Getting Fired 101, The Ohio Teacher's Edition: Go Full Racist On Facebook
from the how-does-this-guy-qualify-to-educate-children? dept
This is the week of All Hallows' Eve, when the near-entirety of a mostly staunchly monotheistic religious nation encourage their children to partake in a pagan ritual, because American hypocrisy is as endless as the ether to which it disbands. And, if you're David Spondike, it's all fun and games until some brown-skinned person urinates on a telephone pole. Then it's time for a fun little Confederate rant on Facebook.I don't mind if you come to my neighborhood from the ghetto to trick-or-treat. But when you whip out your teeny dicks and piss on the telephone pole in front of my yard and a bunch of preschoolers and toddlers, you can take your nigger-ass back where it came from. I don't have anything against anyone of any color, but niggers, stay out!Don't read that last line more than three times out loud, or your brain might just implode for uttering anything so stupidly self-contradictory. As I mentioned, Spondike is a high school teacher in Akron, where the majority of the student body is African American. In other words, he extra can't get away with saying something so racist and stupid.
Wait, did I say racist? Sorry, here's Spondike with a follow up to tell me why it wasn't a racist thing to say.
"Racism" implies prejudging, which is clearly not what happened here. Making any excuse for allowing one race to use a word and condemning another race for using the same word is institutionalized racism in and of itself, regardless of the justification used.Yup, he's one of "those guys" who thinks simply using a racially charged term against a minority in anger isn't racist so long as you just say it isn't. Also, apparently there's this idea floating around some of my fellow white folks' brains that if it isn't okay for us to use racist terms then obviously it shouldn't be okay for the target of those words to use them either. A bit of advice: stop thinking that, because it's stupid. You can argue that if you want, but you apparently don't understand the history of word-adoption as an empowerment structure. Oh, and advocating that would put you squarely on the side of Spondike, meaning this guy:
Spondike also has a track record when it comes to disciplinary action brought against him at the school. In 2000, he was reprimanded for throwing a chair against a classroom wall, and using strong profanity against students. A year later, he was disciplined for spitting on the floor after a student in his class fell asleep. And in 2007, he was accused of physically abusing a middle school student, an allegation that was found to be unsubstantiated after investigation by the district and Akron police.Here's to hoping he never works in a school system again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: racism, social media, teachers
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I'm absolutely appalled by many of the posts in this thread
Would he have used the term if the guy peeing in front of his house was white? Almost certainly not.Did he use the term with the intention of insulting the guy who peed on the pole? Almost certainly yes.
Fair enough, he was angry and wanted to lash out. He might believe that he wasn't being racist because he didn't mean it to be. But tough. The word is an insult, and it's explicitly used for black (or wannabe) black people. I can tell my friends to fuck off and they're not offended. Doesn't stop the phrase being an insult.
Unconscious racism is still racism, even if you believe you're not racist.
And to the comment that suggested that racism against blacks continues because they don't behave....Jesus H Christ on a bike. That's both appalling and incredibly stupid. And it's racist.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, he made it pretty clear that he doesn't use "nigger" interchangeably with "black person". He seems to use it to mean something more like a person (perhaps of any colour) who behaves in a certain way. (in this case urinating in public in front of kids). If anything, he means it as a kind of social class.
In his later follow up, said white man re-iterates that racism would be prejudice based on generalising on race alone, and he has specifically taken issue with individuals based on their actual behaviour.
I'm no supporter of the subject of this story, but Tim seems to have tried very hard not to look very far into what was actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> > around some of my fellow white folks' brains
> > that if it isn't okay for us to use racist
> > terms then obviously it shouldn't be okay for
> > the target of those words to use them either.
> > A bit of advice: stop thinking that, because
> > it's stupid.
> Tim seems to have tried very hard not to look
> very far into what was actually said.
Yep. And his comment that this "stupid" idea is only "floating around in the heads of his fellow white people" is in itself ill-informed and bordering on racist.
Many, many, African-Americans find the use of that word by ANYONE of ANY race or color to be hateful and racist and are offended by it. Just ask Oprah or Bill Cosby how they feel about other blacks using the n-word and you'll get an earful, and it certainly isn't "stupid" of them to feel that way.
I generally enjoy Tim's articles but this one had some major problems.
Having said that, the Ohio guy is a jerk and probably shouldn't be teaching children of any color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, I, for one, would rather we all just become color-blind and judge people for their actions and character. Why can't he just be upset that a guy peed on his telephone pole in front of children and leave it at that? There's no need to mention his race, he could have just as easily have been any other low-class person of any race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sources: Wikipedia and what Merriam-Webster used to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it ever seems asymmetrical to you, that's because a power imbalance only works one way.
A white person is hurt as much by the term cracker as by someone calling them an asshole. A black person being called the n-word instead of asshole suffers the additional harm of a microaggression amoung millions of other microaggressions. The cumulative effect of those microaggressions is a reinforcement of the power structure in many ways.
It's probably best to explain it to white men of the present time by analogy to the microaggressions vs. LGB sexualities and vs. trans* people. How old were you when a classmate/friend was first heckled for doing something a little bit feminine, and called gay, or a wuss? How old were you when you first felt the pressure to be manly to avoid being regarded by your peers as 'gay'? For something that's never explicitly taught, it seems pretty ubiquitous in kindergartens.
TL;DR: Microaggressions are a primary shaper of our internalized stereotypes and identities, and then later act as enforcers of those again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All humans have the same fundamental blood running through their veins and arteries. We are all genetically related irrespective of the variations of outward appearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're wrong Mr. Little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interestingly the word cracker he describes is meaningless to me. If someone called me a cracker I'd look at them puzzled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If divinity exists, divine mandate determines the meaning of life. Given the impossibility of proving any given view of divinity, this is an unsatisfying answer for the curious. If divinity does not exist, there is no objective meaning and we all must find our own purpose.
