My take on it is as follows. I can clearly condemn Richards because regardless of what words he used, his actions were clearly meant to inflict hate and harm.
That said, until the black community wants to condemn use of the word n*gger by everyone, I'm not going to condemn use of it by anyone.
My take on it is as follows. I can clearly condemn Richards because regardless of what words he used, his actions were clearly meant to inflict hate and harm.
That said, until the black community wants to condemn use of the word n*gger by everyone, I'm not going to condemn use of it by anyone.
My take on it is as follows. I can clearly condemn Richards because regardless of what words he used, his actions were clearly meant to inflict hate and harm.
That said, until the black community wants to condemn use of the word n*gger by everyone, I'm not going to condemn use of it by anyone.
Nick
How does a community of 30+ Million people speak monolithically? You could easily find millions of blacks that abhor the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish1978
Nicely put!
That's the most eloquent post you've made on the boards thus far. Congrats dude.
How does a community of 30+ Million people speak monolithically? You could easily find millions of blacks that abhor the word.
And now we're back to Richards's dilemma. So long as someone, somewhere, knows a black guy who used the n-word once, the "community" can just be downgraded to a "subculture." And then it becomes "until the black community does something about this subculture, I won't...." And when it becomes a fringe group, we'll get "until the black community does something about this fringe group..." And like Richards, the "black community" cannot disavow, cannot apologize, cannot distance itself enough.
This is the best response I could come up with. The first thing that popped into my head was "of course they speak monolithically! Every black person I know sounds the same. They all look the same, too!" But I didn't want to imply Nick was a racist or confuse anyone into thinking I am any more racist than your average highly-educated Southern white guy is.
I know that Richard Pryor stopped using the word in this standup routines.
I watch Coen Brother movies and just because they feel free to poke at their Jewish heritage doesn't give
me carte blanche to do the same. They live it and thus if anything have earned the right to do so in my book. Racial slurs aren't something that blacks will be able to stop.
Whites aren't using that word because blacks are. It's a normal part of some peoples vernacular. It doesn't mean their racist. Maybe ignorant and insensitive.
I personally would never attempt to add a qualifier that a culture has to rebuke a word for me to condemn. That's part of ones moral foundation right? Trumptmans post wasn't racist it just smacked of Passive Agressiveness.
HM, I just want to make sure it's clear that I agree with you. My point was that there are always ways people will justify the continued use of such terms, and that those methods are pretty impressive in their ability to make an end to the usage impossible. In short, my response was aimed more at Nick's reasoning than at you.
I understand Nicks point as well. It's a bit frustrating to listen to foul language and slurs in music today and explain to your kid that that's not acceptable language. Sometimes I wonder why we always have to push the envelope.
I understand Nicks point as well. It's a bit frustrating to listen to foul language and slurs in music today and explain to your kid that that's not acceptable language. Sometimes I wonder why we always have to push the envelope.
I remember a mother going on Lily Allen's forum complaining about the CD she bought for her 9 year old was full of words she didn't want her 9 year old repeating...
I'm not sure, because I don't listen to Rap (which is the genre that word gets the most use in...?) but wouldn't it be labled explict or parental advisory?
I know Lily Allen's was, which is a poor choice on the mother's end for buying it for her daughter.
Wouldn't it be the same in this case?
Or are you talking about the teens who say it and hear it and don't understand the meaning of these words/etc?
It's a bit frustrating to listen to foul language and slurs in music today and explain to your kid that that's not acceptable language. Sometimes I wonder why we always have to push the envelope.
One thing to keep in mind about this is that, while it may seem to be everywhere "in _________ today," it actually ain't. Here's what I mean:
It seems like sex is everywhere in modern culture. But it isn't. Yes. Lots of it on TV and movies and magazine and the internets. But how often do you see people having sex in public? How often do you see sex in stores? In Reader's Digest? In Church? The Weather Channel? Discovery Science? How often do you see it ANYWHERE other than in these specific outlets?
It seems like racist language is everywhere, but it's really only in specific outlets, and even within those specific outlets only in specific sub-outlets. Get your kids to listen to Bach or James Taylor or Tom Waits or Metallica or the Dead Kennedys or Coldplay or the Misfits or Norah Jones or Stevie Wonder or Jimi Hendrix or Sam Cooke or Branford Marsalis or Yo Yo Ma and they won't hear it at all.
How does a community of 30+ Million people speak monolithically? You could easily find millions of blacks that abhor the word.
