Mod The Sims - Double-Standards: The "N" Word and Muslims

Nekowolf

14th Aug 2010, 05:51 PM

So let's start with the infamous "N" word: nigger.

Dr. Laura recently provoked a black caller by using it. She went off on the word, and how black people use it all the time, and how it's a double-standard. The black caller was offended by this, but Dr. Laura kept using it (I think mostly out of spite).

It's a bad word, of course. But is there a double-standard or not? I, myself, am going to say...sort of.

I see it sort of like "fucker" or "asshole" or etc. Take me and my best friend, we call each other fucker, asshole, talk smack about each other, but we do it out of friendship. We both know neither one of us is serious and we don't give it an air of seriousness. We're not screaming it at each other, it's very casual. But if another person, say a stranger, did this to us, we might take it personally. So this stuff is a double-standard, technically, but a double-standard of friend v. stranger. That's how I perceive it.

Second one: Mohammad. Muslims are not allowed to depict Mohammad, yet when it happened earlier, there was some issues that came up, even some violence. Granted, of course, most of this was, without a doubt in my mind, mostly fundamentalists. But if non-Muslim was to depict Mohammad, would that be offensive, or rather, should it be taken as offensive? Since that is their rule, not, say, my rule. It's something I don't follow. But is to do it a disrespect to them, or just an expression that we are allowed but they are not?

Third one: This one is more directed at America, but others feel free to join in, of course. Some people are protesting the building of a Muslim structure (I don't even know anymore if it's just a mosque, or a community center, or both together) "near" (somewhat relative) the Ground Zero area of 9/11. As one comment read by a view over my local news station said (summarized), "It's not that we want to suppress them, it's that 9/11 was committed by Islamic fanatics" or something like that. But this is going on elsewhere all over the country, protesting the building of mosques.

Alright. Then I don't want any more Christian churches built! Who knows what they could be preaching! I'm sure that many of them are teaching stuff I disagree with, or may even find offensive! If they want to protest mosques, then let the rest of us protest churches.

treeag

14th Aug 2010, 06:00 PM

Third one: This one is more directed at America, but others feel free to join in, of course. Some people are protesting the building of a Muslim structure (I don't even know anymore if it's just a mosque, or a community center, or both together) "near" (somewhat relative) the Ground Zero area of 9/11. As one comment read by a view over my local news station said (summarized), "It's not that we want to suppress them, it's that 9/11 was committed by Islamic fanatics" or something like that. But this is going on elsewhere all over the country, protesting the building of mosques.

Alright. Then I don't want any more Christian churches built! Who knows what they could be preaching! I'm sure that many of them are teaching stuff I disagree with, or may even find offensive! If they want to protest mosques, then let the rest of us protest churches.

In some other parts of the world, the opposite happens. (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/hard-line-islamic-groups-again-attack-praying-christians/390105)

fragglerocks

14th Aug 2010, 06:15 PM

*strolls by thread with ten foot pole....* Hmmmm....nope. ;)

whiterider

14th Aug 2010, 06:16 PM

I'm not sure which Mohammed-depicting incident you're referring to, so I'll address both.

If you mean the cartoons a few years ago; that wasn't as much an issue of Mohammed being drawn as it was of Mohammed being drawn as, among other things, a suicide bomber. I can understand the outcry at that, although I'm personally of the opinion that if someone attacks your spirituality and you don't want to hear it, the best thing to do is trot on. I don't think this is necessarily a double-standard - assuming that those who were offended would expect respect for any religious figure, be it Mohammed, Jesus, the Virgin Mary or anyone else from any other religion.

If you're referring to the facebook competition... to be honest, I'm not sure how many actual Muslim individuals were pissed off about that. From what I understood, it was the Islamic government that didn't want such an un-Islamic event to have any effect on the country. I can't really comment fairly on that, since I disagree fundamentally with the concept of a religious government; but, again, I don't think it was a double-standard - it was based on an assumption, certainly, but that assumption was not that non-Muslims should observe Muslim laws, rather that all Pakistanis are Muslim.

I believe, though I'm not sure, that Muslims aren't allowed to draw Mohammed so that there's no risk of falling into the trap of worshipping, say, a statue, rather than the real man. As such, I wouldn't think that it'd be offensive for a non-Muslim to draw Mohammed - as long as they weren't shoving it in the faces of Muslims, and as long as the context and content of the image weren't offensive themselves (as the cartoons were).

The stuff about the mosque in New York is barefaced racism and islamophobia, hiding behind some pseudo-sentimental crap with absolutely no relation to logic, or even common sense; let alone a realistic view of the world. I understand that the site of the WTC is an important one to many people, and I do agree that it needs to be treated sensitively. However since the WTC bombers were, by their actions, clearly stating that they do not in any sense of the word adhere to Islamic principles and beliefs, trying to bar normal American Muslims from building a mosque there is a load of crap. Let's ban all bearded people and be-turbaned Sikhs too, since they share about as much with mainstream Islam as the bombers ever did.

el_flel

14th Aug 2010, 06:21 PM

First: I agree with you. It is a double-standard, but an acceptable double-standard. A bit like it is ok for my friends to take the mickey out of my height, but it wouldn't be ok for some random person to start doing it. With words that have the potential to cause offence you need to know your audience before you use them. That woman is obnoxious.

Second: I think it shouldn't be an issue for a non-Muslim to depict Muhammad. Muslims are allowed to get offended by it but I don't think it should be something that is "pushed" (for want of a better word) onto non-Muslims. Wasn't it the depiction of Muhammad in the Satanic Verses which led to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Religions have conflicting beliefs, if we started trying to prohibit everything that caused offence to a faith we'd be in trouble!

Third: Personally, I actually think it's pretty offensive to object to having a Muslim structure built near Ground Zero. It wasn't the work of all Muslims which caused the death of 3000 people - it was the work of a vile, fundamentalist Islamic group - so to punish all Muslims for something that the vast majority didn't have a hand in is just ludicrous.

fakepeeps7

14th Aug 2010, 07:14 PM

So let's start with the infamous "N" word: nigger.

...

It's a bad word, of course. But is there a double-standard or not? I, myself, am going to say...sort of.

Of course there's a double standard. If black people don't want white people using it, they shouldn't be using it themselves. Using it sends the message that it's okay... and that's obviously not what they believe.

Second one: Mohammad. Muslims are not allowed to depict Mohammad, yet when it happened earlier, there was some issues that came up, even some violence.

...

But is to do it a disrespect to them, or just an expression that we are allowed but they are not?

It may be disrespectful to them. And I don't see why non-Muslims would need to depict Mohammed in art, anyway (unless it was just to piss off Muslims). Personally, I think the rule is taken way too seriously. Nobody deserves death for drawing a picture. And the idea behind it (that people will worship the drawing or the statue instead of the god) seems a bit strange. Do Christians worship statues above God? Do crucifixes take the place of the real deal?

Third one: This one is more directed at America, but others feel free to join in, of course. Some people are protesting the building of a Muslim structure (I don't even know anymore if it's just a mosque, or a community center, or both together) "near" (somewhat relative) the Ground Zero area of 9/11.

Certain people probably won't like the building of mosques anywhere. As long as the mosque isn't going to annoy the surrounding people with calls to prayer, I don't see what the big deal is. I thought New York City prided itself on being a melting pot of cultures. Or are those days long gone?

Nekowolf

14th Aug 2010, 07:21 PM

@treeag

Yeah, I know. But it's like, do we honestly want to go down to that level? I thought we were supposed to be better than this. After all, we were built, in part, on the idea of religious tolerance. But instead, there are people who want to thrust us back into hypocrisy.

@whiterider

Eh, more of a culmination of the whole damn thing. Cause you had some people going overboard with it, like Comedy Central, with censoring South Park. Even though he was in an episode seasons earlier, "Super Best Friends"

@fragglerocks

Don't make me take that pole from you :P /joking

And, apologies, I spelled it wrong. It's "Muhammad," oops!

Edit: Got ninja-posted.

Of course there's a double standard. If black people don't want white people using it, they shouldn't be using it themselves. Using it sends the message that it's okay... and that's obviously not what they believe.
But the thing is, not all of them do use it, some are absolutely against the idea. That's why I don't take it as a double-standard in the context that it seems to be so often presented as, because some don't want it said by either side. Hell, probably most who don't want it said at all are likely older, those who've been around during the civil rights movement, and may have grown up before then. Of course, I do not know for sure, but from an outside perspective, it seems to be more of a generational conflict; the older generation v. the younger generation.

