kingbee kingbee

True Hate Speech

▼

True Hate Speech

how far is too far?

from JoeUser Forums
this is an article i never imagined id find myself writing in 2004.

during the nearly 2 months ive been here, ive seen a number of variations on the following theme: .

'conservatives are are more responsible, less vile, more pragmatic and realistic and willing to deal with the repercussions of their beliefs'.

it could as easily been a liberal claim. thats not the issue

over the past 2 days, ive seen several posts about namecalling in which admittedly offensive, hurtful insulting perjoratives were compared to a racial slur. .

in my opinion--although i dont believe im alone in this--while name-calling of any type is childish, irresponsible and may even be unnecessarily cruel, use of racial slurs inexcusably inhumane because a slur is much more than an insult. slurs accomplish only one purpose: they represent an assertion members of the target group are less than human. .

there is no justification whatsoever for their use in any context by anyone who is not a member of the target group and i personally dont agree with the proposition that members of the group use it among themselves as a means of blunting, defusing or 'taking ownership' of it. .

comparing a slur to even the most abombinable non-slur is never valid nor logical because at bottom line, none of us chooses the racial or ethnic group into which were born. attempting to establish a correlation between a non-slur and the denial of anothers humanity evidences both abyssmal ignorance and racism at best.and flagrant intentional racism otherwise. .

in this case both posters happen to have been self-proclaimed conservatives but it makes no real difference. a conservative racist is not one whit worse or better than a liberal racist. or a centrist racist.

suggesting that an objection to using racial slurs is a tactic to hijack a specific thread is incomprehensibly obtuse..

its absolutely intolerable that racial slurs are used in the physical world. carrying it over into the virtual world is the social equivablent of shitting on hallowed ground. .

either way--and even if you totally disagree with my take on this--there are also practical repercussions that invalidate the claim to any sort of the type of philosophic or political pragmatism to which i referred in the third paragraph.

since ju is so well spidered by google, its almost inevitable that within a few days any idiot who uses that word as a search term will be directed here. that my friends is truly an unnecessary fucking shame
misc
23,363 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
they represent a denial that members of the target group are less than human. .


kingbee, I'm not normally one to try and nit-pick someone's writing but I thought you may want to take another look at this sentence in your article. I understand what you are actually saying, but I think this says the opposite of what you meant. As it reads, it says that slurs actually deny that someone is less than human. I don't think that's what you meant, is it?

Just thought you might want to edit that. Just helping out. Feel free to delete this comment after you examine the sentence.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Slurs ARE name-calling. It's all meant to be hurtful and to degrade the intended recipient

let me try to be more clear. slurs are a subset of insults. racial slurs are a subset of slurs--as are religious slurs, cultural slurs, etc. this particular racial slur exists in further subset and is unique in that its has been used for well over two centuries to maintain a specific racial group--collectively and individually--is irredeemably sub human. factor in the impact of over 200 years of usage to justify systemic inhumane treatment both inside and outside the law on the basis of racial inferiority and you wind up with a word thats exponentially more damaging than ordinary --or almost any other--insults. my point isnt that it cant be used. one can hit an old lady with a baseball bat. theres no reason nor any excuse for doing so.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just thought you might want to edit that. Just helping out

jeez. i really appreciate you bringing that to my attention. now you know why i they wouldnt demote me to copy editor.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know about that.

possibly im not being clear or perhaps your misinterpreting the statement. my point is that while its not uncommon for members of a racial group to refer to themselves using words that would be totally objectionable when used by those who arent members of that group, it really doesnt help the overall situation--even it its done to 'reclaim' the word or diminish its power. all that really does is keep the word in circulation.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee, i understand your point, I just don't agree that it's any worse, or better, than any other insulting name. As for being "damaging", a word in itself, causes no damage. It's a word. A word has no more power than that given to it. I feel that any insulting name or word shouldn't be used because it's a hateful means of communicating. The IDEA behind the word is what counts. What the word communicates is what counts. Whether it's directed at a single person or a group is irrelevant. It's still hateful. The word, whatever it is, in itself, has no power or substance at all. It's the hate behind it. And that applies to any and all dereogatory remarks, not just "slurs".

Slur, as defined, is just another word for insult.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Peeking in on you. Please tell me you are still around



i second that, wisefawn.


*waves*

hi, king

mig XX