You could but they won't take action against those who don't abhor the word. They won't speak out about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter
And now we're back to Richards's dilemma. So long as someone, somewhere, knows a black guy who used the n-word once, the "community" can just be downgraded to a "subculture." And then it becomes "until the black community does something about this subculture, I won't...." And when it becomes a fringe group, we'll get "until the black community does something about this fringe group..." And like Richards, the "black community" cannot disavow, cannot apologize, cannot distance itself enough.
This is the best response I could come up with. The first thing that popped into my head was "of course they speak monolithically! Every black person I know sounds the same. They all look the same, too!" But I didn't want to imply Nick was a racist or confuse anyone into thinking I am any more racist than your average highly-educated Southern white guy is.
I'm not usually so harsh but that is some pretty crappy slippery-slope reasoning.
I don't think the black community is nearly as unified as you think in their attitudes about the word "nigger." Some want to reclaim it like gays did with "queer," some want to use it as friendly reference within the black community but perceive it as an insult if from a white person, and others in the community think no one should be saying it. That's basically the gamut of responses.
I love the irony of discussing the non-unified black community and using an example from the supposedly unified gay community.
Laugh of the year.
I understand there can be a myriad of responses to how the handle the word "nigger." My point is that those who are doing the condemning are still seeing it as a one way street. I don't see Gloria dragging Jay-Z out for an apology and possible monetary compensation even though she and her clients supposedly consider the word inflammatory enough to cause emotional damage great enough to sue over.
This is an example of using people's own values to exploit them when the "victims" values would cause them no remorse over the same actions. It doesn't have to be some monolithic community. It doesn't have to digress and be painted into a corner like Mid did where white people still won't call someone racist because five black men living in a compound in Idaho still demand the right to use the word "nigger" with no moral judgment against them.
We aren't talking about limited versus full action taken. We are talking about no action taken. The two gentlemen and their friends who endured the tirade haven't even expressed a belief that the word is inappropriate in general use.
Regardless of what everyone thinks, shouldn't the parties who endured it, who are represented by an attorney with the possible intent of suing at least believe that the word "nigger" is too harmful for use by anyone?
One thing to keep in mind about this is that, while it may seem to be everywhere "in _________ today," it actually ain't. Here's what I mean:
It seems like sex is everywhere in modern culture. But it isn't. Yes. Lots of it on TV and movies and magazine and the internets. But how often do you see people having sex in public? How often do you see sex in stores? In Reader's Digest? In Church? The Weather Channel? Discovery Science? How often do you see it ANYWHERE other than in these specific outlets?
Also you are letting your perceptions be colored by your suburban existence. I deal with sexual harassment issues occurring at school between fourth and fifth graders. The middle school deals with all day ditch parties where there are plenty of drugs, alcohol and sex as does the high school.
I do see sex in the stores. I see outfits that are for nine year olds that are low cut and have "scrunch" in the front that is supposed to highlight boobs that these girls don't have and that no one should be looking at either way. I see ten year olds wearing pants that say "Juicy" on the butt. I see boys who were pants that are too loose and let their underwear show all day. I send about five girls a day to the office to call home for a real shirt since camisoles, what used to be considered sleepwear now often are worn to school.
Quote:
It seems like racist language is everywhere, but it's really only in specific outlets, and even within those specific outlets only in specific sub-outlets. Get your kids to listen to Bach or James Taylor or Tom Waits or Metallica or the Dead Kennedys or Coldplay or the Misfits or Norah Jones or Stevie Wonder or Jimi Hendrix or Sam Cooke or Branford Marsalis or Yo Yo Ma and they won't hear it at all.
Actually the claim isn't that there is racist language everywhere. It is that there are racists everywhere and that education campaigns along with a general disdain has simply moved overt racial language and actions almost out of existence. This is why so much time is spent discussing what words are "code" for racist actions since the thoughts and words are supposedly hidden.
I see outfits that are for nine year olds that are low cut and have "scrunch" in the front that is supposed to highlight boobs that these girls don't have and that no one should be looking at either way. I see ten year olds wearing pants that say "Juicy" on the butt. I see boys who were pants that are too loose and let their underwear show all day. I send about five girls a day to the office to call home for a real shirt since camisoles, what used to be considered sleepwear now often are worn to school.
Are these what your wife and kids wear to the beach?
Seriously, who has a problem with camisoles? That's what girls wear today. It's called culture. It exists for a reason: so that we're not bland.
I don't see Gloria dragging Jay-Z out for an apology and possible monetary compensation even though she and her clients supposedly consider the word inflammatory enough to cause emotional damage great enough to sue over.
No reasonable person thinks Jay-Z is analogous to Michael Richards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Regardless of what everyone thinks, shouldn't the parties who endured it, who are represented by an attorney with the possible intent of suing at least believe that the word "nigger" is too harmful for use by anyone?
