Part of being Privileged is not having to think about being Privileged

[Shadow Wolf]

Very astute. Slavery, whatever. Calling white people crackers, HO BOY, now that's a problem!

But they are both derogative terms, so why use them? The permission of racial slurs shouldn't be viewed as "no-bigy" it's saying it's ok to use terms of degradation to one another, and it's pretty much saying "because of the past and because society stacks the cards against black people so heavily that we'll let them say a few racial slurs." It's also of concern to racist who do see it as that big of a deal and which only reinforces their views of the world. It doesn't matter who can play the superior victim card, it's the fact that it's saying it's ok if one group uses racial slurs, but not ok if another does. Why not just view as not being ok if any group uses them?

 

[Alceste]

To be fair, it is derogatory, though I find it minor in comparison to bigger problems of cultural and institutional racism and discrimination.

Probably on the same lines as somebody calling me a whore, and calling a male a "man-whore." Both are derogatory, but one calls my sexual history as a woman into question if I'm put on trial, looking for a job, or being considered for child custody or adoption.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at. The words themselves are inconsequential - it's all about the real world damage you can do to others by discriminating against them, and the fact that certain words conjure up images of horrific acts of abuse and oppression. N***** evokes images of lynchings that were still going on in pockets of the US until 1981. **** evokes images of gang rape and social shaming.

Cracker evokes crackers. You know it's true.

I agree with this statement. One double standard I would agree with in that video, however, is the one about people saying majority white areas need more diversity, but not really saying the same for majority black (or any other ethnic group) areas. For example, it's very rare that you hear someone say Detroit is not a very diverse city, even though the population of Detroit is over 80% African-American.

Who in their right mind would want to live in Detroit??

But they are both derogative terms, so why use them? The permission of racial slurs shouldn't be viewed as "no-bigy" it's saying it's ok to use terms of degradation to one another, and it's pretty much saying "because of the past and because society stacks the cards against black people so heavily that we'll let them say a few racial slurs." It's also of concern to racist who do see it as that big of a deal and which only reinforces their views of the world. It doesn't matter who can play the superior victim card, it's the fact that it's saying it's ok if one group uses racial slurs, but not ok if another does. Why not just view as not being ok if any group uses them?

I'm a language skeptic. I view words as clumsy tools for attempting to communicate very complex and sophisticated insights and feelings. I can't just crack open a dictionary and see that ****** is a derogatory term for black people and cracker is a derogatory term for white people and call it a day. I have to consider what complex thoughts and feelings those words are attempting to communicate. The bottom line is that being ****** off that your grandparents were enslaved is not the same feeling as being ****** off your grandparents weren't allowed to keep their slaves. It's night and day. Different sentiments entirely. Therefore, to me, the words don't mean the same thing. They don't have the same moral weight. They don't have the same emotional impact. They don't have the same social or economic power.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I concur. Intent is dang near everything.
We shouldn't excuse racism by those who see themselves as a victim class.
Politicians like Charles Rangel should not so easily get away with inciting racial hatred.
Charles Rangel rants about ‘white crackers’ in connection with Tea Party - NYPOST.com

I disagree. Racism is about outcome at least as much as intent, and probably a lot more. If I "accidentally" make a racist comment, the fact that I did so out of negligence in no way excuses or even softens my actions. That is, functionally speaking, there is no difference in outcome between killing a person via intent or negligence. The person is still dead, and it in no way comforts the surviving family that the death was simply due to negligence than murder.

That's why cultural sensitivity classes often focus on bringing one's own negligence of racial matters to the surface. Having gone through it in the past, I know it can be a highly unpleasant process. But afterwards, if you let it take its course, your eyes are opened to truths that you had been blinded to all this time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. Racism is about outcome at least as much as intent, and probably a lot more. If I "accidentally" make a racist comment, the fact that I did so out of negligence in no way excuses or even softens my actions. That is, functionally speaking, there is no difference in outcome between killing a person via intent or negligence. The person is still dead, and it in no way comforts the surviving family that the death was simply due to negligence than murder.

The introduction of death is a red herring.
Intent is important because words expressed with hatred & denigration have the most heinous effect.
The same words expressed to one's fellows with a spirit of camaraderie are quite benign.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what Rangel said. Just calling it how he (and the majority of the minority population) sees it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what Rangel said. Just calling it how he (and the majority of the minority population) sees it.

Of course, some people can't call it how they see it because their racism is not PC.
Rangel's racism & hatred is socially acceptable.

 

[Poeticus]

Rangel's racism & hatred is socially acceptable.

Namaste,

Woah, for real??

M.V.

 

[Revoltingest]

Namaste,
Woah, for real??
M.V.

As we see in this thread, many defend such language toward white folk, with the
rational being that racism towards black folk is worse, & that it doesn't bother them.
Of course, this isn't acceptable to all, despite the media generally tolerating it.

