Experiment to prove the doulbe standard when it comes to Racism

To say the guy isn't worth anything, a bum or a zero. But yea, it's kind of weird how it's been turned around.




​

 

No it doesn't for me because I had limited exposure to the word. When I did became aware of it, it was not used to signify gas chambers. Plus, there are far worse names to call Jews in relation to gas chambers.

 

I'd be shocked if there wasn't. People are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and if they did an about face now I'd be suspicious that they were up to something.

 

Segregation went away?
What does the DC sniper have to do with this? If you're referring to the beltway sniper.
Go ahead post the details of what was done. Had nothing to do with race and hatred.

 

No I did not. Why do yo ask, can't read?

OK, I took a guess and answered it.

- - - Updated - - -

Those that want to honor the flag that represents it. So no, not the entire south, just those wanting to make that impression.

 

You said they were not slurs ergo they should not be censored ergo no double standard. QED.

Why would I point out that a racial slur might cause an altercation? Because that is the reasoning behind the censorship. You know.. back to the OP we've been discussing here rather than your personal preference?
As to the huge manatee bit: I found it amusing. Sue me.

So you don't think people should view as offensive a word hurled at them to denigrate their status as citizens, as people with rights to live and let live to possess property to pursue happiness? What CAN someone be offended by o wise and learned swami, social arbiter of what people may be offended by?

So you've no concept of the defense of honor then? Or of adjusting someone's attitude because they desperately deserve it? Are you a robot or something? You are going to sit there and say you've never gotten into a fist fight with someone who was harrassing you? You swedish folk are way too nice if so. I also don't believe you because I am almost certain that if we were face to face I could irritate or offend you enough to get you to take a swing at me if I was of such a mind.

You're making normative judgments. Should etc. That humans SHOULDN"T be emotionally charged etc. What are you a vulcan? The natural state of humanity is that of an emotional being with the capability of reason. To remove emotions from the equation would be to cease being human. Have fun there spock

 

Where the (*)(*)(*)(*) have you been? Did you miss the 60's or something? You take the brown acid at woodstock and wipe your mind or something?

DC sniper a muslim man killing people for being american. Religious hatred, racial hatred, political hatred what's the difference? Hate crime is a hate crime apparently. Except when its a muslim soldier turned jihadist who shoots up an army base, then its classified as "workplace violence". Same as the guy who lopped off that woman's head while yelling islamic slogans.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Reality

So you don't think that the word "****" incites any sort of violence etc? Shall I point you to neo-nazis etc and perhaps a history text or 50?

Here's your response:
I don't know, perhaps to some. But most won't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you're referring to here as you lumped the whole response into one emotional unreadable rant.


Should not have taken that brown acid man. Its really burned some holes in your brain.

Carry on then

 

No. I did not deny that they currently are considered slurs. I said that they ought not to be.

It is not. The reasoning is that people have the right not to be offended. But even it the reasoning was as you say, that is a very morally bankrupt reasoning. We shouldn't say certain words because some people will get violent? really? Grow a spine will you.

I never commented on the huge manatee. I didn't get it. It is a reference or what?

As I've said, it is different to say "you bloody paki" and simply "hi there paki, have a nice day" or something innocent like that. It is not an inherently offensive word and that is my point. there is nothing about paki which implies that they are lesser citizens or anything like that.

Of course I have honour. But my code of honour is that of a civilized man, not a barbarian. Only barbarians take to violence for a word like that. And of course I've fought people. They annoyed me, so I punched them in the face. I'm sure you could annoy me too, but not by simply calling me a shortened version of swede, whatever that'd be. swed? swe? a swish? Whatever you'd come up, I wouldn't really care. Except if you follow me around and repeat it, but then I'd hit you because you were annoying and not because of the word.

I shared my opinion. This is a forum. How many times need I say that?

 

Well I don't know how they do it where you come from in Ikealand (which is what sweden shall now be called. Just like japan got renamed. And you can't be offended. ) but here a racial slur is what's called "fighting words" same as if I said "your mother is a whore" or "I saw your sister (*)(*)(*)(*)ing a dog", IE words that are highly likely to bypass a person's reason and strike straight at the core of emotion that is a human being's psyche tending to incite a violent reaction. That is the impetus behind "hate speech" law pushing as well. At least here in the states.
It wasn't my idea, nor do I support it. I'm simply explaining it to you because you have expressed a lack of understanding.

Its a really bad pun. Probably doesn't translate. Humanity, huge manatee. If you sound them out in english you'll see they can be bastardized into one another. It was simply a humorous visual I wished to conjure through the use of descriptive language.

Except for the context in which the word is used colloquially...... you know the way all words gain their meaning? By your logic (*)(*)(*)(*) you is not offensive either and doesn't even make any sense. Fornication unlawful carnal knowledge you? What does that even mean? Now go say (*)(*)(*)(*) you to your grandmother. Same thing with paki. Go say what you just said to a pakistani person just "hi paki have a nice day" or what have you. I guarantee you they will be offended and feel they have a right to be offended. They'd even kinda have a point since you used a word you know to be a racial slur in their mind. That'd be like me walking up to one of my black friends and saying "sup (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" as they do to each other betimes. You think I'd get a positive reaction? Do you think I SHOULD get a positive reaction?