I haven't the faintest idea what tort action they could even bring in the first place.
Are these what your wife and kids wear to the beach?
Seriously, who has a problem with camisoles? That's what girls wear today. It's called culture. It exists for a reason: so that we're not bland.
You show my point. When the culture is now "sex is everywhere" then people become inoculated to the ideal that something is inappropriately sexy because it is already everywhere.
What is wrong with camisoles? How about the fact that without the shoe strings they would be tube tops on ten year olds. How about the fact that they simply do away with the concepts like a high versus plunging neckline by simply having NO neckline.
You can claim I'm a prude, but I'll always prefer that the ten year olds I encounter NOT be in shoe string tube tops with short shorts claiming their butts are "Juicy." I could really give a crap if it is todays culture or not. It is inappropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
No reasonable person thinks Jay-Z is analogous to Michael Richards.
It is reasonable to think they are analogous. It is racist to think they are not.
Would you rap all the words to a Jay-Z song out loud to a room full of black people Shawn? I know you wouldn't repeat the Richards rant, but if they aren't analogous, shouldn't you be able to repeat the Jay-Z song?
Quote:
I haven't the faintest idea what tort action they could even bring in the first place.
Any ideas?
You know you can bring anything you like to a court. It doesn't have to have merit. It appears that ol'Gloria would be attempting exactly what I mentioned, to press a cause against Richards using his own values against him instead of those of her own clients. It is doubtful there would be any laws against what Richards did. It would be nothing more than guilt money. It is exactly the reason you wouldn't repeat the jay-Z song. There are supposedly nothing about your own values that are racist. The song itself does not come from a racist source or pass on a racist message.
What is wrong then? Well somewhere within your values it is acceptable for black people to be racist while white people cannot. It is a difference that actually is racist.
You show my point. When the culture is now "sex is everywhere" then people become inoculated to the ideal that something is inappropriately sexy because it is already everywhere.
What is wrong with camisoles? How about the fact that without the shoe strings they would be tube tops on ten year olds. How about the fact that they simply do away with the concepts like a high versus plunging neckline by simply having NO neckline.
You can claim I'm a prude, but I'll always prefer that the ten year olds I encounter NOT be in shoe string tube tops with short shorts claiming their butts are "Juicy." I could really give a crap if it is todays culture or not. It is inappropriate.
I'm afraid your definition of sex is a little mixed up. Sex involves someone putting body parts into someone else's body parts.
Comments
Did everyone see this?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSyx4lvBBlg
Interesting. The person that called Kramer a "White Boy" and "Cracker Ass" was not these
guys. It's also makes sense that we've missed half the story...why would someone start recording
on their cell phone at that time unless there were some serious issues going on beforehand.
Richards is in big trouble.
(I'd give the link but I'm too lazy.)
That said, until the black community wants to condemn use of the word n*gger by everyone, I'm not going to condemn use of it by anyone.
Nick
My take on it is as follows. I can clearly condemn Richards because regardless of what words he used, his actions were clearly meant to inflict hate and harm.
That said, until the black community wants to condemn use of the word n*gger by everyone, I'm not going to condemn use of it by anyone.
Nick
Nicely put!
My take on it is as follows. I can clearly condemn Richards because regardless of what words he used, his actions were clearly meant to inflict hate and harm.
That said, until the black community wants to condemn use of the word n*gger by everyone, I'm not going to condemn use of it by anyone.
Nick
How does a community of 30+ Million people speak monolithically? You could easily find millions of blacks that abhor the word.
Nicely put!
That's the most eloquent post you've made on the boards thus far. Congrats dude.
How does a community of 30+ Million people speak monolithically? You could easily find millions of blacks that abhor the word.
And now we're back to Richards's dilemma. So long as someone, somewhere, knows a black guy who used the n-word once, the "community" can just be downgraded to a "subculture." And then it becomes "until the black community does something about this subculture, I won't...." And when it becomes a fringe group, we'll get "until the black community does something about this fringe group..." And like Richards, the "black community" cannot disavow, cannot apologize, cannot distance itself enough.
This is the best response I could come up with. The first thing that popped into my head was "of course they speak monolithically! Every black person I know sounds the same. They all look the same, too!" But I didn't want to imply Nick was a racist or confuse anyone into thinking I am any more racist than your average highly-educated Southern white guy is.
I watch Coen Brother movies and just because they feel free to poke at their Jewish heritage doesn't give
me carte blanche to do the same. They live it and thus if anything have earned the right to do so in my book. Racial slurs aren't something that blacks will be able to stop.
