Perhaps you need a course in advertising. When you advertise availability of the product, that means you want those viewing the advertisement to use the product.
Is there any rational reason you need to know that a ten year old girl's butt is "juicy?" Can you give me any rationale besides sexual availability to put such a message on their shorts?
Perhaps you need a course in advertising. When you advertise availability of the product, that means you want those viewing the advertisement to use the product.
Is there any rational reason you need to know that a ten year old girl's butt is "juicy?" Can you give me any rationale besides sexual availability to put such a message on their shorts?
Nick
General tackiness?
Fashion and sex are entirely separate entities (for the record, fashion, and words written on one's ass are also separate, mutually exclusive entities). People dress up for lots of reasons—to look good, to convey images, to take part in the great, social work of art that is fashion, or to keep warm, or cool.
The assumption that people dress a certain way for solely sexual purposes is absurd.
Also, while I don't know what things were like in 1692, these days, shoulders don't quite qualify as "advertising promiscuity." They're pretty innocent.
Stating that people dress for lots of reasons is not addressing the question I asked.
Answering "general tackiness" with a question mark which means you aren't sure isn't an answer.
Claiming that it is absurd to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes when there are categories of clothing like lingerie is just an attempt to dismiss what you cannot defend. It isn't absurd at all to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes.
You are welcome to discuss at length the practical purposes of clothing like underwire bras, high heels, etc.
Studies that have been done into such items have proven that their purpose is to enhance the presentation of those attributes that suggest good fertility. (IE it is about sex and reproduction)
Stating that people dress for lots of reasons is not addressing the question I asked.
Answering "general tackiness" with a question mark which means you aren't sure isn't an answer.
Claiming that it is absurd to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes when there are categories of clothing like lingerie is just an attempt to dismiss what you cannot defend. It isn't absurd at all to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes.
You are welcome to discuss at length the practical purposes of clothing like underwire bras, high heels, etc.
Studies that have been done into such items have proven that their purpose is to enhance the presentation of those attributes that suggest good fertility. (IE it is about sex and reproduction)
Nick
Surely, the existence of lingerie doesn't devolve all of fashion into merely an invitation for sex?
Wonder bras, high heels, suits, power ties, all make us look good. Yes, it is partly because these things enhance our sexual attributes, but that's clearly not their only purpose.
Furthermore, why should fashion need to be practical? When has art ever been?
Please get to the answer and stop avoiding the question.
EVERYONE understands that fashions purpose need not be ONLY sexual. No one has made such a claim.
Is there a purpose other than sexual to place the word "Juicy" directly on the bottom of a party wearing said shorts. Can a non-sexual purpose and attribute be assigned in meaning and motivation to the word and the placement of it upon those shorts?
We know that there are a wide array of clothes worn for a wide array of purposes. I'm not asking about them. I'm asking about shorts that label the bottom of the party wearing them as being "Juicy." Is there any reasonable non-sexual purpose you can assign to the label and intent of the clothing.
Please get to the answer and stop avoiding the question.
EVERYONE understands that fashions purpose need not be ONLY sexual. No one has made such a claim.
Except you.
Quote:
Is there a purpose other than sexual to place the word "Juicy" directly on the bottom of a party wearing said shorts. Can a non-sexual purpose and attribute be assigned in meaning and motivation to the word and the placement of it upon those shorts?
We know that there are a wide array of clothes worn for a wide array of purposes. I'm not asking about them. I'm asking about shorts that label the bottom of the party wearing them as being "Juicy." Is there any reasonable non-sexual purpose you can assign to the label and intent of the clothing.
Please address the question.
Nick
Please address the topic.
Having stuff written on your bum was almost considered trendy for a bit. Her mom probably picked it up cheap at Marshall's or something.
Would you seriously consider "juicy" advertising for sex, though? If you were about to get in on with someone, and in a sultry voice, she said, "my butt is juicy," would you be anything other than completely disgusted?
I don't think so. My point was that what seems to be everywhere isn't; it's just that where it is is louder. At the end of the day, people can compartmentalize the Paris Hiltons and the Stuff Magazines and go back home at the end of the day. That kids fool around with this stuff isn't surprising, of course. When it wasn't sex that was so loud, it was something else, and the older generations bitched about the crazy kids with their lack of morals just as much as now.
