, I see no need to cement these merely genetic and cosmetic difference as a valid foundation for another "race".I mean, do people with downs syndrome get to be there own race?
I understand in the past the skin color was grounds for division, but like in Rwanada it is an entirely social creation (the tutsi where slightly taller, smaller-nosed hutu). I see no reason to continue it, and think "black" ness should stop being a qualifer in who you are (I.E.- black culture, black hip-hop)
No, and since you`re misconstruing everything I say I`d rather not explain myself to you anymore. I`ve made my points, they`re valid. Enjoy.
So you`re saying, if I go wrap a leash around someone else`s neck, and use them for exploitative purposes without their consent, they suddenly become another race? There is no biological basis whatsoever, for how the dominant/submissive groups are determined within the sphere of this "social construct?"
"If you think that race is real then you agree there must be a better one and that certain races should remain subordinate groups while others shouldn`t."
That is an unfair assumption, and you`ve provided no proof for why this is necessitated by recognizing race as something outside of a mere "social" phenomena; also, define the characteristics of "better" that accompany this assumption, and their basis; then, why segregation or limited integration are not as viable of options.
But, alas, all we have is what he said and has now apologized for. Does he really think the guy should shut up before he strings him up? Does he really think he doesn`t deserve to see the show because "He`s a N*gger!"? We`ll never know because when it comes right down to it, we can`t assume someone is racist until they tell us they`re racist.
What do you think he would have said if it was a white guy?
Do you think he would have called him `honkey` or `cracker` since those are on such equal terms with `n*gger`?
In various videos I saw studies where people would analyze sections of their DNA and compare them to the same sections of other students DNA and they were nearly identical. They also did DNA tests for chimps and fruit flies and their DNA was more varied, even though their physical attributes were nearly identical.
The concept of race stems from the dominant groups`s need for control of the subordinant group for a stable society (fucntionalist theory). So basically they have to look for reasons as to why the subordinate group should remain a subordinate group. If you think that race is real then you agree there must be a better one and that certain races should remain subordinate groups while others shouldn`t.
To say that this word is never used to reflect a poor COMPONENT of the black race, rather than the race itself, is categorically irresponsible. I`ve used it in this context, as has everybody I`ve ever known who does not consider all blacks to be deserving of this description; just the ones who act like it! Hence the justification, "I don`t believe all blacks are n*ggers; it just so happens that all n*ggers are black." Tell me you`ve never heard that before?
I looved you rational dialectic
Get used to it. Eventually you`ll be able to see through all the prententious bullsh*t; at least you can hope so.
Using the term n*gger is an insult, I`m glad you agree with that part. And this insult was directed at only one INDIVIDUAL (as you put it), which I`m glad you also agree with. However, the word n*gger in its racist context is a universal put-down and does not mean the person it is applied to is a bad example of his race. It means all people of the race the man is representing are bad, not just him.
Now, Kramer`s use of the word does not necessarily mean he shares these views or that he used it in a racist context: he was just trying to offend the guy who offended him, and n*gger was the first word that came to his mind because the man`s race is apparent. That`s all there is to it.
"Etymology: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger;"
From Merriam-Webster`s on-line dictionary.
Anyhow, some people say the dumbest things at the worst times (you know that guy). Richards is not necessarily racist, he`s one of those guys.
So, in a way, it is both a myth and a fact.
The idea of race, as in a superior and inferior ones, is a social construct. Wanna know where Hitler got his ideas about creating a super race of white people from?
Hint: It`s closer to home than you would think.
Also, Suicism, your ideas are interesting but your writing style is hard to follow. I would like to hear more of what you have to say but I would like to read it in a way I can actually follow it.
And sure n*gger refers to the black man`s skin color, but by calling him such, does Kramer think every black person is inferior, or just his heckler, who happened to be black?
If we are going to be so eager as to associate a man with as damaging a term as racist (both professionally and personally damaging), I feel we should be cautious and fair and investigate what actually constitutes being racist.
