Be a Supporter!

The N-Word (serious debate)

  • 1,342 Views
  • 76 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
HollowedPumkinz
HollowedPumkinz
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Gamer
The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 18:14:22 Reply

I know this has been done before, but after trying to find a good thread that actually held even a semi-serious debate on the issue, well lets just say there were none. So, let's hash this shit out finally. I want definitive reasons beyond "that's just how it is" for why we can not use one of the most common words used today, especially one of THE most used words by the exact same people its supposedly offends.

Now lets get some things straight first if this is going to be serious. What's the exact issue? Well, the issue is that we, as NG users, are barred from a very common word and the act of barring this word runs contrary to one of the very core principles NG was founded on: the freedom of expression, the freedom to be unafraid of saying or doing something because its might "hurt the feelings" of X people. The "N Word" can be thought of in two lights. 1) The one White people fear, the one that brings back memories of the days when the word was used as whites to demean blacks and place them as lesser beings. And the one I mean to prove as being as outdated in its meaning as "gay" and is in today's vocabulary from there original meanings. (also see: Swastika) And 2) The contemporary usage of the word, to mean friend, close person, synonymous with "brotha" and "homie" and most commonly used amongst blacks and people who are friends with blacks (My own brother has called me it before, in his defense, he watched a marathon of The Boondocks before hand). This, of course, is usually spoken in a different variant ending with -a instead of with -er, and we all know that. Yet both are barred from usage on the grounds of being one and the same. So I too, will defend both.


Even as I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no Evil. Semper Fidelis

BBS Signature
HollowedPumkinz
HollowedPumkinz
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Gamer
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 18:20:22 Reply

Now that that has been established, I will prove 3 things below: 1) The "N-Word" has been driven from its original meaning into something much more docile and even friendly 2) It's being barred from our usage runs against core principals this website claims it upholds. and 3) that the clear difference between its casual meaning and its offensive meaning is distinct. Therefore they are not one and the same.

Essay type thing:
If I walked around my campus with my friend (who is black) with a clicker and waited for him to start hanging out with his other friends (also black), I might count up to 50 times that most notorious of words being spoken, being shot back in forth and rolling off their tongues as naturally as a conjunction. I've been around them long enough to where they don't even notice if I say it, and they call me it as well. Of course, this can't be right, we're suppose to scream bloody murder and run for the hills at its mere utterance, yes? It's so evil, so vile, so, so...notorious? Of course, even in my own head I have never made the horrendous mistake of clearly pronouncing the -er sound, after all the word ending with -er and it ending with -a are well established opposites. It's been made clear, in all my experience, that those two, are two very very different words. To this I like to compare it to the Swastika, when Buddhists popularized the symbol of good, that is what it meant and that is what it still means to some people. Yet all it took was simple a clockwise turn, and it becomes the symbol of well known hatred. This simple change, made a largely known peaceful symbol into a hated symbol. So to, is the "N-Word" changed in an opposite way, from a word of hatred, to a word of kinship.

A well established fact is that the "N-Word" is considered one of the most derogatory words in the English language, that's what we've been led to believe, that's what the media tells us and that's the reasons people give on its being barred from its mere utterance. But is this not just a Lord Voldemort fallacy? Is this not us simply ALLOWING that word to hold the influence it does? I believe that the word, is just that, a word. Be it in its good context or bad, it is only as bad as the person who hears it, allows it to be. "You stupid Whore." Is demeaning and dehumanizing, and no matter how you spin it, it can't be used in a non-demeaning, non-dehumanizing way. So why can it still be typed out, and even spoken on TV? But the "N-word" does have a non-demeaning and non-dehumanizing context, its used all the time and should be allowed on this site, if for nothing else, simply on Principle.

Furthermore, How can we justify all the trashy, offensive, disgusting flash in our Flash portal that goes unflagged on the grounds that this is "Everything by Everybody" and still ban certain parts of speech? Here's a couple gems that are apparently absolutely fine according to NG:

According to Newgrounds, these are fine because that's there opinion and there right to put in here as being "Everything by Everyone" So let's get this straight, on here you can watch these kinds of videos, make these kinds of videos and upload them for the whole world but oh, bt-dubbs, you can't actually say these things in the forums. So exactly how is banning the word in the forums doing ANYTHING, protecting ANYBODY from these "harmful words" if they can scroll down the UJ section and see all this? Hell, these actually passed, they aren't even UJ. That's the kind of hypocrisy this rule is bringing, if you can allow this racist bullshit than why the hell can we not use the casual, non-racist version of this on the forums? Riddle me that.