So the institution of marriage seems to be failing in modern America. Can you connect the dots for me? How do we get from this to the other?
Quote:
Also you are letting your perceptions be colored by your suburban existence.
Hehe. I'm actually more urban now than I've ever been in my life (i.e. I'm in the SLC metro area, with about a million other folks.
Quote:
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.
What was that about exceptions proving the rule? Is this the vast majority of students harassing others? Is this the vast majority of students skipping for drugs and sex parties?
Quote:
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.
And when we were in school, it was skirts not making it to the knee. And the generation before us was the miniskirt. And the generation before that it was low-cut sweaters with lots of cleavage. And before that, and before that....
Your complaint isn't that it's about sex. It's that the fashions now are crass.
Quote:
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.
And language is just like fashion. But let me tell you, until the white community stands up and does something about this, I'm not going to condemn anyone for using those words.
I don't think it helps bring clarity to a topic to quickly expand out into "look at these damn kids got no respect the whole damn country is goin' to hell".
That is, I'm not sure what the fashion trends among pre-pubescent girls have to do with who gets to use a word like "nigger" and when. Unless your point, Nick, is that it's all part and parcel of some kind of general erosion of something, but as I say that's not much of a point and just seems sort of general purpose curmudgeonly.
As to Richards and his outburst, claiming that one cannot (or that you will not) condemn the word unless "the blacks" disavow same is petty and disengenuous.
White man calling a black man nigger does not equal black man calling a black man nigger. Surely you know that. Surely every sentient individual in these United States knows that. We all get it, that nigger has become a term of casual address amongst many African Americans, and yet nevertheless remains a weapon of crude racism when deployed by whites. Yes, I know, a word has different meanings depending on context, it's a puzzler, but there you are.
Thought experiment: class of largely African American 12 year olds has a white teacher. At least some of the kids use the word amongst themselves. One day the teacher begins the day's lessons by saying "all right niggers, who did the math homework?" The teacher explains that surely he cannot be taken to task because he heard the children use the term and they were never disciplined, so he assumed it was OK.
Anybody that doesn't instinctively grasp the problem here raise their hands. Nick, I'm afraid you'll have to stay after.
I don't understand what the motivation for "taking a stand" about this would be. How is it possibly any skin off of white America's back (to use a somewhat fraught phrase) if the word remains off limits to them while being freely bandied by black America? Is this some kind of intolerable abrogation of free speech? Unbearable hypocrisy? So what? What do I care? Is this a word that I fiercely resent not being allowed to use in casual conversation?
Or is it that it just irritates the shit out of me that some group, in this case blacks, should be granted the agency to tell me what I can and cannot do?
I don't think it helps bring clarity to a topic to quickly expand out into "look at these damn kids got no respect the whole damn country is goin' to hell".
That is, I'm not sure what the fashion trends among pre-pubescent girls have to do with who gets to use a word like "nigger" and when. Unless your point, Nick, is that it's all part and parcel of some kind of general erosion of something, but as I say that's not much of a point and just seems sort of general purpose curmudgeonly.
Take it up with Midwinter. I was simply responding to his point.
Quote:
As to Richards and his outburst, claiming that one cannot (or that you will not) condemn the word unless "the blacks" disavow same is petty and disengenuous.
You can call all the names you desire, but you have no reasoning to support what you contend.
Quote:
White man calling a black man nigger does not equal black man calling a black man nigger. Surely you know that. Surely every sentient individual in these United States knows that.
Indeed we all know it. The question is to why it is acceptable in one instance and not in the other.
Quote:
We all get it, that nigger has become a term of casual address amongst many African Americans, and yet nevertheless remains a weapon of crude racism when deployed by whites.
I suppose if African-Americans started giving each other little bonsai trees with little nooses hanging from them, it would be okay as well.
Quote:
Yes, I know, a word has different meanings depending on context, it's a puzzler, but there you are.
The problem here is that it doesn't have a different meaning. It has the exact same meaning. The only issue is who is affirming the state of the person. When Chris Rock informs us that we could hide money in our books because "niggers" would never look there and in fact, books are like Kryptonite to said persons, it is saying nothing different than a white racist.