Whites aren't using that word because blacks are. It's a normal part of some peoples vernacular. It doesn't mean their racist. Maybe ignorant and insensitive.
I personally would never attempt to add a qualifier that a culture has to rebuke a word for me to condemn. That's part of ones moral foundation right? Trumptmans post wasn't racist it just smacked of Passive Agressiveness.
Cheers
I understand Nicks point as well. It's a bit frustrating to listen to foul language and slurs in music today and explain to your kid that that's not acceptable language. Sometimes I wonder why we always have to push the envelope.
Crystal Clear
I understand Nicks point as well. It's a bit frustrating to listen to foul language and slurs in music today and explain to your kid that that's not acceptable language. Sometimes I wonder why we always have to push the envelope.
I remember a mother going on Lily Allen's forum complaining about the CD she bought for her 9 year old was full of words she didn't want her 9 year old repeating...
I'm not sure, because I don't listen to Rap (which is the genre that word gets the most use in...?) but wouldn't it be labled explict or parental advisory?
I know Lily Allen's was, which is a poor choice on the mother's end for buying it for her daughter.
Wouldn't it be the same in this case?
Or are you talking about the teens who say it and hear it and don't understand the meaning of these words/etc?
It's a bit frustrating to listen to foul language and slurs in music today and explain to your kid that that's not acceptable language. Sometimes I wonder why we always have to push the envelope.
One thing to keep in mind about this is that, while it may seem to be everywhere "in _________ today," it actually ain't. Here's what I mean:
It seems like sex is everywhere in modern culture. But it isn't. Yes. Lots of it on TV and movies and magazine and the internets. But how often do you see people having sex in public? How often do you see sex in stores? In Reader's Digest? In Church? The Weather Channel? Discovery Science? How often do you see it ANYWHERE other than in these specific outlets?
It seems like racist language is everywhere, but it's really only in specific outlets, and even within those specific outlets only in specific sub-outlets. Get your kids to listen to Bach or James Taylor or Tom Waits or Metallica or the Dead Kennedys or Coldplay or the Misfits or Norah Jones or Stevie Wonder or Jimi Hendrix or Sam Cooke or Branford Marsalis or Yo Yo Ma and they won't hear it at all.
How does a community of 30+ Million people speak monolithically? You could easily find millions of blacks that abhor the word.
You could but they won't take action against those who don't abhor the word. They won't speak out about it.
And now we're back to Richards's dilemma. So long as someone, somewhere, knows a black guy who used the n-word once, the "community" can just be downgraded to a "subculture." And then it becomes "until the black community does something about this subculture, I won't...." And when it becomes a fringe group, we'll get "until the black community does something about this fringe group..." And like Richards, the "black community" cannot disavow, cannot apologize, cannot distance itself enough.
This is the best response I could come up with. The first thing that popped into my head was "of course they speak monolithically! Every black person I know sounds the same. They all look the same, too!" But I didn't want to imply Nick was a racist or confuse anyone into thinking I am any more racist than your average highly-educated Southern white guy is.
I'm not usually so harsh but that is some pretty crappy slippery-slope reasoning.
Nick
Laugh of the year.
I understand there can be a myriad of responses to how the handle the word "nigger." My point is that those who are doing the condemning are still seeing it as a one way street. I don't see Gloria dragging Jay-Z out for an apology and possible monetary compensation even though she and her clients supposedly consider the word inflammatory enough to cause emotional damage great enough to sue over.
This is an example of using people's own values to exploit them when the "victims" values would cause them no remorse over the same actions. It doesn't have to be some monolithic community. It doesn't have to digress and be painted into a corner like Mid did where white people still won't call someone racist because five black men living in a compound in Idaho still demand the right to use the word "nigger" with no moral judgment against them.
We aren't talking about limited versus full action taken. We are talking about no action taken. The two gentlemen and their friends who endured the tirade haven't even expressed a belief that the word is inappropriate in general use.
Regardless of what everyone thinks, shouldn't the parties who endured it, who are represented by an attorney with the possible intent of suing at least believe that the word "nigger" is too harmful for use by anyone?
Nick
One thing to keep in mind about this is that, while it may seem to be everywhere "in _________ today," it actually ain't. Here's what I mean:
It seems like sex is everywhere in modern culture. But it isn't. Yes. Lots of it on TV and movies and magazine and the internets. But how often do you see people having sex in public? How often do you see sex in stores? In Reader's Digest? In Church? The Weather Channel? Discovery Science? How often do you see it ANYWHERE other than in these specific outlets?
Isn't this using the exception to prove the rule?