In Conclusion, I thoroughly believe that the banishment of the "N-word" is a ridiculous and poor attempt to protect people from verbal harm, when in reality, its just oppressing people from being able to use one of the most common street words in America and probably the world. It doesn't help anybody, its hypocritical and nonsensical especially when you have things like the above flash in our very portals. These policies need to change, you owe us that much NG, if we're really all about expressing ourselves, let us do so in both characters and flash. It's not protective, its largely used in a casual, congenial context and its being barred is limiting as a writer. What if I wanted to write a short story based in the south in 1850? Or a kid trying to rise from the ghettos? How am I suppose to tiptoe around that? It's just restriction of the first amendment and wrong. NG, let's fix this, if for nothing else, for keeping with one of our core principals that we have so wrongfully betrayed.


Even as I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no Evil. Semper Fidelis

BBS Signature
HollowedPumkinz
HollowedPumkinz
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Gamer
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 18:24:13 Reply

At 11/14/13 06:20 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Furthermore, How can we justify all the trashy, offensive, disgusting flash in our Flash portal that goes unflagged on the grounds that this is "Everything by Everybody" and still ban certain parts of speech? Here's a couple gems that are apparently absolutely fine according to NG:

Sorry, the title of these two lovely flashes were giving trouble (their titles were, ahem, inappropriate, surprise surprise)
Here they are:
1 and 2

According to Newgrounds, these are fine because that's there opinion and there right to put in here as being "Everything by Everyone" So let's get this straight, on here you can watch these kinds of videos, make these kinds of videos and upload them for the whole world but oh, bt-dubbs, you can't actually say these things in the forums. So exactly how is banning the word in the forums doing ANYTHING, protecting ANYBODY from these "harmful words" if they can scroll down the UJ section and see all this? Hell, these actually passed, they aren't even UJ. That's the kind of hypocrisy this rule is bringing, if you can allow this racist bullshit than why the hell can we not use the casual, non-racist version of this on the forums? Riddle me that.

Even as I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no Evil. Semper Fidelis

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 18:49:34 Reply

It shouldn't be used, by ANYONE, EVER.

The reasons that non-blacks shouldn't say it is very evident. The word carries far too much hatred and baggage that still exists. I don't care how it is intended, because it still carries the baggage. Trying to forcefully change the meaning won't ever work unless the old meaning is erased and has gone into disuse. With the depth of the wounds the word is associated with, this is not likely to happen in our lifetime.

What I don't like is when black people say it. It's pretty easy to say that it isn't used in the same manner, because such baggage is not tied (i.e. there hasn't been a strong history of racism and hatred of blacks by blacks.) Black people using the words accomplishes nothing good, and actually makes things worse. First off, by calling themselves that word, they have essentially kept the word around. Without the use of it by the black community the word would be very rare and hardly used. Second, they end up creating their own racial divide by making it a word that only black people are allowed to say.

So I agree with your point in a way, but end up at a very different result. The equality should win out, however, the equality should be the higher bar of not using the word, not the equality of lowering everyone to the same trashy level with the use of the word.

AxTekk
AxTekk
  • Member since: Feb. 17, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 19:06:21 Reply

Because Tom Fulp doesn't feel comfortable with white kids throwing around racially charged language on his website. That's where it begins and end on this.

As for in society, you're allowed to say whatever you want, just understand that people will treat you how they find you and your language is a part of that. Speaking for myself, white people saying "nigg*r" shows a lack of understanding for how that word came to be and a lack of respect. It makes you look like a dick basically. However black people wanna think about this shit is up to them, they will make their own rights and wrongs.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 19:17:12 Reply

The n-word is banned from NG forums because it comes up in searches and makes the site as a whole blacklisted in some search engines.

That's what I seem to recall is the reason. People like camaro have so pushed this issue and poisoned free speech that companies can use it as an excuse to fire employees or block websites / content they don't agree with.


BBS Signature
HollowedPumkinz
HollowedPumkinz
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Gamer
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 19:56:30 Reply

At 11/14/13 07:17 PM, poxpower wrote: The n-word is banned from NG forums because it comes up in searches and makes the site as a whole blacklisted in some search engines.