When rappers inform their fellow "nigga's" that they sleep all day, party all night, couldn't keep and wouldn't get a job, prefer to deal drugs and hustle for a living, all while treating all women like whores, and killing anyone who would get in their way... they aren't saying anything different about their lifestyle and means of achieving it than a white racist would claim.
The only thing that is different is who can judge and validate the lifestyle. An African-American person can confirm, judge and validate that lifestyle to another African-American. A white person cannot, but the definition of the word does not change.
Quote:
Thought experiment: class of largely African American 12 year olds has a white teacher. At least some of the kids use the word amongst themselves. One day the teacher begins the day's lessons by saying "all right niggers, who did the math homework?" The teacher explains that surely he cannot be taken to task because he heard the children use the term and they were never disciplined, so he assumed it was OK.
The problem with your example is that even the African-American teacher would be disciplined.
Quote:
Anybody that doesn't instinctively grasp the problem here raise their hands. Nick, I'm afraid you'll have to stay after.
I'm afraid you'll have to try again. Since the word, even among blacks denotes someone who is foolish, uneducated, ignorant basically a black redneck, to use it in an educational context is not appropriate no matter what the race of the teacher.
Quote:
I don't understand what the motivation for "taking a stand" about this would be. How is it possibly any skin off of white America's back (to use a somewhat fraught phrase) if the word remains off limits to them while being freely bandied by black America? Is this some kind of intolerable abrogation of free speech? Unbearable hypocrisy? So what? What do I care? Is this a word that I fiercely resent not being allowed to use in casual conversation?
The stand would be that African-Americans stop affirming to other African-Americans that it is acceptable to stupid, ignorant, foolish, etc. This is why I said regardless of the word usage, I could condemn what Richards did because he displayed these traits. He displayed them regardless of word usage. Yet African-Americans continually approve of this within their community. There is quite an argument going on about how to address irresponsibility.
Understand that it isn't as if I desire to promote white redneck culture at all either. I'll not be sending a Jeff Foxworthy or anyone of that nature my dollars. If he came to me and said "Redneck, please..." or any other similar nonsense that attempted to create a kinship between his views and mine, I'd tell him to shut the hell up. We can't pass laws against it because of free speech. However we don't have to promote it either.
Comments
Is there any rational reason you need to know that a ten year old girl's butt is "juicy?" Can you give me any rationale besides sexual availability to put such a message on their shorts?
Nick
Perhaps you need a course in advertising. When you advertise availability of the product, that means you want those viewing the advertisement to use the product.
Is there any rational reason you need to know that a ten year old girl's butt is "juicy?" Can you give me any rationale besides sexual availability to put such a message on their shorts?
Nick
General tackiness?
Fashion and sex are entirely separate entities (for the record, fashion, and words written on one's ass are also separate, mutually exclusive entities). People dress up for lots of reasons—to look good, to convey images, to take part in the great, social work of art that is fashion, or to keep warm, or cool.
The assumption that people dress a certain way for solely sexual purposes is absurd.
Also, while I don't know what things were like in 1692, these days, shoulders don't quite qualify as "advertising promiscuity." They're pretty innocent.
Nick
Dismissing is not addressing. Thanks for avoiding the question.
Nick
Inability to read or draw conclusions is not going unanswered. Thanks for playing.
Answering "general tackiness" with a question mark which means you aren't sure isn't an answer.
Claiming that it is absurd to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes when there are categories of clothing like lingerie is just an attempt to dismiss what you cannot defend. It isn't absurd at all to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes.
You are welcome to discuss at length the practical purposes of clothing like underwire bras, high heels, etc.
Studies that have been done into such items have proven that their purpose is to enhance the presentation of those attributes that suggest good fertility. (IE it is about sex and reproduction)
Nick
Stating that people dress for lots of reasons is not addressing the question I asked.
Answering "general tackiness" with a question mark which means you aren't sure isn't an answer.
Claiming that it is absurd to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes when there are categories of clothing like lingerie is just an attempt to dismiss what you cannot defend. It isn't absurd at all to suggest that people can dress solely for sexual purposes.
You are welcome to discuss at length the practical purposes of clothing like underwire bras, high heels, etc.
Studies that have been done into such items have proven that their purpose is to enhance the presentation of those attributes that suggest good fertility. (IE it is about sex and reproduction)
Nick
Surely, the existence of lingerie doesn't devolve all of fashion into merely an invitation for sex?