The great thing about meaninglessness is that everything is equally worth zero, no matter how you group it, which allows any subjective seed to take primacy. The biological needs of the human brain provide a seed for each of us to ascribe meaning from a subjective point of view. So, the meaning of your life will be different from the meaning of the life of pretty much any other person.
I know the meanings I want for my own life, but that is highly personal. Best of luck finding and realizing the meanings of your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 31st, 2013 @ 11:13pm
I didn't know progressives had made up a new word to tar otherwise regular people as racist.
Apparently everyone who isn't racist is still guilty of racism because.. because.. Microagressions!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi there! Welcome to techdirt! Here you'll find a higher quality grade of conversation than your native lands. Now don't tell me! Let me guess by your accent where you're from...
Fox News? The Blaze perhaps?
Here's a person you might not know about: Chester Middlebrook Pierce. Now why is that important? Well because he's Emeritus Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
Fun Fact: He coined the term 'microaggression' in 1970.
Microaggressive acts are subtle, usually culturally ingrained and subtle things people do to each other since we're all generally judgmental bastards who want to feel superior to everyone else. To see a good example of microaggression in action, one only has to point their browser to peopleofwalmart.com.
Or for another example, this very post! You see, there's a stereotype regarding people who post at or regularly agree with the comments sections at Fox News and The Blaze. Using the content and context of your post and denoting a stereotype is a form of microaggression on my part. In fact, so is your use of "Progressives" as a pejorative!
Fun, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Life is full of bumps and bruises. Attempting to band-aid over them as opposed to focusing on root cause just doesn't work. Have you ever had to deal with someone who treated every little thing that didn't go they're way as a prejudice against them?
That is how micro-aggression has come to be used Today, even though it wasn't intended to. If someone claims offense even where most wouldn't, it is somehow the fault of the offender, despite them not intending any offense.
Don't like something someone is doing? All they have to do is claim a credible minority status and suddenly you're painted as prejudiced. This undermines real attempts to address and eliminate prejudicial behavior.
One of the examples I'm thinking of here was someone claiming that I was prejudiced against those of German descent. I find this interesting, given that the largest portion of my ancestry is German.
The other was a slacker who eventually violently assaulted someone else where we were working in a manner that could have been lethal. I'm not sure whether there was a legitimate case of racism or not (there probably was), but the guy was also legitimately a slacker with anger issues who evaded these issues by claiming racism against anyone who called him on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some people are asshats that can't take responsibility for themselves. Others really are just tired of the passive-aggressive crap they have to deal with day-in and day-out.
On a sociological level, we humans are pretty limited to how we view others that are outside of our monkeysphere. In order to address the root cause, we'll have to go beyond tens of thousands of years of biologically ingrained tribalism that's helped our species to survive. This means teaching tolerance and acceptance of those who are different than us. To use the Left/Right political spectrum, this is generally considered a 'Leftist' or 'Progressive' viewpoint.
"I didn't mean to!" is generally a common excuse of a child that hasn't been taught how to act or behave properly. That phrase graduates to "I was only joking!" as a person grows older and gets chided for something. The solution is for that person to stop doing whatever it was they did.
To me this reads like, "I'm not prejudiced because I have ______ friends."
In this case neither one of us has the full details on the anecdote. Me even less so. Without context I'm afraid I can't really make a judgement here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It also happens to be the excuse of someone who legitimately didn't mean to cause offense. Note that this only really applies when there is nothing inherently prejudiced to point to. It occurs because the offended believes so strongly that others are prejudiced against them that they jump to this conclusion rather than the approximation of Occam's razor most people utilize.
Not exactly, the claim was essentially that I was racist against myself, based solely on the fact that I didn't go out of my way to be friendly to this person (additional detail of the situation, it really was very ridiculous and didn't end up meaning much overall). They didn't know my ancestry, but it demonstrates how quickly they formed a hyperbolic judgement of my actions due to the excuse of racism. Now, before you jump on me for reducing racism to an excuse, it was in this situation, it isn't in many.
As to the other case, I'm willing to make this judgement: assaulting someone in a potentially lethal manner is the wrong response to racism unless that has already escalated to violent levels. Again we have a case where racism was used as an excuse. This undermines efforts to stamp out racism and it bothers me greatly that as part of that narrative these actions have been granted increasing legitimacy.
Finally:
Agreed, but:
Labeling things in this manner is deliberately reducing a complex issue that needs to be handled carefully to a rhetorical level. Worse, it does so in support of a power structure, which makes it very likely to be usurped and abused in furthering that power structure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grandma Loves you!
Sadly it's the reality of the situation at hand in the United States. Do I agree with it? Not at all. I am sad to say it's commentary from people who believe it combined with the policies put in place by the politicians they vote for which reflect this sentiment.
Go to any politically charged discussion and see who affiliates with which group and read what they write. There's a clear distinction in what people believe and with whom they associate. Tolerance and acceptance of differences has generally been considered a "Left Side" issue while regimented conformity and a strong reluctance towards change falls to its polar opposite.
It's just a part of natural human existence. There's a whole host of published research on the subject of varied personality traits, brain structure, and political views.
For a quick read there's this article: Political Views Are Reflected in Brain Structure. But if you want a more in-depth review of the study there's a 2011 issue of Current Biology that published the results from the Ryota Kanai's group at University College, London.
There are a few other studies that predate this one that a quick search will probably bring up if you're interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grandma Loves you!
Wow, every single one of those error bars save two overlaps the mean for all other data-points: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2#Data
For a significant result to be established, there can be no overlap between error bars. What this means is that the data shows no significant result and the conclusion of the study ought to be: no correlation was found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grandma Loves you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not use racial slurs when angry.