That's what I seem to recall is the reason. People like camaro have so pushed this issue and poisoned free speech that companies can use it as an excuse to fire employees or block websites / content they don't agree with.

Oh really? Now that does make sense, however, it can still be placed as a title, obviously, in flash. If you'll see, the flashes I linked above (3rd post). These things exist, and can be searched using a search engine. So, yeah, not sure if that defeats the purpose or what.


Even as I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no Evil. Semper Fidelis

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 21:48:40 Reply

While I don't have a problem with the word personally, I can understand why some people probably do.

The truth is there are kinks and emotional tripwires that litter every social circle of every magnitude, it's a part of reality. They either usually ironed out with time and assimilation anyway so I'd simply just wait a bit and take solace in the thousands of other words you can use in it's place.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 23:09:34 Reply

At 11/14/13 07:17 PM, poxpower wrote: People like camaro have so pushed this issue and poisoned free speech that companies can use it as an excuse to fire employees or block websites / content they don't agree with.

How has that hurt free speech? Where in the 1st Amendment does it protect you from private, economic, and social consequences of your words?

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. The simple idea of common courtesy is why the word should never be said except in a referential manner. I know you're a "let's have everything be free!" kinda guy, and that's your prerogative. However, don't come crawling back to those of us who live in the real world when your freedom to be a dickface bites you in the ass. The world is not and has never been about the 'royal me' of which you so think it does. There are 6 billion others, and what you do CAN and DOES often hurt them. If you don't mind hurting others because of your principal of outright freedom at the cost of everything else, again, that's your choice.

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-14 23:42:32 Reply

Honestly, I'm really torn on this kind of issue. While I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and all, I can't really defend the use of the n-word considering the negative history of that word, even the more shorter version that ends in G-A or G-U-H that is prevalent within the black communities in America, and even in other parts of the world where there is considerably less baggage with that word, {i.e. Japan} though I'm not 100% certain on that point.

One doesn't have to go very far for examples, particularly with NFL players {Riley Cooper, Richie Incognito} and in locker rooms where the N-word in whatever form is either used in regularity or used as a slur. Here's where it gets complicated, Cooper and Incognito did use the N-word on tape, and were slammed by the media, {at least Incognito, Cooper got off pretty light} whereas the black teammates who used that word without much of a care. {and there's the Lions teammates who use slurs as terms of endearment, despite the fact that one of them is white.} My thought would be is when is it okay for a certain group of people to use what word to whoever and where?

As for the NG forums banning that word, Pox already mentioned that it would have been blackballed on search engines, and that would kill off a lot of business for NG. Also, black people do use this site as well, and I wouldn't think that Tom or Wade Fulp would allow the N-word mostly because of possible litigation purpose and moral concerns. Considering that they are an American site, and America is known for lawsuits, no matter how flimsy they are, I'm sure that they are smart enough not to stir up that hornet's nest like they would do with just about everything else.

Simply put, we know that the N-word is bad and has a horrible history with it, but that's really only the surface of the discussion which opens up a can of worms on who uses that word and where.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-15 00:25:43 Reply

At 11/14/13 11:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
How has that hurt free speech? Where in the 1st Amendment does it protect you from private, economic, and social consequences of your words?

Free speech in society consists of more than the laws enacted by the government.

The simple idea of common courtesy is why the word should never be said except in a referential manner.

"The simple idea of common courtesy is why ankles should never be shown in public"
That's what your way of thinking leads to. "Ban all who offend me!!".

There are 6 billion others, and what you do CAN and DOES often hurt them.

Refer to picture below.

The N-Word (serious debate)


BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-15 10:19:38 Reply

At 11/14/13 11:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Do you adhere to the contra-intuitive argument then, that just because something is wrong it should be illegal?

However, don't come crawling back to those of us who live in the real world when your freedom to be a dickface bites you in the ass. The world is not and has never been about the 'royal me' of which you so think it does.

The "about me" attitutde you ascribe so perniciously is also called "indidvidual rights" and "freedom" in some circles.

There are 6 billion others, and what you do CAN and DOES often hurt them. If you don't mind hurting others because of your principal of outright freedom at the cost of everything else, again, that's your choice.