And I don't see why non-Muslims would need to depict Mohammed in art, anyway (unless it was just to piss off Muslims).
I could see it. Maybe an artist who just thinks it could be an interesting subject, without any real thoughts to offend anyone. Like I said earlier, even South Park used him in an episode as a standard character: "Jesus realizes he needs help and calls the Super Best Friends, a group of major religious figures including Buddha, Moses, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Muhammad and Sea Man (which the other characters mockingly pronounce as "Semen") who defend the world against evil (except for Buddha who doesn't really believe in evil)." - Wikipedia

jooxis

14th Aug 2010, 08:09 PM

Third: Personally, I actually think it's pretty offensive to object to having a Muslim structure built near Ground Zero. It wasn't the work of all Muslims which caused the death of 3000 people - it was the work of a vile, fundamentalist Islamic group - so to punish all Muslims for something that the vast majority didn't have a hand in is just ludicrous.

I disagree. It's simply in poor taste to put it near Ground Zero, despite obviously not all muslims being responsible for what happened. In the same way, it would simply be poor taste to put a German cultural center right next to a Holocaust museum - there's nothing wrong with there being a German cultural center and it's great and there should be one - but putting it next to a Holocaust museum is just poor taste and there's countless other places it could be.

socherish

14th Aug 2010, 08:32 PM

In some other parts of the world, the opposite happens. (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/hard-line-islamic-groups-again-attack-praying-christians/390105)

The point is restricting religous freedom should never happen in America. That's why the country was made: freedom of religon. They should be able to build a mosque there as a symbol of healing. A symbol that we know not all muslims are terrorists, and as AMERICANS we stand together and proud, not discriminating based on religon, race or gender.

As for the n thing, yes it's a double standard. But that woman was a racist. She was obnoxious and ignoring people's feelings. As a black person, I don't mind anyone saying it if it's meant in a teasing way or means "brother or sister" - white or black. Growing up in NY, you won't believe how common it is in HS to walk by a group of white kids and hear one say to another, "This is my nigga right here." Meaning, "This is one of my best friends." :p But if it offends someone, don't say it around them. One of my friends gets sensitive about every thing relating to race. I've learned not to joke about race around her. People respect that. If a bunch of 14 year olds can here someone say, "That bothers me." and be careful not to say it around them, so can Dr. Laura. In HS in NY - at least in my high school, racism is a joke for most of the kids. A kid can get in trouble and go, "Wait, this is because I'm black, isn't it?" whether they're really black or not.

Nekowolf

15th Aug 2010, 01:18 AM

@jooxis

However, there already IS one nearby, from what I have heard (mentioned on The Daily Show) that was there before 9/11. So, what, should we tear it down because that too could be taken as "poor taste."

Besides, as I said, "near" is rather relative. I think I recall hearing it's actually a few blocks away, rather than like...right next to it.

Maffers87

15th Aug 2010, 01:45 AM

el_flel

15th Aug 2010, 02:42 AM

I disagree. It's simply in poor taste to put it near Ground Zero, despite obviously not all muslims being responsible for what happened. In the same way, it would simply be poor taste to put a German cultural center right next to a Holocaust museum - there's nothing wrong with there being a German cultural center and it's great and there should be one - but putting it next to a Holocaust museum is just poor taste and there's countless other places it could be.In addition to Nekowolf's post: objecting is discriminating against an entire faith based upon the extreme actions of a select group of individuals within that faith. If it were to be placed nearby I personally think it would send a positive message rather than a negative one.

Being German was not the cause of the holocaust in the same way that being Muslim was not the cause of 9/11. Just because the perpetrators happen to fall under those demographics doesn't mean that every other person who also matches those demographics should suffer negative effects of events in which they were not involved.

Rectos Dominos

15th Aug 2010, 03:46 AM

There are double standards but it doesn't just end with the N word and Muslims.

Every religion (including atheism) except for Christianity, non-whites, women, and homosexuals, all have double standards I believe the reason for those is simply because of guilt especially with Nigger.

In the case of Muslims it may or may not be because of guilt but simply cause their afraid of retaliation which is profiling which is ironically what PCers are against. With Scientology it would be fear of a lawsuit.

It's all about context when it comes to words it's not what you say but how you said take this for an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzoGuy7vhJI particularly from 6:33 to the end and I think this is at Def Comedy Jam with a predominately black audience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCbrEbEyheM before you click guess which video it is

both use the word Nigger which one is racist?

spotlight-shure

15th Aug 2010, 04:37 AM

Tricit

15th Aug 2010, 01:54 PM

I have to agree on the double standard of using the N word. If you don't want other people saying the word, then be an example and not say it yourself. As a gay man I don't go around calling my gay friends faggots. To me it just doesn't seem right.

I'm kind of like this, only I do use the word faggot. I think all words and sounds available to be made should be open for everyone to use. We need to stop saying what is socially unacceptable as a sound to make. These types of things (like faggot or nigger) do not make a complete thought, so it's rude to suggest that someone was wrong for using them just by the fact that the word faggot or nigger was used.

What is wrong is if you make a complete sentence and say something that is wrong. . .

jooxis

15th Aug 2010, 02:17 PM

In addition to Nekowolf's post: objecting is discriminating against an entire faith based upon the extreme actions of a select group of individuals within that faith. If it were to be placed nearby I personally think it would send a positive message rather than a negative one.

Being German was not the cause of the holocaust in the same way that being Muslim was not the cause of 9/11. Just because the perpetrators happen to fall under those demographics doesn't mean that every other person who also matches those demographics should suffer negative effects of events in which they were not involved.

Except they aren't suffering "negative effects". They could put it ELSEWHERE, anywhere else. And it's fine.

If someone wants to put a strip club next to a kindergarden, I would say it's a bad idea - I'm not disciminating against the strip club and people who go there, I would just prefer it elsewhere because there are better and more appropriate places to put it.
All of these things are perfectly fine, I don't care if they make a thousand mosques in NYC. But I understand the people affected by 9/11 saying how much they dislike the idea to put it near Ground Zero.

paksetti

15th Aug 2010, 04:17 PM

As far as Nigger goes, T'aint what you do it's the way that you do it.

As far as depicting Mohammad goes, I shouldn't have to follow the rules of a religion I don't follow. If I wanted to exercise my freedom of speech, or if I wanted to just be a dick hole, I might draw him.

As far as the Mosque near a 9/11 memorial- It isn't a bad idea- in fact, it's a pretty good one. To me it says that these people are Americans, who didn't have anything to do with 9/11- they are there to pay their respects. It's like saying that they're completely separate from the extremists who crashed the plane- because they are.

el_flel

15th Aug 2010, 04:28 PM

Except they aren't suffering "negative effects".Well, they have and still do experience prejudice because of 9/11 (islamophobia, like Whiterider said). This objection is a form of that prejudice = negative effect. I can understand why people might not want it nearby, but I totally agree with pare321:
As far as the Mosque near a 9/11 memorial- It isn't a bad idea- in fact, it's a pretty good one. To me it says that these people are Americans, who didn't have anything to do with 9/11- they are there to pay their respects. It's like saying that they're completely separate from the extremists who crashed the plane- because they are.Because this is exactly my point.

fragglerocks

15th Aug 2010, 04:38 PM

Except they aren't suffering "negative effects". They could put it ELSEWHERE, anywhere else. And it's fine.

If someone wants to put a strip club next to a kindergarden, I would say it's a bad idea - I'm not disciminating against the strip club and people who go there, I would just prefer it elsewhere because there are better and more appropriate places to put it.
All of these things are perfectly fine, I don't care if they make a thousand mosques in NYC. But I understand the people affected by 9/11 saying how much they dislike the idea to put it near Ground Zero.

I agree with you that it may be in poor taste. But as Americans we cannot deny them their faith. I recall the part about freedom of religion, but not the part that says freedom to stare at shaking boobies. ;) Yes, we are allowed to do it, and enjoy it as well, but strip clubs aren't a protected right. Like Nekowolf pointed out, if we deny them their mosque, why not protest a christian church being built? Hitler was raised in Catholicism. Should we tear down those churches near Jewish communites and temples because he terrorized the Jews? You would almost have to say yes to this in order to validate your argument of only placing mosques where they won't offend anyone.