That goes for everyone, white, black, yellow, christian, hindu, muslim, jew, budhist, russian, japanese, australian, american, democrat, republican, communist, capitalist and so many others that I can't even remember them all(the reasons to hate others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really don't understand "racism"
You really don't understand "racism". This whitefella you are reporting on needs a good kick in the backside for his stupidity. But your own reporting indicates that other than that the blackfella he was responding to was just as stupid for doing his actions in front of preschoolers and toddlers (of which how many were probably black or white or brown).
I come from a land where where "racism" is a subtle thing. It depends on things like "which town are you from", whether you are catholic or protestant, whether you have one drop of black in you or not, whether you are Serbian, Greek, Croat, Russian, Vietnamese, Hong Kong Chinese, Singaporean, Sinhalese or Tamal, biker or bikey, or a myriad of other variations.
Forget using the word "racism", just use the proper term "prejudice". Stupidity is stupidity and that is a common trait shown by all men, women and children the world over.
Highlighting a whitefella doing something stupid as you have only just shows your prejudices and doesn't actually do anything constructive. Had you highlighted the stupidity of both sides and made some salient point about that, I could then have appreciated the article.
I generally find your articles to have some salient point that allows for constructive conversation, but every so often, you just seem to lose it and it shows a significant character flaw in you.
tl;dr Time to shut up and go back to the grandkids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a hyperbole thing, you wouldn't understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda reminds me of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's hard to look at this man as a jerk or anything worse because his post has a point. To urinate in front of someone's home and when there are children around is just not right.
Oh, and he's right about the 'n-word'. It really is institutional racism when black people call each other that word but they only cry racism when a white person uses that word. This is why racism still exists in this country because the black community continues to apply 'racism' when white people use it but don't take that same attitude when another black person uses it.
It's a double standard. Either it's racism and it applies to everyone or not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullshit. It's very easy to get the point across without calling out a single race or using racial epithets. It would also be wrong if white, hispanic, asian or other people did the same thing (also enough to get on sex offenders lists in many places if children are indeed present). Pissing in someone's yard is a dick move no matter the colour of the person's skin.
He's not a jerk because he's annoyed at people doing those things. He's a jerk because of the way he chose to express his opinions, and the way he singled out a particular race for abuse.
"It really is institutional racism when black people call each other that word but they only cry racism when a white person uses that word."
This argument always confuses me. How is it racism if two people of the same race do something to each other?
Similarly, a woman can hit another woman without being a misogynist and a child can beat on another child without being accused of child abuse. That doesn't mean I, as a man, have the right to do the same thing just because it's "OK" for them.
Same here. If two black people do something to each other, it's not racist because they're the same race. If a white person does it, racism can be implied (even if unintended), especially with language that's historically loaded with racist connotations.
There's no double standard either. A double standard would be if the black guy could use racial abuse against a white guy without question but the white guy couldn't retaliate in kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, using a different analogy, if a fat person calls another person fat, that's OK? The one who was called fat has no right to be upset because the person who insulted him has the same shape?
It's not even remotely close to the truth. A racially charged word is racially charged for everyone, not just people of a different race. When people make statements like yours, they only perpetuate the racial divide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Or, at least, if that person uses it as an insult it's due to something other than prejudice against fat people. The words might still be offensive, but the connotations of the words mean something different in context compared to if a skinny guy did the same thing. Another analogy - two gay guys calling each other a "fag" might be OK, or at least not imply homophobia, but it would mean something different if a straight guy did the same to a gay guy.
Is that really difficult to understand? This isn't exactly complicated. Words have different meaning based on context, and one of the things that changes context is the identity of the person saying the words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, again it's context. There's different expectations and connotations surrounding a person you're good friends with compared to a relative stranger. Friends sometimes throw insults at each other that are fine because they both know it's a joke, whereas the same words would be insulting or worse if meant seriously.
It's amazing that some people are unable to understand how language works in basic social interaction like this.
"I think his words may have been poorly chosen but to argue he's racist is a stretch."
Racism was definitely implied. He didn't rant against everyone who might do such a thing, nor rant against the specific person who did this, he ranted against a particular race.
He may not have *intended* to come across as racist, but as a teacher and role model he should at least be aware of how his words can be perceived by others. Especially since he apparently teaches in a school with a mainly black population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what happens when, due to your continued use of these slurs among your friends these 'jokes' are overheard by someone who isn't in on the joke? or maybe you forget where you are and they slip out in a mixed, public environment?
Stop using these slurs in your everyday speech and soon enough, they won't pop up in posts like this obviously confused teacher any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then some people might be offended or take them the wrong way and I'm responsible for that. But if I call my friend a dumb twat in front of others, even on a regular basis, that doesn't give anyone else the right to call me that. Is that really hard to understand?
You must be so confused in normal social environments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> and they call each other fag, wuss, whatever
> (personal experience). I think his words may
> have been poorly chosen but to argue he's
> racist is a stretch.
It's more than a stretch, it's an impossibility.
"Gay" is not a race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand your logic, I just think it's flawed. Based on your analogies, it's OK to demean one person with language that most would find offensive, just because the person making the statement is similar in appearance, or sexual preference.
Everyone should find terms like faggot, nigger, or spic offensive. They were never intended to be terms of endearment or joviality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Better tell these guys, they must be causing people to break down in supermarkets! http://mrbrains.co.uk/products/
Words change meanings dependant on the context. Context changes depending on who is saying the words, the target of those words, the audience, the situation, whether anger is behind the words, etc. The context of two friendly people of the minority using a word between each other is different than someone of a different social or racial group using the word in anger.
"They were never intended to be terms of endearment or joviality."
Words also depend on cultural norms - calling someone gay nowadays means something totally different to what it meant 100 years ago, even if the old definition is technically correct. It's irrelevant what a word was originally meant to say, if the current cultural norms say it means something different.