 

[Poeticus]

As we see in this thread, many defend such language toward white folk, with the
rational being that racism towards black folk is worse, & that it doesn't bother them.
Of course, this isn't acceptable to all, despite the media generally tolerating it.

Namaste,

The media is very anti-white.

M.V.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Of course, some people can't call it how they see it because their racism is not PC.
Rangel's racism & hatred is socially acceptable.

People that are scared to share their views on a certain demographic because they want to be PC are racist. I have less respect for them than I do the redneck crackers.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree. Racism is about outcome at least as much as intent, and probably a lot more. If I "accidentally" make a racist comment, the fact that I did so out of negligence in no way excuses or even softens my actions. That is, functionally speaking, there is no difference in outcome between killing a person via intent or negligence. The person is still dead, and it in no way comforts the surviving family that the death was simply due to negligence than murder.

That's why cultural sensitivity classes often focus on bringing one's own negligence of racial matters to the surface. Having gone through it in the past, I know it can be a highly unpleasant process. But afterwards, if you let it take its course, your eyes are opened to truths that you had been blinded to all this time.

I think I might need insensitivity training.

As we see in this thread, many defend such language toward white folk, with the
rational being that racism towards black folk is worse, & that it doesn't bother them.
Of course, this isn't acceptable to all, despite the media generally tolerating it.

Who's defending it? We're all just saying it's an incredibly silly thing to be concerned about, compared to racism against black people. Who cares if disenfranchised minorities are bitter about white people and white privilege? Have you ever been denied any opportunity or experienced any hardship whatsoever in your life on account of coming up against a racist black person who calls white people "crackers"? What about your parents? Your grandparents?

Apples and oranges, my contrarian friend.

 

[Poeticus]

People that are scared to share their views on a certain demographic because they want to be PC are racist. I have less respect for them than I do the redneck crackers.

Namaste,

For some reason, I respect the Neo-Nazis at Stormfront more than the uber PC left-wing and I am not even white....I am brown as it gets.....

M.V.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The introduction of death is a red herring.
Intent is important because words expressed with hatred & denigration have the most heinous effect.
The same words expressed to one's fellows with a spirit of camaraderie are quite benign.

No, I disagree. If you don't like the death analogy, I can change it into another one. Say somebody accidentally burns another person's hand on the stove. Does the fact that it was an accident reduce the pain in any way? So it is with racism.

 

[Poeticus]

Who cares if disenfranchised minorities are bitter about white people and white privilege?

Namaste,

That's messed up, dawg...

M.V.

 

[Revoltingest]

People that are scared to share their views on a certain demographic because they want to be PC are racist. I have less respect for them than I do the redneck crackers.

If it's acceptable to refer to "redneck crackers", then is it acceptable for me to call black folk "moon crickets" & "boot lips"? Or is that impermissible because they're top dog in the minority victim hierarchy? Then perhaps lesser minorities are fair game, eg, Hispanics are "beaners" & "wetbacks", Asians are "slant eyes" & "gooks". To argue that racist name calling is OK for some groups but not for others strikes me as convenient justification for one's own bigotry.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I disagree. If you don't like the death analogy, I can change it into another one. Say somebody accidentally burns another person's hand on the stove. Does the fact that it was an accident reduce the pain in any way? So it is with racism.

There should be a licensing requirement for posting analogies.

 

[Poeticus]

"gooks"

Namaste,

Woah, that word wasn't censored out by the censoring thingy at RF? Dear Staff, that word is as worse as the N word....intriguing it wasn't censored out...

American soldiers in Vietnam would talk about raping "G***" women as a pastime....the word has a horrible history associated with it...

M.V.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who's defending it?

You appear to be defending racism, so long as it's racism you find acceptable.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Namaste,

For some reason, I respect the Neo-Nazis at Stormfront more than the uber PC left-wing..

M.V.

Me too. At least they're honest. A Neo-nazi will tell a minority to **** off. A PC liberal will smile and wave, while clutching their purse extra tight and not making any sudden movements. Also, I find PC language to be condescending and offensive, more so than hate speech. Why are we supposed to call midgets "dwarves"? If I was a midget, I wouldn't want someone to call me a mythical creature. And absolutely nothing is more condescending than calling handicapped people "handi-capable"... Ugh...

 

[Revoltingest]

Namaste,
Woah, that word wasn't censored out by the censoring thingy at RF? Dear Staff, that word is as worse as the N word....intriguing it wasn't censored out...
American soldiers in Vietnam would talk about raping "G***" women as a pastime....the word has a horrible history associated with it...
M.V.

It can be difficult to discuss offensive words. Some are prohibited, & some aren't. But if posters want to argue that some racist epithets are acceptable because they're de minimis, then I'm curious about how they define the boundaries of acceptability.