Crap. I took the bait and posted in this thread. Bring on the disagrees. :p :lol:

paksetti

15th Aug 2010, 04:49 PM

My last name is Zimdarsen- but I'm not German. It might offend people if I go to a Holocaust museum, so I shouldn't be allowed.

/sarcasm.

Purity4

15th Aug 2010, 07:08 PM

Every religion (including atheism)

Dude, atheism is not a religion. :rolleyes:

fakepeeps7

15th Aug 2010, 07:41 PM

Dude, atheism is not a religion. :rolleyes:

He also thinks Christianity has no double standards. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rectos Dominos

15th Aug 2010, 10:27 PM

Dude, atheism is not a religion. :rolleyes:

Did I say it was? In case you reply with yes what I meant was that atheism has double standards as much as the Non-Christian faiths I didn't say "Atheism is a religion". Maybe that could be why I got 4 disagrees in less than 24hrs :lol:
He also thinks Christianity has no double standards. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Considering the Anti-Christian impression I often get on this forum that wouldn't a surprise.

I forgot to mention that I have been considering for a while being either Mohammad for Halloween or a censored stick and say I am Mohammad. Yes South Park was an influence for my idea.

Nekowolf

15th Aug 2010, 10:58 PM

socherish

16th Aug 2010, 12:57 AM

A few Christian double-standards:

Love thy neighbor. Unless they're gay.

Peace and love. Except to those vile, hell-bound pagans.

Everyone is God's children. But not everyone is equal.

Christians most certainly have double-standards (that is why you get disagreements). And non-whites. And women. And gays.

In short: everyone.

Well...not Christians, really. Just the churches. I went to catholic school from Pre-k to 8th grade and I can safely say many Catholics support gay rights and respect other religions. Some didn't, but you get those people in any group, don't you? I do remember the priest visiting and basically told us if you support gay rights, you can't be Catholic, but no one listened to him. We were respectful and didn't comment to him, but his speech never changed our views. The teachers never gave up their beliefs on the subject. If we asked, they would dance around the question and end up confusing us and leaving us with no more info on what they thought than we had when we started.

Nekowolf

16th Aug 2010, 01:27 AM

Rectos Dominos

16th Aug 2010, 02:44 AM

I saw this post on the City-Data forum about 10 minutes ago but it is relevant to the last few posts. The thread was called Muslims and Southerners share some things in common I thought it was going to be troll like until I read the opening post

The Muslim world is overwhelmingly composed of peaceful individuals who are not violent. That being said, the Muslim world contains a disproportionately higher number of terrorists that base their actions on religious principles than any other faith group. When the Muslim community is approached with this, they get defensive as opposed to taking a more proactive approach by admitting there is a problem and that it should be addressed. They will respond with things like "There are terrorists who were Christian and Jewish too" That does nothing to rectify the situation aside from creating more resentment and doing nothing to curb the growing violent fundamentalist population among them.

Similarly, the South responds in the same way. The overwhelming number of Southerners are not racist yet when approached about their disproportionately higher number of hate crime events, hate crime groups, history of racist events, history of electing openly racist politicians, they get defensive and claim the rest of America has the same problems. The rest of America has those problems but not to the same degree that is found in the South. And I think even Southerners are aware of this but unfortunately respond with a defensive retort out of some misguided sense of pride.

Neither actions benefit either community. I think the rest of the country would view the South differently if they stopped taking this denial approach and instead started working to correct those mistakes done by their predecessors regarding race relations. Similarly, Muslims would probably be embraced more if they more openly decried the actions of Muslim terrorists and took a more a active role in addressing the violent fundamentalist segment of their community.

This applies to Christians too but it can to other groups as well.

Nekowolf

16th Aug 2010, 03:14 AM

Right. Every group has it's own set of problems and double-standards and shit.

socherish

16th Aug 2010, 04:12 AM

However, those who are against gays, pagans, non-Christians, etc., they still consider themselves, label themselves, as Christian. Yes, "you get those people in any group," but that doesn't change the fact they are still a part of that group. Perhaps not a popular opinion of the group, no, but still a part of it. You really cannot refute that they are not; that is not a good argument, whereas it would be better to distance yourself from them and to say "we do not agree with them." To just say "Well they're not really so-and-so" does not help.

If they call themselves Christian, and believe in the tenet of Christianity, they are Christian. You may not like it, but they are. Just as much as Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, and Protestants are all part of Christianity.

So yes. Christianity does have its share of double-standards.

I wasn't saying that there are no discriminatory people in the Christian faith. I'm just saying not all Christians discriminate, and not all people that discriminate are Christian. Now that I'm out of Catholic school and in a public HS, I learned that being Catholic is a bit of a taboo, at least in my school. I found out one of my best friends was trying to hide the fact that he was gay from me because I was Catholic, and he assumed I would be offended by the fact he was gay. People tend to assume Catholic=Bigot, and all I was saying is that it doesn't.

Nekowolf

16th Aug 2010, 04:17 AM

Oh, my bad then.

socherish

16th Aug 2010, 04:20 AM

Oh, my bad then.

No problem. :)

paksetti

16th Aug 2010, 04:28 AM

...Similarly, Muslims would probably be embraced more if they more openly decried the actions of Muslim terrorists...

People shouldn't have to be guilty until proven innocent- you shouldn't have to deny that you're racist because you're a southerner, or that you're an extremist because you're a Muslim.

Rectos Dominos

16th Aug 2010, 04:37 AM

People shouldn't have to be guilty until proven innocent- you shouldn't have to deny that you're racist because you're a southerner, or that you're an extremist because you're a Muslim.
Not my words but I do agree with your post.

jooxis

16th Aug 2010, 08:50 AM

I agree with you that it may be in poor taste. But as Americans we cannot deny them their faith.

So they are being denied their faith by being told they can build their mosque anywhere but there? Seriously?

Like Nekowolf pointed out, if we deny them their mosque, why not protest a christian church being built? Hitler was raised in Catholicism. Should we tear down those churches near Jewish communites and temples because he terrorized the Jews? You would almost have to say yes to this in order to validate your argument of only placing mosques where they won't offend anyone.

I see that very differently because of two reasons:

1. Christianity is not commonly directly associated with the Holocaust. Hitler is, Nazis are, even the state of Germany to some extent - but Christianity as a religion is not. 9/11 is directly associated with radical islam.

2. 9/11 is a more recent tragedy. So many people are still affected by it and lost their family members quite recently. Perhaps in 50 years it won't be that big of a deal, but right now it is.

To me, it sounds like a case of "I can get what I want in thousands of ways but I will choose the ONE way that will offend thousands of people, and if anyone complains I'll just cry discrimination".

Certain things are inappropriate simply because of context. A mosque itself is not inappropriate. A mosque next to the burial ground of thousands of victims of a radical version of its faith sounds inapprpriate to me and at the very least a provocation towards people who lost their families there.

Rectos Dominos

16th Aug 2010, 11:43 AM

I just realized some mis perceptions in my first post. I meant that in those groups that there is more backlash if you mock or criticize those groups than other. A little off-topic now that thread is in another direction. :lol:

thetinhouse

16th Aug 2010, 12:06 PM

This thread started out with 3 questions/facts/or whatever.
1. The 'N' word
2. Dipiciting Muhammed
3. Building a mosque near gound zero

Within a matter of a few posts you were all back to talking about gays and Christianity! :lol: Not that they arent interesting, when discussed occasionally, but sheesh,....all the time :rolleyes:
No matter where a thread starts it ends up on these two topics! Its astonishing! Arent there dedicated threads for these topics?
I was quite interested until I got about half way down the page *yawn

Nekowolf

16th Aug 2010, 12:33 PM

@jooxis

First it starts with Ground Zero. Then what? What about all those other protests to have mosque built? Well let's not let them build there, too! It's in poor taste to the people who live there.

Hell, maybe the state of Texas doesn't want any mosque in its borders. But why stop at Texas? Why not the whole South?

Firstly, by not allowing them to build it, it gives precedence to those who are against Muslims, who protest having a mosque in general. Both cultural and legal precedence. Secondly, yes. It is a religious restriction. It is on private property. For the government to say "You cannot build a mosque there" would likely require some form of legal position. And that would be the prohibition of free exercise. A direct violation of the First Amendment.