Again, this isn't hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another example of a slur for illustration:
The word 'nerd' was devised as a slur and still carries some of the connotation. It has largely been rendered inert through those who see the intelligence level of that community as a point of pride. However, there are many nerds who consider certain nerdy activities to be, well, nerdy and they use that word as a derisive. They may be a nerd, but they'd never be that nerdy. The fun one here is that LARPers and D&D players often view each other in this way, each adamantly maintaining that the other is the epitome of nerdiness.
Note also the way that the community shrugged off the derision of the word (for the most part). It was not by using it amongst themselves with a different meaning, but by owning that portion of who they were and being proud of it. If you take offense to the word itself, you have not done that, even if it is only a subset of the whole society from whom offense is taken.
Be proud of being you. The next time someone slings a slur you're way, stand up and say something along the lines of "of course, I'm really quite glad to be a ___." Leave it at that, don't sling anything back, even if what you'd return with would be true. The next time someone lobs one of those words your way without meaning anything negative, take it for what it is intended to be, a gesture of respect and support, maybe with a little mild teasing.
Kids might have difficulties with bullies, but by the time your an adult you really should have learned how to deal with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've traveled extensively. I've been to over 15 countries for extended periods and I know that different cultures have different social mores.
I thought we were discussing this post and prejudicial language in the USA, today. If we are going to expand the scope of the discussion, I'm game. Hell, lets legalize prostitution and drug use, like in Amsterdam. Better yet, lets outlaw any religion other than Islamic, like in Saudi Arabia. Let's go back to living in Longhouses like the Iroquois and have sex next to our sleeping (or watching) kids. Ask a kid from the UK what his mother did the first time he used the word 'bloody'. Ask an Aussie to define the word 'pissed'.
All of the above examples aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The point of my comments, from the start, is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a racially, or prejudicially charged word only sometimes. It undermines the efforts to eliminate what is a universally unacceptable behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why are you so resistant to the idea that the context of the words spoken matter to their perceived meaning?
"You can't have a racially, or prejudicially charged word only sometimes."
Yes you can, depending on the context. This isn't limited to racial or prejudicial words. I can call my best friend an fucking asshole all I want with no repercussions, but I shouldn't be surprised at receiving different treatment if I said that to my boss or a cop. That would be on my head for not being intelligent enough to know that the words weren't appropriate in that context. Same here - words mean different things depending on who they are being spoken by or to, and the context within which they are spoken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see the issue now. You treat your friends like shit and think everyone is the same as you. I can tell you honestly, that I don't call my friend an asshole unless he is being one, and I expect to experience repercussions. I'd do the same to my boss or a cop if they were being an asshole also.
You see I think all of the social problems in this world are based on misunderstandings in communication. I treat everyone the same. There is nothing I say to my brother that I can't say to a stranger. The same goes for men vs. women. It's a simple concept really, treat everyone equally, regardless of sex, race, sexual preference, religion, nationality, or penis length. Although I will readily admit that I don't ask my brother, "Who's your Daddy?" like I do my girlfriend :)
In all seriousness, thanks for at least having a fairly respectful debate about a very contentious subject. That seems to be something that's hard to come by nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maintaining that the word remains charged and cannot be used by the group that was originally using it negatively, even if they were to use it in the new positive manner, curtails the effort to render the prejudice inherent in the word inert. That word remaining in the societies lexicon with such a dual-meaning then perpetuates the tension between the two groups, breeding additional prejudice. Allowing the word to fully transition by not reserving the new meeting to an "in" group would be a far better course of action.
See "queen" as a slang term for gay men for reference to a word that has truly been neutralized, or really even any kids nickname. The tone of voice and/or context of a word is important and prejudging the meaning of the word based on who is saying it is as foolish as prejudging people based on skin color except in one instance. Prejudging that the word is a good thing, even when it wasn't intended as such, is how these barbs lose their strength.
Basically, to take offense at a word drives its use in the wrong direction. Pretend it was a compliment and the prejudice inherent to it will die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but we're getting into something that would require more specifics to properly argue, I think. It's not impossible for people of a group to hate the group they belong to and use language accordingly, but it's less likely. Peers often innocently use language between themselves that would be offensive outside of their peer group. That doesn't mean that people outside that peer group suddenly have licence to use it without criticism.
I agree with the rest of your points, but changing language like that - especially language with strong negative connotations - takes time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> be OK, or at least not imply homophobia, but
> it would mean something different if a straight
> guy did the same to a gay guy.
So how does this theory jibe with the explanation we were given by Rachel Jeantel in the Trayvon Martin trial that white people don't have any right to be offended when a black person calls them "cracker"?
You see, the philosophy of modern political correctness doesn't just stop with "it's okay when that word is used between two black people". It further decrees that white people have no right to ever be offended by anything said about them, that indeed it's impossible for them to even be the victims of racism in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Internalized racism.
Regardless, there's a different social dynamic happening, sometimes, when black people call each other the n-word. Reclamation and all that jazz.
There's a bit of debate as to whether reclamation is positive as a general idea, but my particular slant on it is that reclamation can't really be harmful if there's actual proselytization occurring anyways. There are quite a few racist groups in the states who actively advocate against any sort of racial equality and who do encourage using slurs such as the n-word. So neither the word nor the context of it is going to go away So you may as well attempt to change/deflect the meaning of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Racism is a two-way street pal. Can you seriously not see how it's racism if a black person tells a white person "Hey! You can't say that word! That's my word and you can't say it because of the color of your skin!". Treating someone differently because of the race they were born into is the very definition of racism. It is most definitely racism if a black person gets offended when a white person says the N-word but doesn't get offended when another black person says it in the same context. It's prejudice against someone due to the color of their skin. It's racism. Now I must ask you, is that so difficult to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, because that's not what's happening. If you can't understand why, maybe you should try to work out why words change meaning with context, not to mention why you're so desperate to be allowed to use a racial slur.
