Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Again, disrespecting/demeaning someone based on their skin color is either wrong or it isn't. Perceptions of "privilege" don't justify racial prejudice.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Part of being Privileged is not having to think about being Privileged
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Again, disrespecting/demeaning someone based on their skin color is either wrong or it isn't. Perceptions of "privilege" don't justify racial prejudice.
It seems that when you bring up this point repeatedly, somewhat unrelated counter-points are offered. I wonder if they really disagree with you, & are unwilling to directly admit it. Or is it something else?
Btw, your clown avatar is really creepy.
Yes, I have anti-clown prejudice.
Meh, I thought I gave an example of how wrong it is. You'd like to equate the two, and I asked how the usage culturally and historically are equated. How are they equated? Can you elaborate beyond a simplistic, "It's just wrong?"
Did I miss a critical post?
I didn't see him equate any derogatory terms.
Perhaps one of my notorious annoying analogy is needed.
To steal $1000 from Bill Gates is wrong.
To steal $1000 from a struggling poor family is wrong.
These crimes are not equivalent.
But I will say that both crimes are wrong.
Me Myself
Back to my username
They are both racial slur that discriminate a person by the color of the skin. He didn't say theya re exactly the ame, he said they would just both be wrong (if I got him correctly)
Do you think sometimes that is okay?
Its an honest question by the way. I find the whole topic a curious language thing. Differentiating someone based on the color of hir skin is not inherently bad IMHO it would have to do with the intention and that's all.
I got the impression that "honky", "cracker", and the n-word are all equally derogatory. Saying that they're simply derogatory, or they're not. I got the idea that nuances don't exist when it comes to racial slurs. I disagree.
The difference is that I don't see discrimination from "honky" or "cracker", but just that they are derogatory. I also explained my position more than once as to how I differentiate the two, and others have explained as well the differences between the two.
I get (or used to...until I mocked it) the "false equivalency" charge in such circumstances.
Sometimes more is read into a post than is there.
Hence, my first response I asked for clarification. But I have yet to have a more elaborate description of why it's just as bad for blacks to call white people "honky" or "cracker." I stated it's derogatory, but historically the usage has not been the same when it comes to privilege and class discrimination. I was then asked to clarify my own definition of how the two are differentiated, followed by a response saying that racial slurs are just plain wrong...period.
So, I'm still waiting for clarification on if the two instances are equivalent or how they are differentiated. If they are considered in the same camp, I have to say I disagree with that position.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
They're both racial slurs. What more do you need? Is disparaging others based on the color of their skin acceptable or is it not? I don't understand what you're struggling with here.
I've never said anything was "just wrong". Surely you're not asking me to explain why bigotry is wrong? What is there to elaborate on? You're the one who insists that perceptions regarding "privilege" justify racial prejudice, even after we've established that they were irrelevant.
I can't speak for others, but such racial terms when used to deride or abuse someone become bigotry. I consider it wrong, independent of worse terms being applied to others. How different or similar are they to other terms? That's an interesting topic, but is too often used to justify bigotry in the group with superior victim cred.
Other terms are less severe than the "N" word, eg, ****, bit**, polack, bohunk, hillbilly.
Yet we wouldn't condone using these words in an abusive fashion.
Last edited:
Me Myself
Back to my username
I do agree.
That's correct.
Alceste
Vagabond
The discrimination kicks in when you can't get a bank loan, or rent an apartment, or get a job, because a member of the privileged class that holds the power and authority to decide who gets access to resources doesn't do business with n*****s. It's not the word, it's the culture it stems from. When "honkies" and "crackers" face those kinds of real world consequences because of racist black people, let me know. Then I'll acknowledge that the terms have a similar moral weight.
No need to apologize.
I intended whimsy.
You would not know, from some portions of this thread, that racism in America has changed millions of lives for the worse, and even ruined some of those lives, and even helped unfairly end some of them ----- but at the same time, you would not be able to miss in those same portions of this thread how important it is that people are calling each other names.
Alceste
Vagabond
Very astute. Slavery, whatever. Calling white people crackers, HO BOY, now that's a problem!