If you're hurt by words alone, and are willing to inflict socio-economic damage for infractions, I'd say you're the bigger whoremongering prick fascist than the neo-Nazi who offended someone with his tattoo.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
laughatyourfuneral
laughatyourfuneral
  • Member since: Oct. 3, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-15 17:40:10 Reply

Wha' fuk you say crackah?


by all means... ask

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 00:43:58 Reply

At 11/15/13 10:19 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Do you adhere to the contra-intuitive argument then, that just because something is wrong it should be illegal?

Not at all. There's a big difference between something merely being wrong, or improper, and something being wrong to the point of deserving governmental punishment.

The "about me" attitutde you ascribe so perniciously is also called "indidvidual rights" and "freedom" in some circles.

And that freedom is the freedom to anger and piss off others, whilst putting your low level needs above the basic emotions and feelings of others. There is no reason to bar it, but that still doesn't mean it should be wholly free of consequences.

If you're hurt by words alone, and are willing to inflict socio-economic damage for infractions, I'd say you're the bigger whoremongering prick fascist than the neo-Nazi who offended someone with his tattoo.

So you advocate for ultimate freedom, yet it only applies to you? It doesn't apply to others who should therefore have the freedom to deny benefits or interactions to people they deem hateful and ignorant?

I guess 'freedom' only means the freedom from responsibility.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 00:51:45 Reply

At 11/15/13 12:25 AM, poxpower wrote: Free speech in society consists of more than the laws enacted by the government.

Such as the criticism of people who are too dense to realize the consequences of their speech?

"The simple idea of common courtesy is why ankles should never be shown in public"
That's what your way of thinking leads to. "Ban all who offend me!!".

Who's talking about banning here? I'm mere talking about the speech being socially proper. And no, I'm not saying that offensive things should be done away with. I use offensive speech all the time. But, unlike you, I am honest about it. I don't delude myself into thinking calling someone queer in order to piss them off is A-OK because I personally am not offended by it. You may think that the N word is harmless, and you may think others are stupid for being harmed by it, but that doesn't assuage the harm that is caused by it.

Refer to picture below.

One night my mom was out with some of her friends. They got shit faced drunk and started making fat jokes (my mom is quite obese.) My mom felt very uncomfortable and when she tried to change the subject they just got louder and more prolific. After she left, they wondered why she was mad. When she explained it was about the fat jokes they responded, "we're sorry that you feel the need to be hurt by such comments." That's exactly what Fry is saying. Man up and own your damn words. Lying about their effects is nothing but pure and utter cowardice on your part.

LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 10:20:45 Reply

At 11/16/13 12:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote::

One night my mom was out with some of her friends. They got shit faced drunk and started making fat jokes (my mom is quite obese.) My mom felt very uncomfortable and when she tried to change the subject they just got louder and more prolific. After she left, they wondered why she was mad. When she explained it was about the fat jokes they responded, "we're sorry that you feel the need to be hurt by such comments." That's exactly what Fry is saying. Man up and own your damn words. Lying about their effects is nothing but pure and utter cowardice on your part.

If I may, at the risk of fulfilling my "low-level need to insult" with you and your mother's "none-low-level need for others to pretend your mother is comfortable with her life decisions that reflect themselves in very apparent ways".

Why did she try to change the subject? Are these the people who understand her best, are her "friends"? Aren't they aware of this instability your mother has in her figure? Why are they oblivious to her discomfort? If it's because of alcohol, then the behavior of her social group stems directly from your mom's need to belong, despite the obvious fact she doesn't. If it's because they aren't her "real friends" then theire opinions shouldn't that much weight to begin with.... unless your mom can't find any friends who value her and understand her social shortcomings. Maybe she's too busy at work to form intimate friendships; maybe she's incapable of forming intimate friendly relationships because she's incapable of accepting herself... the most intimate form of relationship one can one is with oneself.

The effects of words are great. However, if you're fat and you know it, then people telling you how it is hurts because they are pointing out YOUR failure, and that's what hurts, not being fuckin fat.

Truth.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 10:50:32 Reply

I hear people say that there's no such thing as bad language and that censorship is bad, because words can't hurt people. Everyone seems to think the n-word is more offensive than other words, although it is not regularly bleeped like the f-word is. Even when I hear a list of swear words, I rarely see that or other insulting terms.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 11:00:22 Reply

At 11/16/13 10:20 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Truth.