Do you also get angry about sexism because you're not allowed to call any random woman on the street a bitch, even if you just heard her female friend say that word to her? Do you get angry about ageism because you can't say the same things to a 6 year old girl as you can to a woman in a club? Do you complain about class discrimination because you can't talk to your boss the same way as you talk to your brother? Or are you just angry at this one word being out of your reach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you try actually reading my post? Here I'll highlight the relevant part for you.
"It is most definitely racism if a black person gets offended when a white person says the N-word but doesn't get offended when another black person says it in the same context."
Notice that last part where it says "IN THE SAME CONTEXT".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put it this way: at one point in my life I had a girlfriend who was in the same demographic as my sister. Same gender, same age, same race, same nationality, same social and economic background. But there were things I could say to my girlfriend that would have been taken totally differently if I said them to my sister, and vice versa. One characteristic of the person (in this case the type of personal relationship) makes all the difference to how my words are interpreted.
Equally, there are things I can say to male friends that would be unacceptable to say to a female friend, even if everything else about that person is the same - changing the gender changes the context of what's being said. There are things I can say to one friend that the other friend may be offended or made uncomfortable by. We don't tend to think about these things consciously, but it's there.
That's how it is with words with racial connotations. All other things being equal, certain words mean something different coming from a person of the same race to what they mean coming from someone of a different race. Changing the race of the subject changes the connotations of what's said.
That's not racism, it's a simple fact of language. Most words are neutral in most contexts (for example, if I say hello to a black guy, it means the same as if I say it to a white woman), but some words are not neutral depending on the race of the person being addressed.
You're not being prejudiced against just because the word you want to use has negative connotations in the context you wish to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is an ugly truth that does not have the same level of validity as certain other forms of contextual change, such a different kind of relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you. This is what I'm trying to say. If you bring race into the equation then you are engaging in racism, it's really as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree, only that IS racism. Treating someone differently because of their race makes it racism. Telling someone they are allowed or not allowed to do something because of their race is racism.
"One characteristic of the person (in this case the type of personal relationship) makes all the difference to how my words are interpreted."
Yes, and if that characteristic happens to be the race of the person, then it is racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but as long as our history of black subjugation in America exists, equal context will NEVER happen, so the question is equal parts boring and moot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of which I personally had nothing to do with. I try to take things that people say in the same context regardless of race and I would expect the same courtesy in return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The very concept of historical context involves you having nothing to do with the historical context. Your point has no meaning.
"I try to take things that people say in the same context regardless of race and I would expect the same courtesy in return."
That's one way to do it and I largely agree with you. But what do you do when someone fails that standard back at you? Do you just stomp your feet and refuse to take their experiences and context into account as a matter of principal? You can, certainly, but I don't know how far that gets you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or can someone who can find evidence of Roman descent file a legitimate grievance with the descendants of Nero?
I do understand that 300 years of oppression takes a while to fix, but we should all be targeting this being a non issue folly of the past within the next 1000 years, like using slugs to cure colds, or the Holocaust, or the establishment of the state of Israel (perpetuated as a means of reparations, but with those reparations stolen from people who had no part in causing the need for them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This view on the creation of the state of Israel is insufficiently nuanced. Israel wasn't a Palestinian state stolen by immigrant Jews from a Palestinian Arab people.
It was a mandate controlled by the British Empire, previously controlled by the Ottoman Empire, not an independent Palestine colonised by Jews or Brits.
The land was owned by Palestinian Arabs and Jews, the majority of whom began immigrating into the area from the mid 19th century, in roughly equal numbers, and in the majority of cases the immigration of both Jews and Arabs happened according to the laws of the country at the time. i.e. They were immigrants, NOT colonists.
The creation of Israel was a messy business, and it had very negative and dispossessing consequences for some of the Arabs who lived there, which persist until this day. Much of what happenend was wrong, and many people were affected, but it wasn't simply taken wholesale, neither were there clear good guys and bad guys as, in human history, there frequently aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please explain the loiter squad blackface hat events and how the hats are no longer for sale on the website?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless the person doing the pissing is female, then it really isn't a "dick move" at all now is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the difference between calling your wife of ten years "sugartits" in your bedroom, and calling a six year old girl you run into at McDonalds "sugartits."
Based on who you are, your relationship to the person you're talking to or about, and the knowledge of the audience (if any) of that relationship makes the same word be a term of comedic endearment, or a downright creepy pedophilic utterance.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This may be the simultaneously most funny and most useful analogy for explaining this that I've ever seen. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't see him arguing about age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, and I'm not going judge here now that I've gotten over my visceral reaction....but why would you do that? Seriously, I'm curious. I'm fully on board that context, relationships, and community matter....but why? Just shock value of those around you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I call my sister "nuisance" regularly and it is an affective way (people often get shocked but they understand when I explain it's normal).
Like I call a homosexual friend of mine (he is male, I'm male and hetero) fag/faggot and he calls me a wuss.
I've also learned when I went to Chile that the word "weon" (would be something close to faggot) used to be the worst type of cursing but they use it regularly among friends (just to add some other foreign experience).
I'm not quite sure why we do it but you see, the words are inert if you choose them to be so. And to reply directly to your question I don't know why I call her that way. It seems natural to both of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If your first instinct on hearing the word is laughter, it is hard for the word to be used to wound you. In fact, confounding those who would use it that way by smirking at them is a very entertaining experience and one I highly recommend.
The next you would be insulted, try and fake a choked laugh and a muted smile instead. If they didn't intend to offend, this will be the end of it. If they did, you'll wreck them more thoroughly than any insult you could possibly sling back, and have a good laugh at their expense too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It comes from years of racism growing up and yes it is also part of learning history. It is mind blowing to learn about slavery and American history especially during WWII and the civil rights movement. To know all that my ancestors (and other minorities) have gone through after learning about the US Constitution and what this country is supposed to stand for... and then, to be a kid and have numerous people treat you like you're less than them in various ways. It's like getting punched in the stomach, and it sends your head spinning, it's just mind boggling to be treated that way. You feel embarrassed for no good reason and when you're young enough and told this enough you might believe it. These days, it's not so bad when it happens. I still feel insulted, but these days it's mostly a sadness to know racism (among other prejudices) still exists out there.