Wonder bras, high heels, suits, power ties, all make us look good. Yes, it is partly because these things enhance our sexual attributes, but that's clearly not their only purpose.
Furthermore, why should fashion need to be practical? When has art ever been?
EVERYONE understands that fashions purpose need not be ONLY sexual. No one has made such a claim.
Is there a purpose other than sexual to place the word "Juicy" directly on the bottom of a party wearing said shorts. Can a non-sexual purpose and attribute be assigned in meaning and motivation to the word and the placement of it upon those shorts?
We know that there are a wide array of clothes worn for a wide array of purposes. I'm not asking about them. I'm asking about shorts that label the bottom of the party wearing them as being "Juicy." Is there any reasonable non-sexual purpose you can assign to the label and intent of the clothing.
Please address the question.
Nick
Please get to the answer and stop avoiding the question.
EVERYONE understands that fashions purpose need not be ONLY sexual. No one has made such a claim.
Except you.
Is there a purpose other than sexual to place the word "Juicy" directly on the bottom of a party wearing said shorts. Can a non-sexual purpose and attribute be assigned in meaning and motivation to the word and the placement of it upon those shorts?
We know that there are a wide array of clothes worn for a wide array of purposes. I'm not asking about them. I'm asking about shorts that label the bottom of the party wearing them as being "Juicy." Is there any reasonable non-sexual purpose you can assign to the label and intent of the clothing.
Please address the question.
Nick
Please address the topic.
Having stuff written on your bum was almost considered trendy for a bit. Her mom probably picked it up cheap at Marshall's or something.
Would you seriously consider "juicy" advertising for sex, though? If you were about to get in on with someone, and in a sultry voice, she said, "my butt is juicy," would you be anything other than completely disgusted?
Isn't this using the exception to prove the rule?
I don't think so. My point was that what seems to be everywhere isn't; it's just that where it is is louder. At the end of the day, people can compartmentalize the Paris Hiltons and the Stuff Magazines and go back home at the end of the day. That kids fool around with this stuff isn't surprising, of course. When it wasn't sex that was so loud, it was something else, and the older generations bitched about the crazy kids with their lack of morals just as much as now.
Four out of ten births out of wedlock
So the institution of marriage seems to be failing in modern America. Can you connect the dots for me? How do we get from this to the other?
Also you are letting your perceptions be colored by your suburban existence.
Hehe. I'm actually more urban now than I've ever been in my life (i.e. I'm in the SLC metro area, with about a million other folks.
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.
What was that about exceptions proving the rule? Is this the vast majority of students harassing others? Is this the vast majority of students skipping for drugs and sex parties?
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.
And when we were in school, it was skirts not making it to the knee. And the generation before us was the miniskirt. And the generation before that it was low-cut sweaters with lots of cleavage. And before that, and before that....
Your complaint isn't that it's about sex. It's that the fashions now are crass.
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.
And language is just like fashion. But let me tell you, until the white community stands up and does something about this, I'm not going to condemn anyone for using those words.
That is, I'm not sure what the fashion trends among pre-pubescent girls have to do with who gets to use a word like "nigger" and when. Unless your point, Nick, is that it's all part and parcel of some kind of general erosion of something, but as I say that's not much of a point and just seems sort of general purpose curmudgeonly.
As to Richards and his outburst, claiming that one cannot (or that you will not) condemn the word unless "the blacks" disavow same is petty and disengenuous.
White man calling a black man nigger does not equal black man calling a black man nigger. Surely you know that. Surely every sentient individual in these United States knows that. We all get it, that nigger has become a term of casual address amongst many African Americans, and yet nevertheless remains a weapon of crude racism when deployed by whites. Yes, I know, a word has different meanings depending on context, it's a puzzler, but there you are.
Thought experiment: class of largely African American 12 year olds has a white teacher. At least some of the kids use the word amongst themselves. One day the teacher begins the day's lessons by saying "all right niggers, who did the math homework?" The teacher explains that surely he cannot be taken to task because he heard the children use the term and they were never disciplined, so he assumed it was OK.
Anybody that doesn't instinctively grasp the problem here raise their hands. Nick, I'm afraid you'll have to stay after.