And for the second part, I'll be quite frank. The evils of Christianity are much lesser known, much less talked about. If you want to bring the association of 9/11 and radical Islam, then I'll bring up radical Christianity; I'll even bar the Inquisition from this.

Let's see, Westboro Baptist. The anti-paganism. The mid-western Pentecostals who hold mass rallies to convert people and exorcise their demons, who drove people like Matthew Murray into killing other people in what he wanted to be a mass slaughter, who are practically cult-like. The "child witches" of Africa, which are spreading out into likes like the UK, perhaps only a matter of time before they reach the US, where children are beaten and abused because they are thought to be "witches," thought to bring all the ills of a family, forcibly, sometimes dangerously, exorcised, even resulting in their death. The real-life witch hunts propagated by Christianity over in that part of the world, where people are exiled, beaten, or executed. Things like the Third Wave movement who want to prepare the world for the Second Coming, who have "prayer warriors" to fight for God, who already have infiltrated US politics (Palin as an example).

Oh you don't hear much about this stuff, do you? But it continues to go on. This isn't from years ago, this is right now! It's just as vile as anything the "radical Muslims" can do. But if I was to gather a god damn protest of a church, I would have hellfire on my ass from all over the nation, screaming that I'm trying to take away their religious freedom. Christ sakes, they do that just because you want to take a statue of the Ten Commandments out from in front of a public courthouse!

This isn't about pissing people off, this is straight-up god damn discrimination. Yeah, they lost people, that's sad. But what god damn right do they have over the rights of others to dictate what they can and cannot do? Especially since those others are doing in on property they own! On private property! What makes the families of the victims above equality? Because they lost someone in a terrorist attack? So did the families of the Oklahoma City Bombing, but guess what, they aren't special, either; they are as equal as everyone else. This is, at it's heart, two different cases. One side is "we demand to get what we want," and the other is "NO MUSLIMS!" I thought we are supposed to be better than that! No, let's not deal with it 50 years from now, let's deal with it now! Either support the building of this mosque, or cement your place as "equal but not equal." That is the real heart of all of this.

paksetti

16th Aug 2010, 10:22 PM

A mosque next to the burial ground of thousands of victims of a radical version of its faith sounds inapprpriate to me and at the very least a provocation towards people who lost their families there.

Apples and Oranges. Muslims =/= Muslim Extremists. It's just stupid- they had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, neither does Islam in and of itself. You can't just say the entire ideology is bad because some people do bad things with it.

They are not related I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

Nekowolf

16th Aug 2010, 10:31 PM

Pare, I would like to disagree with you.

They are related through name only.

simbalena

17th Aug 2010, 01:48 AM

Vanito

17th Aug 2010, 08:13 AM

Pare, I would like to disagree with you.

They are related through name only.
And political manipulation.

Muslims were victims of 9/11, so why not build a mosque but also build churches and temples to honor all the victims. This would show that all religions are united, which would show the extremists that they failed as their actions brought people together instead of dividing them.
Mosques, temples and churches do not honor atheist victims much.

Rectos Dominos

17th Aug 2010, 08:33 AM

Mosques, temples and churches do not honor atheist victims much.

What does than? :heyhey:

simbalena

17th Aug 2010, 08:46 AM

Mosques, temples and churches do not honor atheist victims much.

Yeah so they can have whatever building they want too. The aim should be to be all inclusive.

lauratje86

17th Aug 2010, 09:00 AM

What does than? :heyhey:

Nothing specifically. A library, or a museum could be appropriate. Or just a simple, non-religious memorial. Maybe a statue?

jooxis

17th Aug 2010, 09:07 AM

Apples and Oranges. Muslims =/= Muslim Extremists. It's just stupid- they had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, neither does Islam in and of itself. You can't just say the entire ideology is bad because some people do bad things with it.

They are not related I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

I don't need you to make anything simpler, thanks.

Nekowolf, by the way, I'm not arguing about the legality as everyone seems to be bringing up - I am just arguing against the idea itself.

I don't think a church is a good idea either. It's not just "private property" but a place where thousands of people lost their lives because of religious extremism. It will be remembered as such. I find it most appropriate it to be a secular space to honor all those victims instead of erecting more houses of worship, especially those associated with the extremists because I know how the people affected by it feel. There was enough pain and suffering associated with 9/11 and I see it would be best if we all came up with a solution that would put everyone at peace.

simbalena

17th Aug 2010, 09:50 AM

I find it most appropriate it to be a secular space to honor all those victims instead of erecting more houses of worship, especially those associated with the extremists because I know how the people affected by it feel.

It's not actually on the site, so how far away would be far enough?

Nekowolf

17th Aug 2010, 11:13 AM

@Vanito

*facepalm* For the love of Christ, will you drop it. Your anti-religion stuff is getting quite tiresome. Anyway, last I checked, atheists don't HAVE temples, or churches, or mosques, or what the fuck ever.

How about we put up an invisible building and call it the atheist house of worship? Will that make you happy?

Sure, they deserve honor, but to bitch about how they don't have a house of worship for themselves is just freaking superfluous.

@jooxis

Well, I will give you kudos that you believe the area should be secular. At the very least, it's all-or-nothing, as it should be. But the problem is, I don't think you'll ever find something to put "everyone" in peace, I think it's just impossible. No matter what you do, someone is bound to disagree with it.

I'm sorry to anyone who cannot watch, but, I would like to post up a video. Last night's "Special Comment" on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730223/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

paksetti

17th Aug 2010, 02:20 PM

They are related through name only.

Yeah, I thought there might be some confusion about what I said. They don't believe the same thing, but have the same religion ( I mean, I suppose they believe in the same basic things like God). In other words, they are alike through name only.

A community center with a mosque, temple, church, museum, whatever is a good idea.

fakepeeps7

17th Aug 2010, 09:38 PM

Yeah, I thought there might be some confusion about what I said. They don't believe the same thing, but have the same religion ( I mean, I suppose they believe in the same basic things like God).

I thought Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believed in the same god...

Nekowolf

17th Aug 2010, 09:51 PM

They do, I guess, but just about everything else is different.

socherish

17th Aug 2010, 10:21 PM

Muslims were victims of 9/11, so why not build a mosque but also build churches and temples to honor all the victims. This would show that all religions are united, which would show the extremists that they failed as their actions brought people together instead of dividing them.

I completley agree. It would be beautiful to see a line of religous buildings from all religons and a non-religous center encouraging peace become the memorial for 9/11. It would show that we remember 9/11 as a tragedy that affected all people, and that as Americans we are holding strong to our values of religious freedom - not being divided and turned against each other because of the what happened.

paksetti

17th Aug 2010, 11:32 PM

I thought Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believed in the same god...

What I'm trying to say is that the extremists and non-extremists both believe something that makes them identify themselves as Muslims, but are completely separate.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 02:20 AM

The problem is those of us who don't use the word at all and cringe whenever ANYONE uses it (like I have been throughout this thread) get drowned out by rappers, comedians and such who choose to use it. Their choice isn’t my choice and I shouldn’t have to be exposed to the racial slur just because “some comedian/rapper” uses that word.

Some gay people call each other "F-word" it still doesn't make it okay to use that word towards a gay person, some women call each other “B -word” or “C-word” yet again it’s common knowledge that it is an offensive term and the same is true for the "N-word".

If you know the word is racist and offensive and choose to use it anyway then you are deliberately being offensive, I am Black, I don't use it, no one in my circle uses it, I don't support people who use it - so if ANYBODY calls me an "N-word" I would be offended.

The whole "Black people use it therefore it’s okay" is a cheap cop-out, basically an excuse to be offensive, just because a few over-exposed people choose to use it doesn't mean they speak for the majority of Black people.

And the other popular excuse “Black people use slurs on White people therefore it’s okay for us to use slurs on them” Only if you live in a glass bubble does this make logical sense, it’s a minority vs. majority situation. Women make fun of men but the reverse wouldn’t be socially acceptable, fat people make fun of skinny people but again the reverse is seen as discrimination, any minority can make fun of White people but the reverse would seem racist, anybody can make fun of Christianity but touching on any other religion is well....touchy. FYI I don’t use racial slurs on anybody so I don’t call White people names either.

It’s not fair by any stretch but it’s how the world works.

I have to agree on the double standard of using the N word. If you don't want other people saying the word, then be an example and not say it yourself. As a gay man I don't go around calling my gay friends faggots. To me it just doesn't seem right.

