^-----facepalm
Printable View
^-----facepalm
What is so hard to comprehend? She CHOSE to take him out of context.
She then makes a similarly easy to take as offensive remark and it's totally justified and no one should get offended? She finds his words offensive and I found hers offensive...
So I said something...same as she did. But I'M wrong...and only me...right...
So yeah Double Standard...
That is all.
...again....facepalm......also enjoy these ;) HAHAHA :banana:
Best post in crazy thread. You don't get HepC or AIDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
As for the OP you don't get HepC from kissing. Your question sounds pretty troll like IMHO. And I am not the mostly world;y guy ever lived but when you are getting a lap dance dude as a rule the girl wants what's in your wallet not in your mouth.
And Jamie while you meant no harm, the "N" isn't cool for folks who aren't black to use and more and more black folks don't use it towards each other because they don't like hearing it coming out of other people's mouth's or keyboards. It's not that I don't get the social context you were using it or that in anyway you are racist but the word is very inflammatory these days.
nugga - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
I doubt if Jamie is the least bit racist and I do see that she was riled by the use of the word tranny and the OP's question.
But she could have made her point more eloquently - and without the N word. It does genuinely offend some people - and so the use of it was clumsy IMHO.
But Jamie certainly gives the impression of being spring loaded with anger. it seems that any comments which rile her are greeted with an assault weapon scale response rather than a wittier and clever put down. That's her I guess.
This isn't some random isolated incident. It is a recurring theme for some non racist people on this site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix
Yeah Jamie isn't the only girl on here with a temper.
But babes like Nicole Dupre who breathed fire(!) NEVER went there with the racial epithets.
Getting angry or attempting to make a point doesn't make the N-world antiseptic.
I've used the word nigger on this board, when trying to be contextual and I understand exactly what Jamie was saying. It's just a word and it's not something I'd use in my everyday vocabulary, it's not something I'd use lightly and I know exactly the implications of using it.
However, it's just a word and unless it was attached to something more insidious to how Jamie was using it, then all this moral outrage is worthless.
I said i agreed 100 per cent with her position - just hate that word
i know we as black people use the word (especially those of us who are from an "urban" background) so some people of other racial backgrounds might be confused and think they can use this word also.
the reason why we started using the word was a way to reclaim it and de-stigmatize the usage.i feel strongly that if you arent of african or african american decent you have no right nor reason to use the term nigga/nigger/negro for any reason.this wasnt a term that was use to insult you or your people so you really dont need to reclaim it or whatever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."
The position is invalid. Transsexuals are not a race, so the comparison is apples and oranges from the beginning. Secondly, many people try to draw comparisons between the plight of the black race in America and other groups but there is NONE. It is a unique situation that's why the use of that word and the sentiment behind it is different from ANY other word. Thirdly, you can't prove a lack of racism by showing you got black friends. The fact that you think you can speaks volumes! Strom Thurmond had a black mistress that he took very good care of-- therefore he is absolved of any racism. Yeah, ok.
It was a Jew who told you to do that :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by amberskyi
It's a word, a series of letters, despite the history it's still the context in which it's used (and often to demonstrate how abusive or attacking something is) which is the most important.
For you it may just be a word but for us who have grand parents and elders in our community who remembers not only the hate with which they were called that word but all the discrimination/segregation of that time it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Tell holocaust survivors and their descendents that the swastika is just a symbol or the numbers permanently marked on their skin is just a tattoo.
My point exactly. When a swastika is used as party of the Nazi party or white supremacy then it's context is take for what it is (which is entirely different from where it began). You see swastika's in Buddist temples all over the world. You don't ban tattoo's - or people having tattoo's with numbers on it because of what it has been used for in the past?Quote:
Originally Posted by amberskyi
I don't think that's really a good argument, the same as using the history of your grandparents or relatives to say it's ok for you to use that word but others, without the history cannot. It's relative to the usage of it.
Once again, the difference being race and skin color as opposed to a group or an act. If a then B does not mean if B then A! A person can be white without being a white supremacist but the only non black white supremacist I know is Clayton Bigsby! When I white person says the N word they are ALWAYS a white person saying the N word. That IS the context. Even more so a white person from Texas.
So in what context would you use the term nigger sir?Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
I'm sorry but try using that word around a group of African Americans and i promise you they aren't going to care what your context is.it will never be acceptable for you to use that term.
As nasty as the word is, you sound like someone stuck in a victim mentality. What is this? The Oppression Olympics? It's not a competition. Bigotry is ugly all the way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix
I agree. I've met Blacks that get crazy about it, but I've also met those who could care less. Despite this, and my response to Sucka4chix, just because the controversy about the word is overplayed these days, I also agree that it's unacceptable for non-Blacks to use it. I tend to physically cringe when they do. Words have power.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberskyi
~BB~
some people should do a bit more brushing up on George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Louie C.K., and Doug Stanhope...
also while you are brushing up, enjoy this... :kiss:
Oh, this is a photo thread now? :?
~BB~
Agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Nigger is an awful, nasty racial slur and it's wrong when ANYONE uses it.