I don't understand what the motivation for "taking a stand" about this would be. How is it possibly any skin off of white America's back (to use a somewhat fraught phrase) if the word remains off limits to them while being freely bandied by black America? Is this some kind of intolerable abrogation of free speech? Unbearable hypocrisy? So what? What do I care? Is this a word that I fiercely resent not being allowed to use in casual conversation?
Or is it that it just irritates the shit out of me that some group, in this case blacks, should be granted the agency to tell me what I can and cannot do?
I don't think it helps bring clarity to a topic to quickly expand out into "look at these damn kids got no respect the whole damn country is goin' to hell".
That is, I'm not sure what the fashion trends among pre-pubescent girls have to do with who gets to use a word like "nigger" and when. Unless your point, Nick, is that it's all part and parcel of some kind of general erosion of something, but as I say that's not much of a point and just seems sort of general purpose curmudgeonly.
Take it up with Midwinter. I was simply responding to his point.
As to Richards and his outburst, claiming that one cannot (or that you will not) condemn the word unless "the blacks" disavow same is petty and disengenuous.
You can call all the names you desire, but you have no reasoning to support what you contend.
White man calling a black man nigger does not equal black man calling a black man nigger. Surely you know that. Surely every sentient individual in these United States knows that.
Indeed we all know it. The question is to why it is acceptable in one instance and not in the other.
We all get it, that nigger has become a term of casual address amongst many African Americans, and yet nevertheless remains a weapon of crude racism when deployed by whites.
I suppose if African-Americans started giving each other little bonsai trees with little nooses hanging from them, it would be okay as well.
Yes, I know, a word has different meanings depending on context, it's a puzzler, but there you are.
The problem here is that it doesn't have a different meaning. It has the exact same meaning. The only issue is who is affirming the state of the person. When Chris Rock informs us that we could hide money in our books because "niggers" would never look there and in fact, books are like Kryptonite to said persons, it is saying nothing different than a white racist.
When rappers inform their fellow "nigga's" that they sleep all day, party all night, couldn't keep and wouldn't get a job, prefer to deal drugs and hustle for a living, all while treating all women like whores, and killing anyone who would get in their way... they aren't saying anything different about their lifestyle and means of achieving it than a white racist would claim.
The only thing that is different is who can judge and validate the lifestyle. An African-American person can confirm, judge and validate that lifestyle to another African-American. A white person cannot, but the definition of the word does not change.
Thought experiment: class of largely African American 12 year olds has a white teacher. At least some of the kids use the word amongst themselves. One day the teacher begins the day's lessons by saying "all right niggers, who did the math homework?" The teacher explains that surely he cannot be taken to task because he heard the children use the term and they were never disciplined, so he assumed it was OK.
The problem with your example is that even the African-American teacher would be disciplined.
Anybody that doesn't instinctively grasp the problem here raise their hands. Nick, I'm afraid you'll have to stay after.
I'm afraid you'll have to try again. Since the word, even among blacks denotes someone who is foolish, uneducated, ignorant basically a black redneck, to use it in an educational context is not appropriate no matter what the race of the teacher.
I don't understand what the motivation for "taking a stand" about this would be. How is it possibly any skin off of white America's back (to use a somewhat fraught phrase) if the word remains off limits to them while being freely bandied by black America? Is this some kind of intolerable abrogation of free speech? Unbearable hypocrisy? So what? What do I care? Is this a word that I fiercely resent not being allowed to use in casual conversation?
The stand would be that African-Americans stop affirming to other African-Americans that it is acceptable to stupid, ignorant, foolish, etc. This is why I said regardless of the word usage, I could condemn what Richards did because he displayed these traits. He displayed them regardless of word usage. Yet African-Americans continually approve of this within their community. There is quite an argument going on about how to address irresponsibility.
Understand that it isn't as if I desire to promote white redneck culture at all either. I'll not be sending a Jeff Foxworthy or anyone of that nature my dollars. If he came to me and said "Redneck, please..." or any other similar nonsense that attempted to create a kinship between his views and mine, I'd tell him to shut the hell up. We can't pass laws against it because of free speech. However we don't have to promote it either.
Nick
There you go.
I think that is the seventh sign of the apocalypse or something like that.
Nick
Now THIS is how you respond to hecklers.
Of all people...JOE ROGAN!