To take this as an example, I know quite a few gay men who call each other faggots so would it be okay if I called you that then considering the gay men I know do it amongst themselves??

One last thing, in what conceivable situation would a person have to, like absolutely HAVE TO use the "N-word" to refer to a Black person?? What situation requires for this specific word, and no other word will do other than an offensive situation of course??

"Tommy's friend is a N-word"
"That N-word asked me for directions"
"One of my students is a N-word"

Really where in life will a person find themselves pressed to use just this exact word??

paksetti

26th Aug 2010, 02:49 AM

So just because a word offends some people, it shouldn't be used, no matter what the context is? Who are you to tell us to stunt our vocabulary just because you don't like the words? Sometimes I cringe when I hear the word nigger too, but it's not the word itself, it's the way it's used. If I hear some kids at the mall calling their friends nigger, I don't really care, but if I hear someone say something derogatory using the word nigger, I cringe a bit.

Does context mean nothing? Or are some words "off limits" no matter how they're used? That's just silly.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 03:03 AM

Oaktree

26th Aug 2010, 03:21 AM

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 03:40 AM

HaphazardSim: Are you one of those who thinks that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should be banned because it uses the N-word? Context is very important. In that case, the usage is both historical and satirical. That book makes fun of discrimination, but it uses the language of the time to get the point across.

Further, how is it any more right for people to say offensive things about majorities? I can guarantee you that it is hurtful, even if the historical or political context makes it seem like it shouldn't be. I'm of the opinion that people will use derogatory language, regardless, so I just grow a thicker hide, but making fun of any individual for traits outside of their control is equally as idiotic when done towards minority or majority traits.

Point 1: Not at all because that is historically relevant, The colour purple uses the N-word all the time and again it makes sense for the book because it is portraying a specific time period. The same goes for women in historical literature, they stayed home and waited for husbands and were submissive but that's how the world was in that time.

Again that’s not relevant to everyday people in the modern world using racial slurs, it’s not the same thing at all.

Point 2: I know it’s not fair but it’s how it is, I am naturally skinny it hurts when people call me names and tell me to eat something already but, I know that if I did the same thing to a fat person they’d be hell to pay.

However; I know that my experience as a skinny person is nowhere near as hurtful as that of a fat person because the social standard of beauty is more on my side than on the side of fat people. Same thing with women, we have fewer advantages than men, a cliché example is the sexually free woman being a "whore" and the sexually free man being desired and considered experienced etc.

Edit to add:
Also, yes people will and can use derogatory language as they please but it seems like some people want a right to use the N-word and the excuse is that “well Black people use it so why can’t I” and that’s what I am debating against because that’s not true. Just because some Black people choose to use that word it doesn’t mean that all Black people use it or that all Black people are okay with its use.

That’s why I quoted the poster who said how s/he doesn’t use the term “F-word” to describe his/her gay friends and using the N-word is a double standard because Black people use it – I know some people who use the “F-word” however I still won’t use it because I am aware that some members of the community find it offensive.

So I don’t use the gay men I know as my “get out of slur city free pass” and start using it to call other gay people that simply because I can use 1000 other words to describe a person, I don’t need the “F-word”.

Which is again why I keep asking, in what situation is it absolutely necessary for a person to use the “N-word”?

Oaktree

26th Aug 2010, 04:36 AM

I don't feel at all disadvantaged for being a woman. The media likes to play it up and act like women are treated as the inferior sex, but, from my personal experience, women are given far more advantage than men, to the point where it gets a little patronizing. Even this isn't universal, though. Sometimes you are simply regarded for your abilities, rather than your inherent traits. I think that the favored gender has switched. I think it is a lot harder for men to get anywhere now than it is for women. There are plenty of jobs that won't hire men in the same number as women, simply because they are trying to be politically correct. Women are far more favored in school. I had a teacher in high school who was constantly calling men stupid and inferior (in front of male students) and they wouldn't fire her. Girls are far more likely to be teacher's pets. Girls are more likely to sway a teacher into giving them extra help or boosting their grades. Co-ed sports sometimes have special rules that make goals scored by girls worth more points. There are a few societal attitudes that are left over from the Victorian Era, but even those are getting rarer and rarer, except for maybe in backward places controlled by religious fundamentalists. I suppose I'm getting a little off-topic, though.

I got a little distracted from it, but what I was trying to get at before is that, even if you are directing a comment at a race, religion, etc. as a whole, when you deliver that insult to an individual you are only affecting that individual. You aren't hurting the entire male sex when you tell some guy that men are stupid, you are hurting that guy. You are making baseless negative assumptions about him, which is hurtful. If you said the equivalent to a girl, it would be just as hurtful. If we assume that girls hear it more often (which I disagree with, but I'll play along for the example) it may be more discouraging to some girls, but other girls would probably just ignore it after hearing it so often. You can't know how someone will take an insult, so your best course is to treat everyone equally, and to not insult anyone. But for those who do insult others, an individual one of them isn't responsible for the insults given by others, so it is only the level of hurt delivered by that particular instance that matters.

To provide a clearer example: I am overweight. The popular standard of beauty does not lie in my favor. That doesn't mean that someone insulting me for being fat is any more hurtful than someone insulting you for being skinny. I pretty much just shrug off any insult of that nature and keep a mental note that whomever delivered the insult is a bigoted idiot.

As to my other point, I'm not saying that it's okay for people to use certain words in certain ways, I'm saying that people will use those words. It isn't excusable that Dr. Laura used the N-word, but the poor taste of it is reliant on the context. She was clearly being racist. When some kid uses the N-word to address his buddy, it isn't meant to be derogatory, though it is still in somewhat bad taste. But there are people who live for acting in bad taste, so I just learn to live with it, and I think it's probably best that other people learn to live with it too. I can't force you to be okay with it, I'm just saying that there are more important things in life than going around telling people not to use certain words.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 04:46 AM

I get what you are saying but disagree, I can't actually stop anyone from using the N-word but what I can say is that I am a Black person that doesn't use it and find it offensive, if you (general "you") want to use it that's fine but don't use the excuse "Black people do it that's why I do it/should be able to do it too" which is what has been said over and over in this very thread.

It's not true, the ones who do don't speak for all Black people - I don't want to get redundant so I'll say the other bits I have to say have already been said.

fakepeeps7

26th Aug 2010, 08:39 AM

It's still a double standard, whether all black people use the word or not. The point is that black people can get away with using it without any serious repercussions; white people can't.

Nekowolf

26th Aug 2010, 09:15 AM

Yes they are, the N-word is offensive just for being the N-word. The same way F-word is offensive to gay people and the C-word is offensive to women.
I, however, must disagree here. No word, none, are inherently offensive. Technically, words don't even have inherent meanings, in my opinion, but rather meanings that are agreed upon. We all agree a chair is a "chair." The object itself does not self-identify, we identify it ourselves, give it a name, and give it a meaning. Even the most offensive words are like this.

We can agree they are generally offensive words, yes, but they lose that offensiveness within context, such as how if I call my best friend a fucker. Between us, the context of it is different than if a stranger was to say it. Between us, and only between us, is it not offensive anymore. Also kind of goes for the whole "bad taste

Don't get me wrong, though. If you will always feel offended by being insulted in such a way, well, that's fine, too. If you don't want to hear it being tossed around like it was merely nothing, like you hear in music, you certainly have that right, and some are willing to show that respect. I certainly don't want to go like Dr. Laura on you.

Btw, it's a few days late, but an update. Dr. Laura is "resigning." I don't know the actual details behind it. She claims her contract is up soon, and decided not to pursue it. Personally? I think the company isn't interested after what she said. Her spouting (and I hate using "X-word, but I'll do it just this once) the N-word was what got covered the most, but really, there's more to it than that. She said some rather... surprising things, during that broadcast.

jooxis

26th Aug 2010, 09:18 AM

HaphazardSim saying a word is offensive to you and saying a word should never be used by anyone are two different things. I would never support the latter.

crimsonbutterfly23

26th Aug 2010, 09:19 AM

A random commenter appears!

