Mexicans are Dumb and Will Destroy America?

[zippy2006]

Racial slurs do not exist in jest!

Trad thinks racial slurs are sins. You don't:

I don't think racial slurs are sins.

(I've made this point at least 3 times now)

 

[mighty_duck]

I see Trad make a relatively small mistake (which he has now fully admitted is a mistake and has said he will no longer make it).

Maybe I missed it, but where has he said he will no longer use the n-word, even in jest or in private?

 

[bybee]

Trad thinks racial slurs are sins. You don't:



(I've made this point at least 3 times now)

You continue to try making a point in abstraction. The point is,
in practice, racial slurs are always insulting.

 

[zippy2006]

Maybe I missed it, but where has he said he will no longer use the n-word, even in jest or in private?

He made an argument that it is a venial sin here. Here he says that he should stop committing the sin. I guess I take that to mean he has determined to stop using the word in private.

That satisfies me, not only because he said he should stop, but because he is a good Catholic and understands his action to be a sin (which means that it is something he will try to stop). But for the secular onlooker, maybe a more direct rejection of the practice would be helpful? :think:

You continue to try making a point in abstraction. The point is,
in practice, racial slurs are always insulting.

No, I don't consider sin an abstraction. Neither does Trad. My point is just fine the way it is.

 

[Granite]

Granite, this is a long conversation that I think you are reading out of context.

You didn't answer my question.

1. Trad admits he uses the n-word in private with friends and says it is a problem, but not a grave problem (he will eventually say it is a venial but not a mortal sin)

I consider it a problem and a reflection on whatever character he has.

2. Everyone piles on as if such an act is the filthiest of racist acts

It is filthy. It's reprehensible, indefensible, and not at all amusing.

3. I defend Trad's point: it is a significant problem but it is very small compared to true racist use of the word

And I'd counter that use of the word is often inherently racist. It's next to impossible for any white person to use it otherwise. In an academic setting, maybe. From a linguistic standpoint, sure. But what kind of white person casually uses this word and thinks it's funny?

This is part of Trad's long-standing race-baiting shtick, and for you to indulge him is disappointing to say the least.

Given the charged, vile, and deeply disturbing history of the word to use it in jest speaks to extremely poor judgment and taste at best and a contempt for an entire race at worst.

"I was only joking" has never cut ice in anyone's book, including your own.

 

[Rusha]

This is part of Trad's long-standing race-baiting shtick,

Yep ... as soon as I realized the author of this OP was Traditio, I knew it would be some type of lame excuses to explain his race baiting tendencies.

and for you to indulge him is disappointing to say the least.

Given the charged, vile, and deeply disturbing history of the word to use it in jest speaks to extremely poor judgment and taste at best and a contempt for an entire race at worst.

"I was only joking" has never cut ice in anyone's book, including your own.

^ That pretty much covers it. Not entirely certain if this is just a case of defending one of his own, but that seems the only plausible explanation.

 

[zippy2006]

You didn't answer my question.

I don't answer loaded questions.

1. Trad admits he uses the n-word in private with friends and says it is a problem, but not a grave problem (he will eventually say it is a venial but not a mortal sin)

I consider it a problem and a reflection on whatever character he has.

Then you agree with Trad.

2. Everyone piles on as if such an act is the filthiest of racist acts

It is filthy. It's reprehensible, indefensible, and not at all amusing.

Sure. :idunno: I noticed you didn't say it is the filthiest of racist acts.

And I'd counter that use of the word is often inherently racist. It's next to impossible for any white person to use it otherwise. In an academic setting, maybe. From a linguistic standpoint, sure. But what kind of white person casually uses this word and thinks it's funny?

Like I said, I have a friend who did the same thing. Dave Chapelle, Blazing Saddles, and other venues paved the way for such humor.

Given the charged, vile, and deeply disturbing history of the word to use it in jest speaks to extremely poor judgment and taste at best and a contempt for an entire race at worst.

Sure. I'd call it poor judgment, and I think if you read the thread carefully you'll be forced to the same conclusion.

"I was only joking" has never cut ice in anyone's book, including your own.

Shock value is all the rage in some circles, believe it or not.

^ That pretty much covers it. Not entirely certain if this is just a case of defending one of his own, but that seems the only plausible explanation.

But we won't find you actually arguing that position persuasively. We just get hit-and-run attacks that you are unable to substantiate. Psychological tarot readings the the like. What a joy.