Sorry but when Black people use the word we look stupid. THere's no socio-political agenda behind it. It's just ignorant. We aren't claiming shit by using it except our stupidity.
Ignorant Black people go around dropping nigga-this, nigga-that. It's a shame how much of Black pop culture borrows from the lowest common denominator in our community.
The rise in the use of the word nigger in the Black community can be directly seen in parallel to the dumbing down of rap artists in the late 1980s/early 1990s on forward.
Yes Black people use it and for some reason it's accepted by society at large, but let's not going around spreading this bullshit that we as a people have RIGHT to use it.
BTW using the term 'negro' is nowhere near on the same level as using 'nigger'.
Negro is just an evolution of self-definition of what Black people have appropriately called themselves. We've been colored. We've been Negroes through the 1960s. We've been Afro-American. African-American. Black.
Negro isn't a slur, even though sometimes people try to use it like one.
In the context of explaining how despicable something is, usually a concept or name calling, Miss. I'd use in in that context around a group of African Americans and hope my explanation of why it's appropriately used would be understood. If they didn't, then that's their issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberskyi
What did Bill Hicks say in terms of this, I've got all his shows?Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
Hitchen's is just a hack maniac.
just a basic slew of great people with great ideas :) -Hicks, his "it's just a ride" speech. -Hitchens, great worldly views. :)
GQ has a great article on Hitchens by Michael Wolff this month. I've no time for the guy, mostly stolen ideas or obvious ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
Hicks is the best, I wrote the beginning of a script for his lifestory a few yrs ago but never got around to completing it.
Lenny Bruce was the Godfather to them all. You should check him out.
Very nice. if you would like some help with that script, id love to help :) .... Yes, Lenny Bruce was amazing! ;)
Hitchens was not only a genius who saw things that others cannot, he was intellectually honest enough to espouse his ideals (complete with consequences) his entire life. Even on his deathbed, he never relented his atheism to fear of the unknown like some other famous thinkers have.
~BB~
I don't think his deathbed non-rebuttal of atheism says much to be honest. He chose easy targets to epouse his ideals on. He was a pompous characture - and that's the role he chose to play. He wasn't a genius by any stretch of the imagination, he was a good debator.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
See if you can get that Michael Wolff article.
I'm open-minded, but it's going to really have to be a smoking gun for me to change my mind. I mean, religion might be an easy target intellectually, but certainly not socially. I respected his candor and his ability to withstand the consequences of his words and actions, and (as if you didn't already know) I tend to emulate his truth-at-all-costs mentality. It's not popular, but it lends itself well to integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
And yes, he was an incredible debator. A masterdebator. Who loved the transladies.
OK, I made that last part up. :P
~BB~
I'm all for the truth-at-all-costs but when you go out looking to just cause trouble without a fixed agenda then you run the risk of just being pedantic and then becoming that characture. Christopher Hitchens would have an opposite opinion on anything, if it elevated his standing. Richard Dawkins is somebody whom I'd admire a lot more, he has his agenda, he researches it, counters criticism and doesn't need to resort to screaming and swearing. Hitchen's kinda jumped on the God bandwagon there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
That's a good point, but what's interesting to note is that Dawkins has been a bit more ambivalent about his beliefs (or professed lack thereof) in his older age. I suspect he'll be crying like a baby for some god's mercy when his time comes. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
http://ncronline.org/news/richard-da...d-doesnt-exist
I mean this was a huge news story when it hit. Doubt is like a flood gate. Once you open pandora's box...
~BB~
Nah - he's a scientist and they have to leave room for all probable outcomes. That's why most things are a theory and most research is on probability. I'm an atheist but can't categorically state that there isn't a Big Bloke in the sky controlling anything, I can just state that I don't believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
I feel the same way, but doesn't that make us agnostic by definition? I mean, I for one believe that the basis of spirituality will one day be explained scientifically, but I also don't believe that such a natural system is sentient or has a will of its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
~BB~
By the way, we're WAAAAY off-topic. All of us. :lol:
Kiss the Girl - The Little Mermaid - Kiss de Girl - Lyrics - YouTube
~BB~
'Fraid not. No victim here. Just a hater of bullshit and improprieties!Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
I don't think so, I think agnostic would be that we're waiting to find out. Given the evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that there isn't a God. Again though, we get back to labeling and words ... agnostic/atheist ... does it matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
Bed time!
Fair enough. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix
True. The labeling is confusing, but as such an outspoken critic of theism, I have to question Dawkins here. I'll keep the jury out though. Nite nite!Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
~BB~
The agnostic says, "I don't believe God exists."
The atheist says, "I believe God doesn't exist."
Robert Ingersoll, when asked said that he was agnostic, but that there isn't much difference between the two. Except for the technical placement of a modal operator, I think he's pretty much right. I suspect Dawkins would claim that "God doesn't exist" is as certain as the measurement of an electron's charge; i.e. certain as science, but not as certain as mathematics. I really don't see him recanting on his death bed.
Well said. I still disagree, though. It's hard to argue scientifically that there is any evidence whatsoever of a divine being or creator. I also don't think Dawkins has Hitchens' backbone. We shall see. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
~BB~