It is true that no word is inherently offensive but to say that the n-word loses its offensiveness once you put it in a different context ignores the history and white privelege associated with the word.

whiterider

26th Aug 2010, 09:52 AM

crimsonbutterfly23, actually, it's sort of the opposite. If you used that word to an english-speaking korean person, they would probably have no clue what the hell it means, let alone be offended. Their culture doesn't have that racist history, or context. So it is the context - the context of historical racism in the US - which makes the word offensive. If I went to Texas and called someone a paki, it's pretty likely that no-one would be offended, because there isn't the history of racism against middle eastern people there that there is in the UK. Context is the defining factor; however the US has both the context of the individual incident and the wider social and historical context to deal with.

To steal from Tim Minchin, it's arguable that the phrase "I want to finger your mum" is at least as offensive as the phrase "fuck you". Which word in the phrase "I want to finger your mum" should be starred out?

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 10:17 AM

Before I continue, Warning: I've been up all night so I might have some spelling errors and other bits and bobs tht I'll fix once I'm well rested. And I forgot how to mutiquote so I hope what I've done is ok.

It's still a double standard, whether all black people use the word or not. The point is that black people can get away with using it without any serious repercussions; white people can't.

Gay people can get away with calling each other F-word and yet nobody else can, women can call each other B-word or C-word but if a man tries to it'll be considered offensive. White people can call each other H-word and yet if others use it's still considered a racial slur.

Why is this allowed?? Because you are calling someone who identifies with you a slur so apparently it's supposed to negate the insult of that slur, Black person to another Black person “Hey N-word”...pot meet kettle. I don't use slurs therefore I don't tolerate being called N-word by anyone.

And really why would anyone want to use these words anyway?? What possible reason would a White person (or anyone else for that matter) want to call a Black person N-word for??

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 10:24 AM

I, however, must disagree here. No word, none, are inherently offensive. Technically, words don't even have inherent meanings, in my opinion, but rather meanings that are agreed upon. We all agree a chair is a "chair." The object itself does not self-identify, we identify it ourselves, give it a name, and give it a meaning. Even the most offensive words are like this.

We can agree they are generally offensive words, yes, but they lose that offensiveness within context, such as how if I call my best friend a fucker. Between us, the context of it is different than if a stranger was to say it. Between us, and only between us, is it not offensive anymore. Also kind of goes for the whole "bad taste

Yes this is true but doesn't apply here, from what I've read it seems people simply want the right to go around calling other people the N-word and have those other people not be offended because "Black people use this word".

The idea that just because some Black people use this word = everyone should be free to use it without any thought to it being offensive is just strange. Names amongst pals is one thing but wanting to use a word that is known to be offensive just because some members of the people it refers to use it doesn't make sense.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 10:27 AM

HaphazardSim saying a word is offensive to you and saying a word should never be used by anyone are two different things. I would never support the latter.

That's not quite what I'm saying, the former is correct but the latter should read " a word that is know to be offensive to a specific group should never be used unless the intention is to cause offence"

There is never a need to call someone a "N-word/insert other slurs" unless you mean it in that sense.

jooxis

26th Aug 2010, 10:28 AM

And really why would anyone want to use these words anyway?? What possible reason would a White person (or anyone else for that matter) want to call a Black person N-word for??

It's none of your concern WHY anyone would want to use some word you don't like.
People can have millions of possible reasons to use any word at any moment, the fact that you don't see "why someone would want to use that word" means nothing at all.
And why do you think that they necessarily will use it when insulting a black person? They may use it in their novel or story, while singing a song, they may use it while talking to someone who isn't black, etc. they don't have to use it as a direct insult towards a black person.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 10:37 AM

It's none of your concern WHY anyone would want to use some word you don't like.
People can have millions of possible reasons to use any word at any moment, the fact that you don't see "why someone would want to use that word" means nothing at all.
And why do you think that they necessarily will use it when insulting a black person? They may use it in their novel or story, while singing a song, they may use it while talking to someone who isn't black, etc. they don't have to use it as a direct insult towards a black person.

My understanding is people wanting to use the N-word to refer to Black people because some Black people already use this term to refer to each other. That is what I am focusing on and what I have been talking about since the start. [Hence my examples about gay people and the F-word and women and the C-word]

Edit to add:
The original post used the example of the radio personality who responded to a Black womans call about her husbands racially insensative inlaws (I think that was the story) by calling her the N-word over and over again.

Rap songs already have this word, sung by Black and non-Blacks, stories as well and not all of them are set during the time of slavery...sssooo yeah.

ElementMK

26th Aug 2010, 10:50 AM

In the same way, it would simply be poor taste to put a German cultural center right next to a Holocaust museum - there's nothing wrong with there being a German cultural center and it's great and there should be one - but putting it next to a Holocaust museum is just poor taste and there's countless other places it could be.I know I'm bringing up an old post, but I need to point out that this is a weak argument. Areas regarding German culture often feature within Holocaust museums, to serve as a reminder of the millions of kind Germans and Europeans that risked and lost their lives helping European Jews and other persecuted minorities. They also exist to remind us that while the Holocaust was an inhumane travesty, the people that set it motion were other human beings, not legendary monsters.

The same goes for this mosque/community center. The Muslim families and friends of those that died in 9/11 must also bear the additional pain of knowing that these terrorists claimed to have the same spiritual beliefs they do. Many Muslims worldwide feel heartache to know that their religion of peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-L-M) is being twisted and abused by an extreme few. The protests against this community center are simply un-American. Not only is it a direct violation of American rights to deny its construction, but it tells the extremists who planned the 9/11 attacks that they did scare us, and their attacks were successful. We should not only open this building, but celebrate it. It will send a message that we aren't going to be influenced by terrorist groups, and that we love and respect our American Muslims as we do all American citizens.

Nekowolf

26th Aug 2010, 02:01 PM

@HaphazardSim

Oh, I agree with you that it's an incredibly poor argument. And frankly, in a public setting, it is one of the poorest choice of words you can use, much like screaming "fuck" in public. And when used as an insult, it is a heavy one, for sure.

It'd be like me saying I can yell out a stream of obscenities when I go to the store, just because I can do so with my friend and he doesn't care. It's a ridiculous argument make.

fakepeeps7

26th Aug 2010, 06:30 PM

Gay people can get away with calling each other F-word and yet nobody else can, women can call each other B-word or C-word but if a man tries to it'll be considered offensive. White people can call each other H-word and yet if others use it's still considered a racial slur.

Isn't that what a double standard is? Isn't that what I've been saying?

Are you trying to debate, or are you agreeing? Because I'm not sure... :giggler:

Why is this allowed?? Because you are calling someone who identifies with you a slur so apparently it's supposed to negate the insult of that slur, Black person to another Black person “Hey N-word”...pot meet kettle. I don't use slurs therefore I don't tolerate being called N-word by anyone.

I don't use slurs either. (At least, not to people's faces. I've been known to refer to really mean, cruel, nasty women as bitches. Well, they are. What else should I call them? However, I would never call them that to their face. But I don't think that's quite the same as people who affectionately refer to their friends as "bitches" or "f*ckers* or even the n-word. That's a much more flippant use of those words... and it seems kind of weird.)

But I don't think that's the point. Even if I identified with another person, I'd probably get my ass kicked (figuratively or perhaps even literally) if I used the n-word with them... even if I didn't have any malicious intent.

paksetti

26th Aug 2010, 06:30 PM

Yes they are, the N-word is offensive just for being the N-word. The same way F-word is offensive to gay people and the C-word is offensive to women. This isn't rocket science and people are free to say what they like but if someone uses the N-word it's offensive because they are 100000 other words that can be used that don’t carry a racially charged background.

And really, I’d like to meet the person who claims they have a stunted vocabulary just because they can’t say N-word at Black people and F-word at gay people/C-word at women etc. If you know the word and know its meaning it’s already a part of your vocabulary which is why I asked in what situation is it absolutely necessary to call someone an N-word??

I know several Black children and none of them call each other using the N-word, it's not needed, they can use each others names, nicknames, even "hey you" is better than the N-word.

Edit to add: I just remembered a Greys Anatomy star who was fired because he called his co-star a F-word, context be damned he used an offensive term and had to pay with his job (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/16696521 - an article I managed to find)

I'm a lesbian, I say fag and cunt- and I'm not offended. I'm smart enough to know what is an insult and what isn't. It doesn't matter if I could "say something else"- a word itself isn't offensive- it how the word is used.

It's like saying people shouldn't curse because they could just use a different word, or that they shouldn't say what they want because someone may get offended.