Ah so its alright to punch someone if you're annoyed but not if you're annoyed by the use of a racial slur. If its just that you're annoyed by the racial slur then you're a barbarian. But if you're just annoyed then its civilized. (*)(*)(*)(*) man even the russian judge gave you a 10 of 10 on that mental gymnastic performance. Codes of civilized men for centuries have included duels to the death over things like calling someone a racial slur. I don't see a simple fist fight being barbarous. Yall are kinda.... wooden up there huh?

As I have mine. I'm simply stating that the sooner you accept that people are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s the better off you'll be.

 

The New Orleans Eleven: The Untold History of the Lynching
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ne...f-the-lynching-of-italians-in-america/5372379
Mar 8, 2014 - The New Orleans Eleven: The Untold History of the Lynching of Italians in America. By Timothy Alexander Guzman. Global Research, March 08 ...

After their increased immigration to the U.S. in the late 19th century, Italian Americans in the South were recruited for laboring jobs. On March 14, 1891, 11 Italian immigrants were lynched in New Orleans, Louisiana, after a jury acquitted them in the murder of David Hennessy, an ethnic Irish New Orleans police chief. The 11 Sicilians were falsely accused of being associated with the Mafia. This incident was one of the largest mass lynchings in U.S. history. A total of twenty Italians were lynched during the 1890s. Although most lynchings of Italian Americans occurred in the South, Italians did not comprise a major portion of immigrants or of the population as a whole. Isolated lynchings of Italians also occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

So lynching a few "Wops" doesn't count by Democrats. Even the use of the name is allowed by the PC cops.

 

I'm fine with Ikealand. Ikea is something to be proud of. You can say volvoland or saabland too if you want. meatballland. blondeland.

Japan never got renamed. It has never been called nippon in english. Do you know what endonyms and exonyms are? if not, go educate yourself.

Well, the difference is that calling someone a whore is actually inherently negative. Or atleast, society currently views prostitution negatively. Calling someone a paki just means that you're calling them a handy shortening of pakistani. It is not the same.

I did not.

Ah, I see. I am actually a fan of puns.

Yes, I know how all that works. I am just sharing my annoyance with it.

Well, I am actually one of those people who find it ridiculous that only one race should be allowed to say a word. If you're going to ban a word, it should be for everyone. Black people calling others (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s doesn't have any right to get offended when non blacks call them (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

Don't be stupid, you know the difference. If I say "hi paki" that is very different from being an annoying idiot cruisin' for a bruisin'.

Fights per se are not bad. Duels are honorable. But for it to be a duel it has to be mutually agreed upon.

 

Around the same time, the n-word was used against Italians and Irish too. That word has a history of violence tied to it.

 

That is you judging people by the color of their skin because Obama never was a slave, never got hung or whipped.

No black American today was a slave either.

So he deserves no more special treatment than whites, asians or Hispanics.

 

Before I address your post, I'll need you to mention where I mentioned skin color in the post you quoted.

 

So you figure that racist Democrats Lynching Afro Americans, Catholics, Italians and Republicans was all right then. Democrats do have the history of violence tied to them even today. No matter how they try they can never wash their hands of the blood they've have spilled both before and still today, by their bigotry and racism.

 

you sure in the hell implied it
it couldn't be taken any other way then you referring to blacks
don't play obtuse because people will start considering you aren't playing but that you are

 

No, it was not all right then. That's why I understand why the word is censored today. The rest of your post is only part of the story...

 

Are you denying that an Irish slave was ever whipped or branded to death? Or denying that immigrant lynchings occurred as those groups were being called derogatory names, especially the n-word?

 

because you stated this

"In short, the censored word carries a violent history against the person it's used against."

the only word that was censored was the one the refers to blacks so you sure in the hell wasn't referring to the Irish

 

You assumed that. There is a very specific reason why I omitted skin color and just used person in my first post. Now I know you made this thread to express disbelief on why you couldn't curse out Black people without getting censored.

 

In one way you're right. They've discarded the Stars and Bars for the flag of Che Guevara, and revised their history to exclude their terror campaigns against Afro-Americans, Catholics, Jews and foreign minorities. Now Democrats try to blame it all on Republicans, which is misleading and false.

 

If the OP does not believe the other words are censored they should have a conversation at their place of employment, church or while in a restaurant and see what happens next.

 

I don't know about revised. I only say that because the history I learned in school was so watered down it may as well have been taught by Sesame Street. I see both parties engaging in flame wars present day.

 

Right on. Then how do you explain that Democrats now claim that only the GOP and conservatives are now the racist bigots, claiming that the KKK, was actually made up of conservatives, when we all know that Democrat zealots created the KKK to continue the Civil war, march down Pennsylvania Ave., and filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act and again in 1964. Had the Republican Party not voted en masse for both CRA's they would never have passed. However, Democrats take credit for something they never wanted and were against but finally forced into. To hear Democrats today. They claim they were all for the Civil Rights of black people, while before the were against the CRA.

Quote Originally Posted by Questerr View Post
Yes, the Southerners who violently suppressed civil rights were conservatives.

Quote Originally Posted by Karma Mechanic View Post
no he was a conservative...I didn't say Republican.
The Democratic party was split....the conservatives were opposed to civil rights, mostly from the south, many became the modern Republican party. Those are facts.

Really...., I find it quite "humorous how racist Progressive democrats can now be called conservatives, when it serves Socialist liberals to do so". {paraphrased} Vino909

 

This old chestnut again?

Yes, I know that when arguments fail, the last step is always a threat of violence, but doesn't that strike you as a cheap debate tactic?