That is the biggest load of red herring shit I have ever heard. Who cares about why she is there? Who cares about her life choices?

The point was that telling people that they shouldn't be hurt by words is deflecting blame from those who do bad acts to those who are harmed by it. It's no different than saying "well, you got raped. But if you wanted the sex you would have been OK, so therefore rape isn't harmful., because YOU were the reason it hurt you"

I'm getting it here. The whole freedom to say whatever one ones at the expense of others is nothing but a cowardly attempt to shift responsibility to the hurt person as opposed to leaving on the person who actively or recklessly caused the harm.

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 15:36:54 Reply

You're always going to have a problem when free speech clashes with social etiquette. Although it is perfectly legal and inconsequential to use the N-word, the connotations and emotional stigma attached to the word is such that you are only going to cause trouble if you use it thoughtlessly.

I've studied Eng Lang at college, and one of the elementary fundamentals you are taught about language is that words and definitions are in a constant state of flux, and words are always adapting to meet the needs of their users. Maybe one day the N-word will lose all it's impact that it has today, maybe when racism has been reduced to levels where we can be more open and less nervous to offend someone, but until then it's probably wise not to go shouting it around.

obligatory louis ck link


BBS Signature
TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 20:02:33 Reply

I have no respect for anyone that uses the N-Word in an insulting or labeling way. Sure, for those who must say it on a regular basis are protected by Free Speech, but it doesn't mean I'll shake their hand when they introduce themselves afterward. There are many things I can tolerate, but this isn't one of them.


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 20:13:07 Reply

At 11/16/13 11:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
That is the biggest load of red herring shit I have ever heard. Who cares about why she is there? Who cares about her life choices?

everything in life counts.


The point was that telling people that they shouldn't be hurt by words is deflecting blame from those who do bad acts to those who are harmed by it.

No, it's not. telling people that they shouldn't be hurt by words merely points out the foolishness of being hurt by words. when I get mad enough, my tongue turns razor sharp and I slice to the bone with words.... As long as the other person is easily offended. I once told a guy who was being pushy that he he should buy a dress to go with the purse he was wearing (it was a courier bag, but still...) and come out of the closet. He went half insane. Why? Because he was mentally weak enough to let it get to him.

at school people would often crack "your momma" jokes and fat jokes at me. I thought some of them were rather funny and a couple were even unique, but most were mediocre. Why? I realized a long time ago that words only have the power you LET them have. The sooner people realize this, the happier they will be in life.

It's no different than saying "well, you got raped. But if you wanted the sex you would have been OK, so therefore rape isn't harmful., because YOU were the reason it hurt you"

That may very well be the worst analogy I've seen yet. Aren't you supposed to be very intelligent? You can do better than that.

I'm getting it here. The whole freedom to say whatever one ones at the expense of others is nothing but a cowardly attempt to shift responsibility to the hurt person as opposed to leaving on the person who actively or recklessly caused the harm.

Or the other person can realize words have no real power over them.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 23:31:11 Reply

At 11/16/13 08:13 PM, Korriken wrote: everything in life counts.

Except the feelings of others.

No, it's not. telling people that they shouldn't be hurt by words merely points out the foolishness of being hurt by words. when I get mad enough, my tongue turns razor sharp and I slice to the bone with words.... As long as the other person is easily offended. I once told a guy who was being pushy that he he should buy a dress to go with the purse he was wearing (it was a courier bag, but still...) and come out of the closet. He went half insane. Why? Because he was mentally weak enough to let it get to him.

See? You're not being mean or offensive. They're being weak. That smacks of the DV type "you made me hit you" bullshit rationalization. Also, you're not telling them it's their fault for feeling bad, you're only telling them they feel bad because they're foolish and if they weren't foolish, they wouldn't feel bad (or in fewer words, it's their fault they feel bad.)

It's no different than saying "well, you got raped. But if you wanted the sex you would have been OK, so therefore rape isn't harmful., because YOU were the reason it hurt you"
That may very well be the worst analogy I've seen yet. Aren't you supposed to be very intelligent? You can do better than that.