This is a requirement for the insult to be applicable, like fat drat is applied to fat people, c*nt apllies to women (which although offensive is not sexist)
-The fact is that, yes, the n-word is a derogatory term for black people and Richards was right to apologize. I can`t believe I`m explaining something this obvious.-
Your not understanding the difference between racism, and merely being descriptive of black-people. Merely being of a specific racial instance does not make a profanity racist. I seriously doubt when Richards said "n*gger" he also meant to say "blacks as a race are inferior to other races"
As for it being obvious, never trust that. The emperor got pretty far into town before someone yelled out that he was naked (if you catch my allusion)
I don`t really think it`s offensive, but that could just be because I think racism is hilarious considering race is a completely social construct.
ETYMOLOGY:Alteration of dialectal neger, black person, from French nègre, from Spanish negro ; see Negro
So yes, I`d say the term is inherently racist, not to mention offensive no matter the person whom you`re labeling.
And I bet you could get 40 million people who think ignorant means rude, popularity supports nothing. Does n*gger specifically carry a racist context, in that it judges blacks as a race as inferior by it`s very usage? Otherwise I don`t think you can be racist to individuals
Way to misunderstand what someone was saying. We`re not "racist-apologists" as you so kindly put it. We`re basically saying that a black guy calling a white guy a cracker is just as racist as the white guy calling the black guy I am a racist!. One is just more acceptable in our society based solely on white guilt.
And yes, he was a big man to say sorry like that on national television, but I still find it hard to let him off the hook.
Between the lynching comment and "He`s a nygger," I can safely say that I`ve seen more than I ever care to see of Michael Richards ever again.
We can forgive, but we`ll never forget.
you mess with the bull, you get the horns. im pretty sure you dont get special treatment just becuase the bull has more power than you.
Bull, you don`t even understand the term racism, you`ve just heard it applied to saying n*gger. It isn`t, and racism has dick all to do with how you say it. I could say "No, please sit Ma`am, I`ll get your groceries, blacks have frail bones as we all know. Would you like anything else?" is STILL racist
I personally think it was very kind of Jerry Seinfield to give his friend a chance to apologize and very gracious of David Letterman to let them do it. I also feel sorry for Michael Richard and how cruddy the media has been towards him. I also feel sorry for the people he flipped out on. All in all, it has been a poorly handled happening, and I hope no more will be said of it and people can move on.
Anyway, I don`t think I`ll ever be able to watch Seinfeld and feel the same again. I don`t understand why people in the audience would laugh....Things like this make me lose hope in the world.
Anyone else fearing for his future?
That was just to illustrate the stupidity of the people here. If someone was to say that at a comedy club, you would all agree that it was harsh and uncalled for. However, because the stupid Seinfeld reject said something equally offensive about black people, people use the stupid Chris Rock defense and say that if Chris Rock said cracker nobody would care. The issue isn`t the words used, it`s how he used them. If what he said was funny fairplay, but it wasn`t funny and was just him screaming about "I am a racist!s" and how funny it is that black people got lynched.
I`m sure Jerry is well aware that this outburst from Richards has the potential to make a major dent in the sales figures.
It makes you wonder just how much Jerry wanted him on the show for Richard`s sake or for the sake of the Seinfeld franchise.
Simply put, we have horrid double standards in this country.
Look it up.
There was a court case back in the days of early slave liberation where 2 white men were convicted of hanging a black girl with little or no evidence showing that they did actually hang her. Fast foreward, OJ Simpson, despite a wealth of DNA evidence against him, gets off on a racism plea.
We`ve sure come a long way as a society.
and who f`n cares?
And yes, if Chris Rock said something like that, it would be funny. Why? Because it isn`t the white people who are vulnerable due to being a minority. It is always the majority who need to be careful about what they say and do regarding how it affects a minority - it`s called having some responsibility. Deal with it!
All the ones except I am a racist! don`t get censored, and there you have the problem.
CrackerHonkeyI am a racist!KikeWopDegoChinkGookNipJapRagheadCamel JockeyFag
Which ones get censored...
I think the fact that people can`t get over race is the real problem in this situation.
Do you think that if it was a black comedian and a white heckler, that the heckler being called "honkey" or "cracker", would it be as big of a deal?