Do you think the word "white" is just as rude as the word "black" today?
Racism, a thing that is being talked about more and more by liberals. It is used as an excuse on why they riot, it is used as an excuse on why people are killed, it is an excuse for many things. Racism is just like the word sorry. Once it is over used it has no meaning. Because people call other racist for just saying " I am a proud white man." The word racist has no meaning to me anymore.
Racism falls into the book of not being PC.
I am not one to censor my stuff to keep from hurting snowflakes so If the use of the word nigger offends you stop now.
Their is a difference between a black person and a nigger. How so you ask? Because a black man as my source says is an ordinary person just black, lives a honest life. A nigger on the other hand is a criminal that has no good intentions when they walk into a convenient store with a loaded gun.
A nigger can not be trusted. And a black man can. I can say any black man that is not a thug or a hood rat will agree with me on this.
A black man lives a life free of crime and wants what any white honest man wants, a family, a good career, a nice home and a car. A black man will work for all the things he wants whilst a nigger will not a nigger will steal and kill for a car, money, and will take jobs that pay big but require laws to be broken.
A nigga is someone I will never give my personal info to as they will turn around and sell it or show up at my house and rob me if not worse kill me. A black man I would have no issue with giving my address, phone number, email, Facebook name. I would have no issue as a Black man will not kill or hurt me.
And if a black person gets offended by being called black they are the issue, as they are black their not white, yellow, orange, blue their black.
Facts should not hurt and if they do you are the problem.
NathanAllen! Be yourself and let no one tell you otherwise!
Find me on CreateDebate at http://www.createdebate.com/user/
or at DebateIsland at http://www.debateisland.com/profile/
Proud Trump supporter and an American fighting war lord!
You form opinions on everything in life from experience and by observation.
No one is born with an inherent prejudice against any one or any particular group, but everyone develops preferences for and antipathies against certain types of people, places and so forth.
If we express our wariness and discomfort about any specific racial group the loonie left filth immediately have an orgasim, adorn their 'holier-that thou costume and begin shouting RACIST from the rooftops.
Such narrow/shallow minded bigots expect everyone to be as pigheaded as themselves and to disregard the dangers of not recognising the ethnic groups which represent the greatest threat of violence to members of the society in which they live.
This human trait is no more that people listening to their survival instincts and avoiding people and places which they perceive to be of greater danger than others.
Absolutely no one should apologize for being the way they are.
Shithead, whatshisname gets his daily high by overdosing on calling people ''RACIST''.
If we express our wariness and discomfort
Calling them bongos is expressing your wariness??? Dude!! Calling them names is expressing your HATRED.
Saying they're INFERIOR is expressing your discomfort?? Nahhh.. Saying they're inferior is expressing your HATRED..
Saying they're dangerous and threatening is HATRED, pure and simple.
HATING black people is RACIST.
I'm a white guy. That is not a slur, it is a statement of fact. It effectively, objectively describes a physical trait, specifically skin color. It is also objective statement of fact to say that I am ginger, six foot two, and oftentimes, an asshole. I also work with BLACK PEOPLE. Yes, I said it, and I hope it offends some-fucking-body here. BLACK PEOPLE. I work with them, and we all share the misery of this place.
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. When I call a black guy a black guy, on the rare occasion that I have any reason to refer to or describe someone's skin color, I say "he's a black guy". Aaaand then nothing of significance happens, and the conversation goes on, because it is an objective statement of fact not worth dwelling on. Nobody gets twiggered and has a stroke. You only become a racist asshole when you associate physical or behavioral qualities with the adjective 'black', or 'white', or 'arab', or whatever, that go beyond the dictionary definition of those words. For instance, if someone gave me no other information about themselves, but I knew they were black, and I instantly assumed that they loved grape soda, I would be a racist asshole. Now, some stereotypes we can just label as true. For instance, all black people love fried chicken and watermelon. You know how I know? EVERYBODY LOVES FRIED CHICKEN AND WATERMELON. I love it, you know you love it, and if you don't, there's something seriously fucking wrong with you.
I don't know, maybe it's different in other subcultures. We're sailors, we don't have many taboos.
When someone is referred to as "black" is the speaker really talking about "blackness" in terms of identity or in terms of features: their skin color and ancestry?