 

[Granite]

I don't answer loaded questions.

Or questions you just don't want to answer.

Then you agree with Trad.

As a reflection on his rotten, immature, and generally contemptible character, sure. You bet.

I noticed you didn't say it is the filthiest of racist acts.

With all due respect, how in the world would anyone here define this? Is there some kind of Aristocratsesque racist act out there I just haven't heard of? What does an asinine phrase like this even mean?

Dave Chapelle, Blazing Saddles, and other venues paved the way for such humor.

For one thing, I said white people. For another, TH has already pointed out (correctly) that use of this word among blacks is nowhere near universal and is a subject of intense discussion and controversy. For another, Richard Pryor would probably pistolwhip you right now if he could.:chuckle:

Shock value is all the rage in some circles, believe it or not.

Whether or not it's appropriate for whites to use this word in the name of "shock" is kind of what's at issue here.

 

[mighty_duck]

He made an argument that it is a venial sin here. Here he says that he should stop committing the sin. I guess I take that to mean he has determined to stop using the word in private.

That satisfies me, not only because he said he should stop, but because he is a good Catholic and understands his action to be a sin (which means that it is something he will try to stop). But for the secular onlooker, maybe a more direct rejection of the practice would be helpful? :think:

He followed up the claim that he "should" stop using it with one of these I dunno's :idunno:. You are easily satisfied, Zippy .

He also qualified that it is only a venial sin and only in certain cases. That sounds more like excuses to justify the continued use of "amusing" racial slurs.

 

[The Berean]

For one thing, I said white people. For another, TH has already pointed out (correctly) that use of this word among blacks is nowhere near universal and is a subject of intense discussion and controversy. For another, Richard Pryor would probably pistolwhip you right now if he could.:chuckle:

Along with Paul Mooney! :rotfl:

 

[resurrected]

you traditio are an intellectual idiot
and
thank you squeaky for that expression

as long as you remember that Squeaky's defense of that phrase was that it meant "scripturally ignorant"

Town Heretic, I can grant you the historical/public meaning of the term, but your point doesn't follow. Consider the following three cases:

1. Your hat is on fire, and I wish to bring this fact to your attention: "Your hat is on fire!"

2. Your hat is not on fire. I wish to make you momentarily think that your hat is on fire, fully aware that you'll discover this fact very quickly. It's a joke: "Your hat is on fire!" This is a venial sin.

3. Your hat is not on fire. There is a very poisonous spider on your hat, and I want you to reach up so that the spider will bite you, and you will die: "Your hat is on fire!" This is a mortal sin.

Note that in all three cases, the sentences have the same public sense/meaning.

Trad - your hat is on fire

All of this is Ivory Tower nonsense and lawyerly speak! The plain fact is you are quilty of conduct unbecoming to a gentleman.
Your manners are absent!
I suppose you still guffaw with loud heartiness whenever someone passes wind?
When you grow up it is your manners that will largely determine where you fit socially.
For now, you barely qualify for the sand box!

He's a college student living in a dorm room/apartment complex with other young men.

Clamp a lid on your fussy old church lady act.





town demonstrates his total blindness to his own racism:

.... that minority community and you aren't a part of it. Your use, as a member of the race....

bybee notes:

Racial slurs do not exist in jest!

Granite demonstrates:

I'm sure you're equally disgusted with the redneck white trash lifestyle glorified by so much C&W.

bybee remains silent in the face of Granite's slur against white people.

You continue to try making a point in abstraction. The point is,
in practice, racial slurs are always insulting.

nonsense

I consider it a problem and a reflection on whatever character he has.

Well then, by all means, feel free to cry yourself to sleep over it.

Wahhhh! :baby:

Trad said something that I find offensive!

How on earth did this site get populated by so many oversensitive whiny crybabies?

 

[resurrected]

... Richard Pryor would probably pistolwhip you right now if he could.:chuckle:

Riiiight


because everybody knows how violent those black folk get




racist

 

[Town Heretic]

Even at this point you've conceded the point.

No, I haven't, but that's a novel way to attempt to win one.

If it doesn't do so in every case, then merely citing "origins" is not a sufficient argument.

Wrong in conclusion and less than full in premise. I didn't merely cite its origin. I've noted the continuation of the word in its insulting, degrading sense (see: my comment on this not being about the evolution of a word) outside a sliver of a minority where even that is contested WITHIN the minority, of which Trad isn't a member.