Four out of ten births out of wedlock
Also you are letting your perceptions be colored by your suburban existence.
I do see sex in the stores. I see outfits that are for nine year olds that are low cut and have "scrunch" in the front that is supposed to highlight boobs that these girls don't have and that no one should be looking at either way. I see ten year olds wearing pants that say "Juicy" on the butt. I see boys who were pants that are too loose and let their underwear show all day. I send about five girls a day to the office to call home for a real shirt since camisoles, what used to be considered sleepwear now often are worn to school.
It seems like racist language is everywhere, but it's really only in specific outlets, and even within those specific outlets only in specific sub-outlets. Get your kids to listen to Bach or James Taylor or Tom Waits or Metallica or the Dead Kennedys or Coldplay or the Misfits or Norah Jones or Stevie Wonder or Jimi Hendrix or Sam Cooke or Branford Marsalis or Yo Yo Ma and they won't hear it at all.
Actually the claim isn't that there is racist language everywhere. It is that there are racists everywhere and that education campaigns along with a general disdain has simply moved overt racial language and actions almost out of existence. This is why so much time is spent discussing what words are "code" for racist actions since the thoughts and words are supposedly hidden.
Nick
I see outfits that are for nine year olds that are low cut and have "scrunch" in the front that is supposed to highlight boobs that these girls don't have and that no one should be looking at either way. I see ten year olds wearing pants that say "Juicy" on the butt. I see boys who were pants that are too loose and let their underwear show all day. I send about five girls a day to the office to call home for a real shirt since camisoles, what used to be considered sleepwear now often are worn to school.
Are these what your wife and kids wear to the beach?
Seriously, who has a problem with camisoles? That's what girls wear today. It's called culture. It exists for a reason: so that we're not bland.
I don't see Gloria dragging Jay-Z out for an apology and possible monetary compensation even though she and her clients supposedly consider the word inflammatory enough to cause emotional damage great enough to sue over.
No reasonable person thinks Jay-Z is analogous to Michael Richards.
Regardless of what everyone thinks, shouldn't the parties who endured it, who are represented by an attorney with the possible intent of suing at least believe that the word "nigger" is too harmful for use by anyone?
I haven't the faintest idea what tort action they could even bring in the first place.
Any ideas?
Are these what your wife and kids wear to the beach?
Seriously, who has a problem with camisoles? That's what girls wear today. It's called culture. It exists for a reason: so that we're not bland.
You show my point. When the culture is now "sex is everywhere" then people become inoculated to the ideal that something is inappropriately sexy because it is already everywhere.
What is wrong with camisoles? How about the fact that without the shoe strings they would be tube tops on ten year olds. How about the fact that they simply do away with the concepts like a high versus plunging neckline by simply having NO neckline.
You can claim I'm a prude, but I'll always prefer that the ten year olds I encounter NOT be in shoe string tube tops with short shorts claiming their butts are "Juicy." I could really give a crap if it is todays culture or not. It is inappropriate.
No reasonable person thinks Jay-Z is analogous to Michael Richards.
It is reasonable to think they are analogous. It is racist to think they are not.
Would you rap all the words to a Jay-Z song out loud to a room full of black people Shawn? I know you wouldn't repeat the Richards rant, but if they aren't analogous, shouldn't you be able to repeat the Jay-Z song?
I haven't the faintest idea what tort action they could even bring in the first place.
Any ideas?
You know you can bring anything you like to a court. It doesn't have to have merit. It appears that ol'Gloria would be attempting exactly what I mentioned, to press a cause against Richards using his own values against him instead of those of her own clients. It is doubtful there would be any laws against what Richards did. It would be nothing more than guilt money. It is exactly the reason you wouldn't repeat the jay-Z song. There are supposedly nothing about your own values that are racist. The song itself does not come from a racist source or pass on a racist message.
What is wrong then? Well somewhere within your values it is acceptable for black people to be racist while white people cannot. It is a difference that actually is racist.
Nick
You show my point. When the culture is now "sex is everywhere" then people become inoculated to the ideal that something is inappropriately sexy because it is already everywhere.
What is wrong with camisoles? How about the fact that without the shoe strings they would be tube tops on ten year olds. How about the fact that they simply do away with the concepts like a high versus plunging neckline by simply having NO neckline.
You can claim I'm a prude, but I'll always prefer that the ten year olds I encounter NOT be in shoe string tube tops with short shorts claiming their butts are "Juicy." I could really give a crap if it is todays culture or not. It is inappropriate.
I'm afraid your definition of sex is a little mixed up. Sex involves someone putting body parts into someone else's body parts.
Showing your shoulders falls woefully short.