I also recall you saying this 2 months ago (in an exchange that I really enjoyed by the way):
"I am, however, a bit dubious of the distinction you are drawing between identity and features because the latter seems like a type of the former." (Source 1)
Does this mean that identifying any feature of a person is an act against their uniqueness? I can, after all, identify someone's attractive features and in doing so I automatically classify them as attractive.
When someone is referred to as 'black' the speaker may be talking about any number of things - skin color, facial features, language habits, hair style, self-identification of that person, etc. - but all of these are an attempt to identify that person to a generic concept (i.e. to classify them by way of a reduction).
I think this does mean that identifying any feature of a person is an act against their uniqueness, because this is fundamentally an act of reference that goes outside of that person in an attempt to make sense of them. Whether I am observing that someone has long hair (which references an external standard of length and hair) or that their long hair is attractive (which references an additional standard of attractiveness), I am committing an act against their uniqueness by understanding them not in terms of themselves but in terms that stand without them.
Arguably, this is inescapable... classification is simply how we process complex and diverse heterogeneous stimuli, and I doubt we could really ever truly stop that kind of behavior. My interest lies in the acknowledgement that these classifications are epistemically misleading, and in their consequent devaluation. Additionally, in identifying which instances of the practice we (individually, not collectively) find objectionable such that we know which classifications to resist and which to permit or even enable.
The implication for identitarian politics, particularly those which also incorporate humanistic narratives against erasure and dehumanization, is that their foundational axioms are epistemically bankrupt and even in direct contradiction with themselves. And regardless of how one might attempt to reconcile those axioms, I don't see how 'black' could be more rude than 'white'; there's a logical error at play in suggesting otherwise, I think.
Also, regrets for how long it took for me to respond (and for not responding to our earlier discussion you linked to, which I also enjoyed).
Acknowledging individuality is always appropriate if you care about respecting people as themselves. "Black people" and "black person" are identically specious, because both exercise and validate the popular and intuitive idea of "blackness" as something that actually picks out individuals (either singularly or collectively). But "blackness" does not exist, either as a demographic or an individual. To believe that it does requires believing that people can be reduced to the generic, and that requires disrecognition of their uniqueness.
If one wants to discuss social practices and conditions that hinge on a belief in "blackness" then the appropriate way to do that is not by validating that belief by practicing it (i.e. by talking about the "black demographic" like it actually exists) but by discussing that subset of individuals who are subjected to the classification of "blackness". This is more accurate, allows for conditional refinement for the context in which classification occurs, and does not reinforce the generic identity construct in its study of the same.
Neither word is rude, they are simply descriptive of the skin color of the individual. Any blacks that get offended by being called black probably have a chip on their shoulder.
While neither Black nor White is rude, neither term is apt. "Black" people are brown, and "White" people are brown, too, with some pinkish tones.
Beyond not being an apt set of terms, the use of these words (being opposites) gives the unconscious impression that two categories of people are opposites.
That is the part that damages our society by creating the illusion of category-based difference between us.
That is foolish, just like the identity politics that some folks buy into and try to inflict on our society to its detriment.
"neither term is apt"
True enough, though the most extreme examples of both races are factually black and white in hue rather than pink or brown. I think the root of calling peoples of intermediate shades "black" and "white" is that it's how people would have perceived the other people and hence named them as such. People tend to magnify out-group differences after all, so they wouldn't have viewed other peoples as merely differing by a shade.
"the use of these words (being opposites) gives the unconscious impression that two categories of people are opposites."
Perhaps calling the first iteration of a document the "first draft" may discourage people from doing one because of the implication of involuntary military service? While I imagine such associations exist to begin with, people quickly learn to contextually differentiate. This is linked to the psychological phenomenon of habituation.
"That is the part that damages our society by creating the illusion of category-based difference between us."
In terms of the category skin color, we indeed fall into different categories. Ethnicity is a better categorization than race, yet racial categorization still has its uses.
Being called White and being called Black, isn't rude, it's a description of person, not a description of character (and it's really not accurate since both races come in many many shades, there are rarely any true white color or true black color people out there). Now when you try to attribute a negative stereotype to an entire group based solely off skin color, that's rude.