Gay people can get away with calling each other F-word and yet nobody else can, women can call each other B-word or C-word but if a man tries to it'll be considered offensive.

My straight friends call me a fag, I call them fags too- my male friends call me a cunt, and I call them cunts too. We use those words because we choose to, we don't have to have a reason. I'm not calling you a fag or a cunt or a nigger, because I don't know you- you don't understand the context.

Edit:
I'd just like to add that I've seen Asians, Hispanics, Blacks and Whites use the word Nigger with their friends- the world didn't end, they didn't get offended, they hardly even noticed- because they didn't have the double standard to begin with.

whiterider

26th Aug 2010, 08:06 PM

Fag is probably a better example of the principle here, actually, because it's not so emotionally charged. I'm bi, and I have plenty of gay friends: and almost all of us have, at some point, been called faggot by someone who was, in fact, trying to offend us - it's worth noting that it's not just black people engaging in friendly conversation who use the word nigger after all, and it's not just innocent people not trying to offend who say it, some people do still use it as an attack - and none of us are particularly offended by being called faggot because, well, faggot means gay person. Congratulations, Captain Obvious. Whether or not a word is offensive is entirely in the minds of two people - the person saying it, and the person it's being said to.

Now, of course you shouldn't use a word which you know will offend the person you're speaking to, even if you don't find it offensive (well, unless you're trying to offend them), that's just common sense. And obviously you're not going to use a word that you consider offensive in conversation (unless you're trying to offend someone). But surely the wrongdoing when people use a word like nigger isn't the sounds that come out of their mouths - it's whether or not they end up offending someone. Is it wrong to say nigger on your own in a locked room? So surely it follows that no word is inherently offensive? I know people who would be hugely hurt and offended if I called them "slacker" (even though he's spending his work hours asleep on a deck chair), or "shorty" (even though she's four foot nothing in her socks); does that mean that no-one should use those words to describe anyone? Of course not. So why is it any different for a word like nigger or faggot? They're both accurate descriptions which are usually pejorative in nature; it's just that more people have voiced objections to them over the years.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 08:08 PM

I'm a lesbian, I say fag and cunt- and I'm not offended. I'm smart enough to know what is an insult and what isn't. It doesn't matter if I could "say something else"- a word itself isn't offensive- it how the word is used.

It's like saying people shouldn't curse because they could just use a different word, or that they shouldn't say what they want because someone may get offended.

My straight friends call me a fag, I call them fags too- my male friends call me a cunt, and I call them cunts too. We use those words because we choose to, we don't have to have a reason. I'm not calling you a fag or a cunt or a nigger, because I don't know you- you don't understand the context.

Edit:
I'd just like to add that I've seen Asians, Hispanics, Blacks and Whites use the word Nigger with their friends- the world didn't end, they didn't get offended, they hardly even noticed- because they didn't have the double standard to begin with.

To keep it short just because you are ok being called F-word doesn't mean you speak for all other gay people, my first post (I think) has a quote from someone in this very thread who said he never uses the F-word with his friends because it is offensive to him.

So if I used you as an example to refer to him as a F-word he would be within his right to be offended and even kick my butt.

As for your last post, again that's also what I've been saying. If you want to call your friend names/slurs that's fine but that's not what was being discussed. The discussion what that just because some Black people use the N-word to refer to each other therefore everyone should be able to use the N-word to refer to a Black person.

Again, the example was a radio personality saying the N-word to a Black caller over and over again. It wasn't someone randomly talking to their friends and calling them N-word.

Which, again, is why I used the example of the F-word with respect to gay people and the C-word with respect to women.

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 08:17 PM

Isn't that what a double standard is? Isn't that what I've been saying?

Are you trying to debate, or are you agreeing? Because I'm not sure... :giggler:

I don't use slurs either. (At least, not to people's faces. I've been known to refer to really mean, cruel, nasty women as bitches. Well, they are. What else should I call them? However, I would never call them that to their face. But I don't think that's quite the same as people who affectionately refer to their friends as "bitches" or "f*ckers* or even the n-word. That's a much more flippant use of those words... and it seems kind of weird.)

But I don't think that's the point. Even if I identified with another person, I'd probably get my ass kicked (figuratively or perhaps even literally) if I used the n-word with them... even if I didn't have any malicious intent.

Debating, some people are ok with slurs being used amongst themselves and I explained the strange logic a few posts up. I don't agree with that logic hence my non-use of the word or any other.

Yes it does seem strange but perhaps I'm finally starting to age :lol:

HaphazardSim

26th Aug 2010, 08:30 PM

Nekowolf

26th Aug 2010, 09:57 PM

Rev. Al Sharpton? I thought he was completely against that word.

HaphazardSim

29th Aug 2010, 06:48 PM

I must be thinking of someone else - anyway I said what I had to say. Take it, leave it, use the word, don't use the word...

Black_Barook!

7th Sep 2010, 06:20 PM

I believe, though I'm not sure, that Muslims aren't allowed to draw Mohammed so that there's no risk of falling into the trap of worshipping, the man, instead of God

Fixed. (Obligatory extra words to get this post posted.)

Ledgo

10th Sep 2010, 03:59 AM

The word nigger isn't a dirty word in my own opinion. Yes, people get offended by it, but that doesn't mean I won't use it. I will watch my language around people who are sensitive to it, but otherwise, I use ANY word around my friends that do not get offended.In my own opinion, should the word be "bad", to limit it to the race it's suppose to be insulting to say is even more stupid.

Either everyone gets to say it or no one. My own opinion. I don't use it contextually as an insult. Yes, people do use it as it, but people also use other words as insults that we don't mind. Let's start barring those words as well then.

WaterWolf

3rd Oct 2010, 09:13 PM

I discussed about the nigger word to a coloured person (tbh i think 'coloured' is offensive more). Its not the WORD itself, its how you use it.

If you say "yo nigger" to a black person you know, that isn't offensive. If you see that is offensive i don't know why, if you don't know them then yeah.

If you call someone a nigger in a hurtful tone, then that is racism. I think you can only be branded a racist if people witness your racist tone. Otherwise you're falsely accused of racism from an accidental slip-up (calling them a nigger friendly). If you know what i mean.

In the end of the day, Nigger is a colour that was frequently used in couches. Not a worded weapon.

If i offended someone, PLEASE message me and tell me why, because im white so i dont know how this FEELS.

PokemonPrncss

3rd Jul 2011, 10:53 AM

It pisses me off when blacks can call whites crackers and white trailer trash, but we can't fucking say nigger. I don't think it's a bad word at all. I'm no racist, but come on, just get the fuck over it.

I'm not calling you racist but could you get over it if your people were taken from their homeland and forced as slaves and still have to learn about it in school how they were treated unfairly, beaten, and there are still people who hate us for our skin color but there is no way to change that and I have a friend who says that to me but doesn't call me it there's a difference. Yes calling white people crackers is offensive but if you want us to get over it then you can get over that one word and the word most black people call each other is nigga.

Nekowolf

3rd Jul 2011, 11:03 AM

Rawra

3rd Jul 2011, 04:01 PM

I've always found that the interesting thing about that is that it was more recent history, and that's probably why it's still a big deal. It has basically scarred American culture because America is a young nation. Yet, slavery has been around in human history for a long, long time, and even other whites were enslaved. Not really trying to make a point.

The whites weren't slaves BECAUSE they were white, yet the blacks were slaves because they were considered inferior by their masters, so I kinda understand why everyone makes such a fuss over those events.

Nekowolf

3rd Jul 2011, 04:08 PM

Hmm, I don't know about that. I mean, slaves were often taken through invasion of a superior force, which is also essentially how we got black slaves, isn't it? I mean, color certainly was part of the justification. But the process was essentially the same. As well as white slaves, while perhaps not justified through color, may have well been justified instead through culture. That they were an inferior people to the greater empire.

I think the a big reason it's still talked about nowadays is because, really, it didn't happen all that long ago, whereas the slavery I'm talking about was, what, 600, 700, more, years ago? When American slavery gets that old, I wouldn't be surprised if it's just shrugged off as "the past."

Although, by then, America won't be around anymore. Our Canadian overlords will have perfected space-cannon technology, and using it to carve the southern states from the northern, as well as their infamous maple-and-beer warfare, would have taken over what used to be the northern half.