P.S. I do think black people can be racist and the words "reverse racism" sound ridiculous to me. Anyone can be prejudiced. BUT, the existing social structure, social & written history, political structure and economic history has clearly put the power into the hands of white America. And because of that, I doubt being called a honky is as demeaning and hurtful to a white person. (Especially considering the history of the word and how downright clownish it sounds.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, every time I've heard it dropped in the last few years was by my black neighbors.
Just saying.
If you have to go piss that's alright but FFS he could have at least attempted to be a little private about it. Not everyone wants to see some stranger whipping his dick out in plain view with no regard.
Honestly if it were me and that many people were around I would have just asked to use someones bathroom first.. If they told me no then I'd have my reason to go where ever, but I'd still try to be private as possible. Especially if there were kids around...
Why? Because I wouldn't my kids exposed to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Barring that, you've done your part and you can now ignore that poor treatment as bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or are you talking about the use of the word and the strange reaction that has evolved in response? While that may assist in the perpetuation of racism, it is not where it comes from.
I will say that it bothers me that we are talking about firing someone over something not connected to work, though. At the very least there needs to be a long discussion between the boss and the employee prior to such a severance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arbeit Macht Frei!
Sure it does. Otherwise it's not really freedom then.
You have just given us a great example of doublethink and NewSpeak. By your rationale, we all have the "freedom to murder".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbeit Macht Frei!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbeit Macht Frei!
Sure it does. Otherwise it's not really freedom then.
It means freedom from consequences from the government, not freedom from all consequences. Obviously. To expect nothing you say to have any consequences for you is silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbeit Macht Frei!
You've lost the argument with the first post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, he's a racist, but why all the fuss over tacking a leak?
You and I take leaks all the time. Every day.
If you're out in the countryside you go and do it against a tree or bush. You might turn your back to the crowd, but you don't have to find any "privacy".
"To urinate in front of someone's home and when there are children around is just not right."
Why the "when there are children around" part?
If you're at a public urinal there's no separation between children and adults.
"Why? Because I wouldn't my kids exposed to that."
What? Exposed to someone taking a leak? Oooooh, he has a penis, he pisses with it, How wrong!
If someone pissed on my actual house, or on the path to the door, I would probably shout at them, but pissing in the bushes?
I feel that the worst part of this story is how people get so worked up about body parts and bodily functions. It's not like the guy started stroking it. Now *there* would be a reason to go ballistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better than me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better than me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better than me.
"Oh and your breath stink"
Like Mr. Spondike, you can't seem to use the English language properly, even without the childish rants and racial slurs. Maybe we are better than you, I certainly don't have a problem with doing any of those things in the correct manner.
You can both say whatever you want, you might just not have the privilege of teaching children while you do it. That's not a bad thing, on the evidence presented here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better than me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm absolutely appalled by many of the posts in this thread
Did he use the term with the intention of insulting the guy who peed on the pole? Almost certainly yes.
Fair enough, he was angry and wanted to lash out. He might believe that he wasn't being racist because he didn't mean it to be. But tough. The word is an insult, and it's explicitly used for black (or wannabe) black people. I can tell my friends to fuck off and they're not offended. Doesn't stop the phrase being an insult.
Unconscious racism is still racism, even if you believe you're not racist.
And to the comment that suggested that racism against blacks continues because they don't behave....Jesus H Christ on a bike. That's both appalling and incredibly stupid. And it's racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm absolutely appalled by many of the posts in this thread
This.
Put simply, I think we can generally agree that we all feel everyone's against racism? And we all are against racism?
If racism was a purely external notion to our brains, and the above is true, then why does racism still exist? I'm not talking about racism existing as crazy people on street corners advocating the death penalty for PoC criminals, I'm talking about the systemic disadvantages faced by PoC. Stuff that can be seen through stats like median wage, class mobility, political representation and such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm absolutely appalled by many of the posts in this thread
I'd think of something as offensive. Cock sucking fag comes to mind (hey, you asked!)
And to the comment that suggested that racism against blacks continues because they don't behave....Jesus H Christ on a bike. That's both appalling and incredibly stupid. And it's racist.
Actually I've discussed that with black people before and we agreed with this. This is not only true for blacks with shitty behavior but goes for poor people being assholes just because they believe their poverty entitles them to be assholes (ie: throw garbage anywhere, disturb the neighbors with loud sound etc) and filthy rich and empty celebrities who are spoiled brats that got their riches easily and now think they are entitled to anything.
You see, it's not restricted to a single class, color of skin or type of human. A chunk of the representatives of said population keeps established stereotypes alive, unfortunately. The problem I see in his sentence is that he is generalizing.
Note that I'm not agreeing with this mindset, I'm merely saying he has a point though again the wording was poorly chosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm absolutely appalled by many of the posts in this thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really have zero imagination
If that person was white, I would call them "white trash" or "trailer trash". What alternative would you suggest when the person in question is obviously not white enough to be called white trash?
There's actually already an obvious candidate. It's just taboo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Words aren't racist, people are. I can say nigger till the cows come home but that doesn't mean I spend my weekends dressed in white burning crosses. By the same measure I can refer to someone by whatever pc term you want and treat them like scum. Look at the actions not the words used.
2) I'm not comfortable with the school of thought that says "only black people can say nigger" it a double standard. If you prohibit someone from doing something based on the colour of their skin you are being racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True. However, choice of words suggests underlying intention. Using the words as insults doesn't make the word automatically insulting, but may encourage others. In the same way, you shouldn't swear in front of your children.