That argument has legitimately been made by another here, that rape is only bad because we (more specifically, Americans) are so prudish toward sex. In short, rape is only bad because we think it is bad. While that argument is horrifically draconian, it does make pure logical sense. The amount of physical harm committed during the act of forced penetration is very minor. The real harm is mental. As with ANY mental harm, it can only hurt you if you let it. However, we don't go to rape victims and say that, now do we?

at school people would often crack "your momma" jokes and fat jokes at me. I thought some of them were rather funny and a couple were even unique, but most were mediocre. Why? I realized a long time ago that words only have the power you LET them have. The sooner people realize this, the happier they will be in life.
Or the other person can realize words have no real power over them.

You are both right and completely missing the point at the same time. It is very true that one can decide to make an active effort to not get hurt by words and be successful at it. Yet, the real point here is that very few people are like that. Words hurt people. I don't care if you think that shouldn't be. I don't care if you think you, or if you actually are above being hurt by words. The fact of life is that the vast super majority of people can be hurt by words and using such hurtful words WILL end up hurting people. That is why it is improper.

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-16 23:32:03 Reply

At 11/16/13 11:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
The point was that telling people that they shouldn't be hurt by words is deflecting blame from those who do bad acts to those who are harmed by it.

There's degrees of being hurt and a part of blame for the victim in each.
For instance, if you are hurt by me talking about farts, then you are mostly to blame for your stupidity.
But if you are hurt by me shooting you in the face, then I am mostly to blame.

I think if you're hurt by the n-word (even when casually used or not even directed at anyone), it's mostly your own damn fault and why some people should lose their jobs over it I cannot figure, it's a completely insane and disproportionate response.

Consider this. I don't choose to be an atheist and if Christians on television say horrible things about me for being an atheist, should I therefore get the word banned (for them only of course, I can still say it)? Remember that being an atheist is punishable by death in many religions and atheists have suffered immensely throughout history and that no one chooses to be one.

Or how about we all use whatever words we want and people who "take offence" can go shove a big huge dildo up their asses because 99% of the "pain" they suffer as a result of hearing words comes from their own stupidity and disproportionate sense of self-entitlement?


BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 10:54:22 Reply

At 11/16/13 11:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 11/16/13 10:20 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Truth.
That is the biggest load of red herring shit I have ever heard. Who cares about why she is there? Who cares about her life choices?

Because the jokes being told before the fat mother jokes probably stuck in one of your mother's friends' craw, and they retorted with a fat joke? Your mom tell jokes? No? Then she don't belong in that social group. She did? I hope she thought of her friends' feelings before peeling off a blonde or polish or Obama joke.

If I deal red herrings, it's because you ordered them, chump.


The point was that telling people that they shouldn't be hurt by words is deflecting blame from those who do bad acts to those who are harmed by it. It's no different than saying "well, you got raped. But if you wanted the sex you would have been OK, so therefore rape isn't harmful., because YOU were the reason it hurt you"

I'm raping you with my words right now, taking you against your will. The physical act of penetration via unwilling sexual intercourse IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT . . . don't you think?


I'm getting it here. The whole freedom to say whatever one ones at the expense of others is nothing but a cowardly attempt to shift responsibility to the hurt person as opposed to leaving on the person who actively or recklessly caused the harm.

I say what I want AT MY OWN EXPENSE. That's how words work. I can't say something offensive and a magic word fairy makes you pay the fine for the stupid, hateful or insulting words brought to bear. I can, however, say things that you're unequipped to deal with, like "your mother was portrayed poorly by Camarohusky's anecdote"

It's your fucking fault you told a stupid story, and now you're reaping the rewards. Don't blame me (the victim) because your story offended my sharpened intellect.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 11:23:18 Reply

At 11/16/13 11:32 PM, poxpower wrote:
But if you are hurt by me shooting you in the face, then I am mostly to blame.

MOSTLY?! How in the hell in any way, shape, or form, is the victim partly blamed for that?


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 11:25:40 Reply

At 11/17/13 11:23 AM, TNT wrote:
At 11/16/13 11:32 PM, poxpower wrote:
But if you are hurt by me shooting you in the face, then I am mostly to blame.
MOSTLY?! How in the hell in any way, shape, or form, is the victim partly blamed for that?

A rational person needs a compelling reason to shoot someone in the face.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 11:36:30 Reply

At 11/17/13 11:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
At 11/17/13 11:23 AM, TNT wrote:
At 11/16/13 11:32 PM, poxpower wrote:
But if you are hurt by me shooting you in the face, then I am mostly to blame.
MOSTLY?! How in the hell in any way, shape, or form, is the victim partly blamed for that?
A rational person needs a compelling reason to shoot someone in the face.