This is a completely different argument than origins, it is "common usage" as I noted in my last. This runs up against my Sally example.

I've addressed the present as well as the past and noted the uncomfortable and actual parallels much closer to the heart of this.

It is that kind of word.

No, it isn't. It isn't even close compared to the words I listed. Google Sally and see how long it takes you to even find the association.

Sally is used against the effeminate to degrade them, to separate them in a negative.

No, fag is used to degrade, is the word you'd hear before the punch were you the object of it.

Both cases are analogous and fulfill the first condition. If Trad can't use the n-word without evil intention, then you can't use Sally without evil intention.

I can't even make Sally come up the way you frame it by Googling "Sally as effeminate slur". I've used Agnes and have heard Nancy or Nancy boy used much more often to infer a less masculine position/notion being held. I bring up Nancy Boy as just such a thing. But, again, the word you're looking for that is offered by the same mindset and in the same way is fag.

It's an analogy, and it proves my point.

It really doesn't. Nancy has never been a term engineered, created to do what the word we're discussing does. It's a woman's name utilized frequently without a hint of the undertone and none of the history and association with violent and malevolent behavior that the n-word carries.

Sally draws its strength from that sort of denigration.

It doesn't. Fag does. But I don't use fag so you can't find purchase.

For the fourth time: Trad gave a much better argument.

No, he didn't, to match you. Also, if you're going to begin a discourse acting as though repetition were problematic you have a problem in your methodology.

:chuckle: Where in the world have I said anything of the like?

You wrote: "Origin isn't a very good argument, nor is common usage in itself."

My response is noting that that nothing substantive has changed. Both the original point and the current common usage have as their aim the same aim/end.

Origin isn't a very good argument, nor is common usage in itself. Are we already at the point of blatant misrepresentation? :sigh:

I've never blatantly or intentionally misrepresented you or anyone else in argument.

You've already implicitly accepted that origins fails,

No, I've noted that the word in function remains unaltered with the aforementioned exception. Now you may well walk about your regular life using that sort of expression because you find it hysterically funny and think there's no harm in it, but your intent doesn't begin to approach the impact, both upon the object and among those you may encourage in a more malevolent understanding. What we say in private to our friends they carry with them. Or, as I noted with Trad, it becomes a part of our witness. It speaks to the condition of our heart and value.

and now you're running with common usage, which isn't faring very well either.

They've never been separate really, given the understanding and usage remains in play. But speaking of misrepresentation, here's my first in this thread to Trad. Take note that I speak to both the foundation of the word and its current application.

Lots of Southern, white men don't use the word and you wouldn't use it in my circles more than the once and remain there...Because it's an emblem of anger and ignorance and you say you aren't angry and I don't believe you'd celebrate ignorance.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm sure you're equally disgusted with the redneck white trash lifestyle glorified by so much C&W.

Of course, because it certainly cannot be that i have experience in fact quite a bit being that i have loads of family members in small towns where most are so poor they can hardly rub 2 nickels together and their towns crime issues happened AFTER inviting hurricane katrina refugees to their towns and then those people invited their thug familes from large cities all over america because attacking the "redneck yahoos" is a breeze since they once actually trusted people.

Funny but one of them was named the safest city in the state BEFORE the "refugees" came and invited their looting theiving raping and home invading thugs there. Now its one of the highest crime towns in the state. (Thank you so much for returning evil for hospitality)

I am guessing that my innocent son shot too (guessing according to police) by a couple thugs while driving on the freeway through a predominately black area of town where that sort thing apparantly happens "all the time" and the detective said it was "thugville" anyway there.

Are there redneck white trash? yep - but nothing like what i have seen personally in the last few years coming from the black thugs and wanna be thugs who celebrate being thugs and even try to out thug and fail one another, proud of their arrest records at that..

The worst i ever saw in those towns from the "white trash" was a purse stolen out of a car now and then, bad check writing, and petty theft to score drugs, and meth use.

They (pre thug townspeople) used to all leave their doors unlocked and my aunt used to leave her car keys in the ignition of her car, nothing ever happened.

And yes before you ask, a couple towns i am talking about used to be Lilly white (around 95 percent except at harvest time when migrant mexican workers come every year) - but dirt poor and mostly farmers - completely rural. Katrina changed that right up.

So would i rather walk down the street in a neighborhood filled with 'white trash' in small town or thugville? I think you know the answer already.