Perfectly reasonable. But, given the connotations and the influence it can have on others, it would be better for no one to use it. When people stop being racist, then the words can be free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure how an n-word free world has any bearing to the level of racism. I'll still be able to deny black guys jobs, do my best to stop them voting and get my cop buddies to stop them in the street. I'll just have to call them something different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's address this particular fallacy real quick. There is nothing inherently wrong with certain strings of sounds or letters. What is and is not considered a swear word varies over time and between different cultures. So what makes a swear word special?
Swear words are usually resolved for a strong negative emphasis. Therefore, using them constantly implies a great amount of negativity and usually aggression. So go ahead and teach these words to your kids, in their proper usage. You'll only hear them when there are more pressing matters to attend to, as that is when they are appropriate.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled racism debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
resolved => reserved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Author's Double Standard
And no, I'm not a southerner. I'm also not a guilty white liberal trying to look good for other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Author's Double Standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Author's Double Standard
Interesting. Please define my bigotry. How am I a bigot? What bigoted belief has my writing exposed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Author's Double Standard
How did a post about a racist remark from a teacher turn into an opportunity to rail against religion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Author's Double Standard
Excuse me, but pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious is not "railing against religion". Learn to read, young Padawan....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the origins of All Hallow's Eve
Counter-arguments to consider, with source citations:
There is a lot of new mythology about Halloween that has been invented to claim that Halloween is a pagan holiday. It is not, and it never was a pagan holiday.
The earliest surviving record of an annual commemoration of a saint or saints dates to the 2nd century A.D. There is no reference to any pagan festival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the origins of All Hallow's Eve
Except for the pagan harvest festivals that happened all over Europe before the First Century BCE. The most well known being Samhain of the Gaelic Celts who's traditions make up some the modern Halloween celebrations we know of today.
Then there's the Roman celebration of Feralia. In late October the Romans traditionally commemorated the passing of the dead. Plus the Halloween tradition of "Bobbing for Apples" may have come from the Roman celebration of Pomona.
Also your Lutheran Church website is a dubious source for historic information. Especially since All Saints Day was established by Pope Gregory III in the 8th Century between 731–741. This is several centuries after the date given by your source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the origins of All Hallow's Eve
The same goes for Easter and Xmas. Both are manifestations of this in their own way.
A more modern example is the Soviets. They tried to co-opt and secularize Xmas because they could not quite strip a people of their Xian traditions despite really wanting to. Xmas morphed into Soviet New Years but still retained it's basic original character.
Even in America, history begins before July 4th 1776.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot / kettle?
Given the rest of the article, he's clearly using "Confederate" in a derogatory manner to mean racist. In addition the event happened in Ohio, which to the best of my knowledge wasn't even in the Confederate States (although I confess I don't know where David Spondike comes from)
Maybe Tim is using the "C-word" to shock, or emphasize his point - but then that's an excuse that our Ohioan teacher could also use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pot / kettle?
Ok, I'm really tired of this sort of bullshit. It's the same argument trotted out when you talk about religion, particularly with Islam for some reason. Attacking Islam, even going so far as to say "Islam is a horrible thing" is NOT RACIST, because Islam is not a race. It may be prejudicial, it may be over-generalizing (though I don't think so, if the argument is formed properly), but it sure as shit isn't racism.
The same applies to the Confederacy, for reasons so obvious that if you need to have them explained to you, you have deeper issues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pot / kettle?
As a group of people defined by their birthright the group "people who were born in a particular place" and "people who were born with a particular skin colour" are the similar in that there is no personal choice and both can be singled out and tarred.
I was merely pointing out that he was generalising by linking Confederate to racist. By making such a broad comment, he was tarring an entire group of people with a negative trait. If he was to imply that all of a certain race had a negative trait, it would be racist - hence my comment that applying a negative trait to all of a certain group, defined by where they lived rather than any particular active choice, is being just as prejudicial as someone who applies negative traits to everyone of a certain race (or religion for that matter).
Oh, and there's no need for bad language or personal insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pot / kettle?
"I was merely pointing out that he was generalising by linking Confederate to racist."
Well, when Tim wrote that, he having a little fun with hyperbole, but it seems to me that a nation willing to die for slavery on its own institutionalized racism is one worth linking to another racist asshat....
"Oh, and there's no need for bad language or personal insults."
But without them, I/Tim/me/he would have nothing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot / kettle?
This must be one of the saddest things ever, no joy, no peace, no laughter. How gray (dark, dismal, or gloomy, dull, dreary, or monotonous) is your life?
Tears of dismay that one should live such a life. Truly, the dark side is so miserable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot / kettle?
You should ask that of yourself, since you live in a way unable to detect a joke....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot / kettle?
Sadder still, that you consider the original
"But without them, I/Tim/me/he would have nothing...."
a joke. I find humour in many places and in many ways, little one, but your comment didn't even register on anything but the sad-o-meter. My youngest grandchild can be so serious and so funny at the same time, it is a delight. My own jokes are generally so obtuse that only one or two people actually get them. So I understand obtuse.
You need more practice in front of the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pot / kettle?
I’m aware that history is written by the victors and nobody is going to write that the losing side was right but hey we won – however I don’t think that’s having a big impact on this.
Anyway, tl;dr: The original comment isn’t as much hyperbole as I originally thought, and my comment was poorly worded in an attempt to make my point. Apologies for any offence. And thanks for prompting some additional reading! Am off to buy some ACW books to read over Christmas.
PS Just noticed you have the same underlying username as Tim, hence referring to you in the third person in my response above.
PPS You may have nothing without bad language, but at least you have that! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real racist here is whoever decided he deserves to be fired, because skin color. Its painfully obvious he wouldn't have been fired if the guy he insulted had been white.
Most people nowadays are just conditioned to react badly to racism. And that can be a good thing sometimes, as far as it keeps them from engaging in such behavior themselves. But there can never be true racial equality so long as some races are declared to be worthy of more protection than others.