DittanyPark

3rd Jul 2011, 08:54 PM

The reason Africans were used as slave labor to begin with was because the European Indentured white servant slaves that were being used to bring in the sugar cane and other crops were dying off from the sun and heat. I believe it first started with the settlement of the Dominican Republlic. So the English, French, Spanish started hauling Africans to do the work due to finding them more hardy for labor. Also it should be mentioned that Africans were not made slaves due to hatred, it was due to economics. The Europeans wanted to make big money for themselves.

Most of the African slaves were gotten from doing trading with Aftican chieftans. They had prisoners of their own tribal warfare and the captured where used as barter.

I suspect the use of "niger" is considered a hostle word when used by whites because slave owners would refer to their slaves by this name in a derogatory way. I've wondered if the term has any relation to Nigeria as a source of slaves.

And it is very much in the way the word is used. Having grown up in a Polish neighborhood, I have no problem with one of my Polish friends calling me a "Pollack" yet if someone of another nationality said the word to me and used it as derogatory, I would be pretty pissed off.

It is unfortunate that only the Muslim extremists get news coverage. I don't believe it is considered wrong to depic Mohammed unless its like Jewish religion of no icons. But if someone made a picture of Jesus woo-hooing 20 virgins I would guess Christians would be offended.

The Moslems who want to build that community center have a legal right to do so. When once you deprive one American of constitutional legal rights, you deprive everyone. The ones doing the building don't seem to feel it offensive as it is suppose to be a non-denominational place. The plans are for Muslems, Christians and Jews to be able to make use of the facilities.

kiwi_tea

3rd Jul 2011, 10:29 PM

Also it should be mentioned that Africans were not made slaves due to hatred, it was due to economics.

Careful here. While it's technically true that dehumanisation isn't always an expression of hatred (it can also be an expression of ignorance), Africans were readily and heavily dehumanised by their captors.

SuicidiaParasidia

4th Jul 2011, 03:10 AM

I see it sort of like "fucker" or "asshole" or etc. Take me and my best friend, we call each other fucker, asshole, talk smack about each other, but we do it out of friendship. We both know neither one of us is serious and we don't give it an air of seriousness. We're not screaming it at each other, it's very casual. But if another person, say a stranger, did this to us, we might take it personally. So this stuff is a double-standard, technically, but a double-standard of friend v. stranger. That's how I perceive it.

rather backward, isnt that?

i mean i could see taking what someone who knows you says about you personally, since they know you, they have experience with you and you might actually be being that derogatory term, since obviously they dont think of you as that most of the time.

but if a stranger calls you that, what could be easier to invalidate? they dont know you, they dont spend time around you, they have no basis for their conclusion and thus it should be dismissed automatically. unless, of course, some part of you actually agrees with them, but thats a different story all together....

but more on-topic, i leave the whole "nigger" thing alone. especially as i am of pale pallor and am generally attacked for any stance i voice on it, regardless of my lack of personal bias.

i focus more on gender-centric double standards. like how a woman who sleeps around is a slut, but a man who sleeps around is a "pimp".

Nekowolf

4th Jul 2011, 03:14 AM

I suppose it would depend on one's personality. While one person might invalidate it as irrelevancy, another may take offense to it, precisely because it's a stranger who doesn't know them. I guess an easy way to put it would be, while one person may shrug them off, the other, due to the stranger not knowing them, might get in their face about it because you don't know them, either. After all, humans are often irrational and stupid.

qpldmff

4th Jul 2011, 04:41 AM

In some other parts of the world, the opposite happens. (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/hard-line-islamic-groups-again-attack-praying-christians/390105)

So? There's no reason to stoop down to that level yourself.

acid_paradox

5th Jul 2011, 07:19 AM

I don't really have idea what to say about the Mohammed thing, other than what has already been said.

Anyway, I'm black, and I use the word "nigga" all the time around other relatives or friends that are of color. I understand that it is a double-standard and that people of other races may see us using it as a cue for them to start saying it, but it's just not okay. Nigga or nigger has been used as a insult to us for generations, and so if we hear someone outside of our "group" using it, we take offense. I know that a few people think that it is unfair that we can use it and they can't, but if you understand the history of the word, you would understand. It's like two friends calling each other "ugly bastards" as a joke, it's understood that it is not meant as an insult, therefore it is okay for it to be thrown back and forth. If an outsider came and started calling you that, that understanding(?) isn't there, so you automatically take it as an insult.

Not sure if I made that very easy to understand, I'm sleepy. Just leave us to say the word, damn. Why are so many people worried about us saying it. When we say it to each other, it means FRIEND. Just call us 'friend' or any other synonym, and there will be no conflict.

dutch

5th Jul 2011, 07:39 AM

Double standard? Yes and no. Yes, because somehow many do take offense just because people of other ethnicity make those remarks. No, because there are a lot of words/phrases out there to address certain races (most usually their appearances), and everyone understands which races they refer to, because chances are, they're to a certain degree true. Me? I like to try and look past people's ethnicity or how close they are to me.

One time I entered a bar where I somehow was the ONLY Asian, and in that same night, I was called 'Jackie Chan', 'token Asian' and 'Monkey King' by three different white people. Tolerated the first two, got in a fight with the third. The following time I ran into them in that same bar, one guy offered a beer and we all ended up drinking and joking all night. I was glad I hadn't had a huge grudge on them and neither had they.

Point is, let's face it. Name-calling and racist remarks have been there for SO long sometimes they become second nature to lots of people: stereotypical thoughts have become so common to these people that they can't even think of thinking twice. That, or they could be drunk or high. Or to them, names are just names. And a lot of times it's about how far you decide to let yourself get hurt by them, because in fact, there's still a possibility of you being able to get along with them.

Double-standard or not, I think sometimes you've got to look at everyone the same way in order to not deal damage to yourself.

whitewaterwood

5th Jul 2011, 08:04 AM

Dude. He called you Jackie Chan. It clearly means he was inviting you to kick his ass. ;D

I'm just kidding. I think what it comes down to is that pretty harmless double standards are a part of our culture. Calling someone an 'N' when you aren't black is considered impolite, and culture expects you to know it's impolite. It's just like not letting someone see you wiping your hand off after you've shaken their hand. Would it be more sanitary to wipe your hand off? Possibly. Is trying to make sure they don't see you wiping your hand off practical? Not really. However, because of culture it is extremely rude to shake someone's hand and then wipe it off. It suggests you consider them beneath you, even if you think you just want to wipe your hand off and aren't intending to insult them.

Are all double standards good? Certainly not! However, it doesn't cost you anything to try to be polite and remember. Just like covering your mouth when you sneeze, it's something you do for the other person's benefit and not your own.

DittanyPark

6th Jul 2011, 05:57 PM

Careful here. While it's technically true that dehumanisation isn't always an expression of hatred (it can also be an expression of ignorance), Africans were readily and heavily dehumanised by their captors.

I don't feel that what I posted was incorrect in any way. You are correct that dehumanisation isn't always an expression of hatred and it can be an expression of ignorance. You are also correct that Africans were dehumanised by their captors and the "overseers". If indentured whites were found to be able to do the slave labor, Africans would not have been enslaved. Economics is still the root. Slavery is free labor which profits the slave "owner".

Dehumanisation behavior was typical of that time period and periods of time before. In many ways "dehumanisation" and slavery continues today. One example, in Bangladesh children as young as 11 yrs work in sweat shops for pennies and if they don't meet their quotas, they are beaten. The sweatshop is run by either Walmart or Target, I forget which. Economics/Greed is the cause. Just because someone receives a "token" payment for services doesn't mean they aren't used as slave labor.

Nazi occupied Poland (and other invaded countries), the people were used as slave labor on Nazi farms and in "good" Nazi homes. If the slaves died, no one cared, there was a big supply available to use as forced (slave) labor. Ancient Rome used captives as slaves. Most countries and people have had slavery in their history. Once a group of people is believed and taught to be inferior, therefore less-human, they are very easily with "justification" then treated as inferior. Rich to poor, men to women, powerful to powerless, educated to uneducated, are examples of still existing dehumanisations and use for economic gain. Once dehumanisation is reached, it is mentally justified and easer to mistreat and abuse.

Fear breeds anger and hatred. When slavery was struck down, many (not all) of the southern whites began to fear what the results would be. How their way of living would change (economically), they felt threatend and afraid. The fears created the anger/resentment and hatred. Anger at the US government was channeled to and released on freed slaves.