I had bottles thrown at my car in downtown detroit in thugville before and carjackers try to get in my car (yes officer i ran that red light) when unfortunately i had to get off the freeway because of construction season in a detour, seems they would pick better a better neighborhood for those - but then most of detroit is a wasteland....

So my experience is that i would rather be in a rural neighborhood with run down homes and "white trash' as you call it, because for some reason, they didnt get the message that poverty is what causes all that crime.

Amazing huh.

 

[Town Heretic]

...
town demonstrates his total blindness to his own racism:

Nope, to match the effort.

To do more than you're likely to: noting that within the black community there is discourse on the use of the word and how to address its historical power and that Trad isn't a part of that discussion and community isn't racist.

 

[Granite]

Of course, because it certainly cannot be that i have experience in fact quite a bit being that i have loads of family members in small towns where most are so poor they can hardly rub 2 nickels together and their towns crime issues happened AFTER inviting hurricane katrina refugees to their towns and then those people invited their thug familes from large cities all over america because attacking the "redneck yahoos" is a breeze since they once actually trusted people.

Were these refugees predominantly of one color, by any chance?

Funny but one of them was named the safest city in the state BEFORE the "refugees" came and invited their looting theiving raping and home invading thugs there. Now its one of the highest crime towns in the state. (Thank you so much for returning evil for hospitality)

Right. It's Their fault. Always seems to be Their fault, because it's the only thing They do.

I am guessing that my innocent son shot too (guessing according to police) by a couple thugs while driving on the freeway through a predominately black area of town where that sort thing apparantly happens "all the time" and the detective said it was "thugville" anyway there.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Are there redneck white trash? yep - but nothing like what i have seen personally in the last few years coming from the black thugs and wanna be thugs who celebrate being thugs and even try to out thug and fail one another, proud of their arrest records at that..

Which is really what this boils down to. Your own personal experience which, to put it mildly, makes it difficult for you to be objective.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Were these refugees predominantly of one color, by any chance?



Right. It's Their fault. Always seems to be Their fault, because it's the only thing They do.



Not sure what point you're trying to make here.



Which is really what this boils down to. Your own personal experience which, to put it mildly, makes it difficult for you to be objective.

Actually experience in something makes you more qualified to see what the problem is. Drinking the koolaid (listening to the liberal lie that poverty is what causes crime) only gets you drunk and shows you dont know what youre talking about.

If poverty caused the crime, then those small towns wouldnt have been the safest places in the country to be - actually they would have been some of the most crime ridden.

Since ive lived in both large cities and small towns in this country, id say im pretty objective about what the problem is.

Its the "celebrating failure" and "you owe me something" mentality - racing people to the bottom.

 

[resurrected]

Your own personal experience...

When you grow up and get to be a big boy, Granite, you can have your very own personal experiences! :thumb:


Until then I suppose you'll just have to continue to rely on what others tell you. :idunno:

 

[resurrected]

No, fag is used to degrade, is the word you'd hear before the punch were you the object of it.

You fantasize about punching people who use insulting language.
Granite fantasizes about Richard Pryor pistolwhipping people who use insulting language.


What on earth is wrong with you retards?

Wah! :baby:
Somebody used language I don't approve of!
They should be violently assaulted!

 

[Granite]

Actually experience in something makes you more qualified to see what the problem is. Drinking the koolaid (listening to the liberal lie that poverty is what causes crime) only gets you drunk and shows you dont know what youre talking about.

Poverty contributes to crime, no doubt. It certainly makes for desperate lives and desperate people are liable to do anything. But strictly being poor doesn't guarantee a life of crime. Do the odds increase? I'd say so.

If poverty caused the crime, then those small towns wouldnt have been the safest places in the country to be - actually they would have been some of the most crime ridden.

I agree, in part. I lived in the thumb of Michigan for years and while it's still an area where you can keep the door unlocked at night, certain types of crime remain consistent (and rampant). They just don't show up on national statistics because bootleggers, meth dealers, wife beaters, drunk drivers, and the like can conceal their crimes more easily in rural areas or small towns. Crime in and of itself doesn't mean one is unsafe. At least if you know whose woods to stay out of...

Since ive lived in both large cities and small towns in this country, id say im pretty objective about what the problem is.

So tell us what exactly the problem is.

Its the "celebrating failure" and "you owe me something" mentality - racing people to the bottom.

Is this attitude unique to any one group of people, or type of people?