An insult is an insult is an insult. It shouldn't matter what color anyone's skin is. Now, whether public exposure/urination warrants being called names on the internet is a matter of opinion. But I doubt the exposer would've got much sympathy anywhere if not for the race card, no matter what the mean teacher-man said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not playing the game
Personally, I think the author, as mentioned above, is as "racist" (whatever that means this week) as the subject of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Dang that man is Ghandi reincarnated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's a racist?
Someday, I would like to hear a Liberal define "racist" instead of just tossing the word about upon a whim. Anybody on the TechDirt staff care to take a shot at it?
Also here's a tip: Don't throw around the insult "stupid" so carelessly. It is known red flag indicating psychological projection, very much confirmed by this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what's a racist?
Well, I wouldn't identify as capital "L" Liberal, but I'll take a shot at it.
Racist: the conceptualization of generally negative properties or potentials of a population based solely or mostly on group genetic heritage; must be not virtually true.
Example: Niggers are stupid, or, Crackers can't dance, Asians have more potential for math than whites
Example of something NOT racist: African Americans are over-represented in the American prison system (note this may or may not be true, but allows for causes outside of genetics or the culture of African Americans).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what's a racist?
Racism is prejudice applied to a race. Prejudice is a judgement made with a less than adequate understanding, with its etymology derived from the idea that the judgement is made prior to acquiring understanding though not necessarily implying that understanding will be established.
To see racism only through the lens of negativity allows a massive loophole for any racist to escape through, they need only maintain that they hold a positive view of everyone but the group they are racist against. Therefore, racism must also apply to the positive case as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
Is it, or is it not, racist to prefer one race that is not your own over another race that is not your own? It is a semantic loophole opened in the definition where none need exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
Sorry, but I can't get past that I find the semantic question profoundly uninteresting because of its lack of practical application. When blacks begin lynching other blacks because they think whites are superior as a race, then we can have this discussion. It's a semantically silly position when you think about it.
1. A black person willing to kill blacks because whites are better should have killed themselves first, if they actually believed that universally.
2. A white person only hiring asians at the accounting office because of misguided notion about math universally applied to race should have fired themselves first.
The hypothetical doesn't make sense, and doesn't occur any way. It just isn't interesting as an argument....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
If the White guy hired the Asians because "Asians are smart," the Hispanics because "Hispanics are honest," and the White guys "on merit," with Whites making up a smaller percent than is found in the general area, are they or are they not racist against the Black guys they didn't hire?
Can we legally go after them for racist practices if they hired White guys only when no Black guy was in the running, in order to exploit this loophole? We use language as the basis of communication and therefore it forms the basis of law as well. If we adamantly define words such that loopholes exist in the words, then those same loopholes will come to exist within the laws.
Provide one good reason that we should have different words for positively phrased racism and negatively phrased racism. They are both logically fallacious and both therefore deserve scorn, so there is no great connotative need to do so as with awesome and awful (both drifting from the same original meaning).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
> because whites are better should have
> killed themselves first, if they actually
> believed that universally.
That doesn't make any sense. If such a hypothetical black person existed, he'd be more likely to kill himself *last* than first, just to make sure the job got done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
Ugh, well done. How the hell did I not come up with that at first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
What about antisemitism, where the most common trope is that Jews control all the money/governments/world/lizard spaceships?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what's a racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What he said was racist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way to deuce on my favorite non-holiday! :(
Christians are actually open minded, tolerant and inclusive enough to embracing of outside cultural influences enough (for once) to adopt something as obviously foreign to Christianity as Halloween and you want to flog them for being hypocritical? Now who is hypocritical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Er, it isn't hypocritical to point out that the religious (not only Christian) in this country are only dogmatic when it suits their own prejudices. They'll celebrate Halloween but lose their shit if a nativity scene on public land is taken down. That's on you people, not me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, racism is not the only form of prejudice and don't "you people" me, I'm not even christian lol :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, but there is. The contradiction is that the same person who insists that removing a nativity from public land is offensive to their religiosity because of how important it is to them cannot then turn around and partake in a ritual that is historically the competitor of their religion. Either either the faith is dogmatic and important or it isn't. They can't insist on having their nativity AND insist on participating in paganism, at least while remaining intellectually consistent.
"Also, racism is not the only form of prejudice and don't "you people" me, I'm not even christian lol :)"
My bad....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean there's a literacy test?
Spend 2000 years discouraging (religious) literacy and this is bound to happen.
Xmas was suppressed by many Xian factions for a number of years because of it's pagan influences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
worst written tech dirt article in a while
"Oh, and advocating that would put you squarely on the side of Spondike, meaning this guy:"
that's like saying the liberals who are for gun control are like hitler, cuz he was for gun control too.
it's just moronic logic.
nowadays, a sombrero is racist.
racism has come to sit in the eye of the beholder.
I remember the definition of "racist" as being something along the lines of "having a policy or belief based on race"
which was an affirmative stance by someone. I know words and meaning change over time, but sometimes when the meaning changes, the word becomes somewhat irrelevant to its original meaning without having become disassociated with it, and then you get universities (learned people) saying that dressing up on halloween in a sombrero is racist, and dressing up as a cowboy is just as bad.
so now racist just means "might have offended someone if they knew about it".. which is everything from being a different religion, race, or belief system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That kid got lucky
A call to the local authorities, along with some discrete video is all required to see that kid on the sex offenders registry along with some minor jail time/fines.
Pulling your pecker out in front of kids for any reason (even to pee) can be not only a very rude act, but also one that is "frowned upon" by local law enforcement in my area. There is really no need to engage in racism when there is a handy "public lewdness" charge staring you in the face. I am sure the local authorities will handle the name calling and such on the way to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To differentiate is to discriminate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Spondike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]