OK, but the person behind the gun is the one that pulled the trigger (unless accidental misfire by dropping it). Rather it is on purpose or an accident to shoot someone, the shooter is the one that's fully responsible because he's the one with the gun, and the mindset to pull that trigger. The way that poxpower said it is like saying the victim is partly to blame for a drunk driving accident.


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 11:51:12 Reply

At 11/17/13 11:36 AM, TNT wrote:
At 11/17/13 11:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
At 11/17/13 11:23 AM, TNT wrote:
At 11/16/13 11:32 PM, poxpower wrote:
But if you are hurt by me shooting you in the face, then I am mostly to blame.
MOSTLY?! How in the hell in any way, shape, or form, is the victim partly blamed for that?
A rational person needs a compelling reason to shoot someone in the face.
OK, but the person behind the gun is the one that pulled the trigger (unless accidental misfire by dropping it). Rather it is on purpose or an accident to shoot someone, the shooter is the one that's fully responsible because he's the one with the gun, and the mindset to pull that trigger. The way that poxpower said it is like saying the victim is partly to blame for a drunk driving accident.

Pox intentionally left his analogy vague, for reasons known only to him... but I'll venture to guess it's because assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups, and assuming shooting someone in the face for any reason is totally the shooter's fault is a large one.

What you should consider is extenuating circumstances, like hostage negotiation, self-defense and duties of war.

Take auto insurance claims for example. Merely being on the road enables a portion of the blame to be assigned to the victim, though the accident is mostly the other driver's doing. The way pox explained it (astutely, I should add) left room for outlying circumstances such as two drunk drivers hitting eachother or a successfully executed hostage crises.

But yeah, I can see where it's easy to get lost in words and forget the elasticity they have. That flex is why we're all here, working out the kinks and getting some, too.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
NewgroundsMike
NewgroundsMike
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2008
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 12:21:41 Reply

At 11/17/13 11:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: A rational person needs a compelling reason to shoot someone in the face.

A rational person doesn't shoot anyone in the face.


You can't fight for peace. If you fight, there ain't peace.
NO, I'M NOT AMERICAN!
Click here if you want to be my dinner!

TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to The N-Word (serious debate) 2013-11-17 12:29:54 Reply

At 11/17/13 11:51 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
At 11/17/13 11:36 AM, TNT wrote:
OK, but the person behind the gun is the one that pulled the trigger (unless accidental misfire by dropping it). Rather it is on purpose or an accident to shoot someone, the shooter is the one that's fully responsible because he's the one with the gun, and the mindset to pull that trigger. The way that poxpower said it is like saying the victim is partly to blame for a drunk driving accident.
What you should consider is extenuating circumstances, like hostage negotiation, self-defense and duties of war.

I have considered them. However, it doesn't change the fact that the person behind the gun was the one who shot that victim/target (unless there's another person shooting the same victim/target as well, then we could argue which bullet killed the victim first). For hostage negotiations, if the suspect shot the hostage, then it's his fault. If the sniper hits his target (i.e. the suspect) or accidentally hits a hostage, then it's his fault. And it holds true in the extreme case if the hostage somehow gets the suspect's gun and shot him; it's the hostage's fault for shooting him.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a justifiable shooting, but I'm pointing out on who's responsible for that action to occur.

Take auto insurance claims for example. Merely being on the road enables a portion of the blame to be assigned to the victim, though the accident is mostly the other driver's doing. The way pox explained it (astutely, I should add) left room for outlying circumstances such as two drunk drivers hitting eachother or a successfully executed hostage crises.

How is it the victim's fault if he's obeying the law on the road? Are you implying that the law abiding driver on the road is at partial fault because he was there at the wrong time?

In regards to two drunk drivers hitting each other, one of the drunk drivers is responsible for that accident (like he ran through the red light onto oncoming traffic where the other drunk driver hits him perpendicularly). So it's up to the police to figure out which one caused the accident while placing both of them in jail for DWI.

But yeah, I can see where it's easy to get lost in words and forget the elasticity they have. That flex is why we're all here, working out the kinks and getting some, too.

I think pox should have elaborated a little bit on how he's mostly to blame if he shot someone, but it could just be me...


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature