Rahm Emanuel uses insult "retarded"

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Just saying, that word is not really in the vocab of this generation. Still wondering what TV show you have heard it on recently?

I've heard it on Def Comedy Jam, but that was 10-15 years ago. I know George Jefferson said it all the time, and it was used on other shows, like Archie Bunker, etc. sometimes. But there is plenty of black racist comedy out there that is truly offensive. Martin comes to mind. The point is, nobody makes a big deal out of that. My question is, why? If it's laced with venom, then it's poison. Why don't we as a society care about some types of poison? Historical weight? Screw historical weight. I'm living now. I know history shapes things, but we also can't be stuck with our heads in it. Let the dead past bury its dead, as Wahoo Sam Crawford would say.

[pfife]

I don't understand why you think that just because you say "screw history" that society should. If you drop that notion, you should be able to answer your questions. You seem to want to arbitrarily reject historical reality that still affects many people in order to make your point, but I for one don't purchase your premise that the history should be "screwed".

[ewsieg]

In no way am I defending Rahm, but I guess I just don't understand some of the (by few) very strong feelings against him. Was he wrong, of course. Should he apologize, of course. Will everyone forgive him, of course not.

The issue IMO, is in the intent. He wasn't trying to offend anyone, he's a hard *** that was going off and used a derogatory term. That's it. Is it really worse for me to offhandedly say "that's so gay" or is it worse for me to think about it and truly intend to mock those that try to be so sensitive to things by saying "that's so Rachel"?

IDK, maybe it is. I'm not a fan of name calling, but at the same time it just seems like some people make too much of it.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by pfife

I don't understand why you think that just because you say "screw history" that society should. If you drop that notion, you should be able to answer your questions. You seem to want to arbitrarily reject historical reality that still affects many people in order to make your point, but I for one don't purchase your premise that the history should be "screwed".

I'm saying society should either care about the feelings of everybody, or else it's being hypocritical.

AIDS is a disease which is very recent, whereas cancer has been around a long time. To the sufferer, what the hell difference does that make?

If a modern kid is being made fun of, does he give a skunk's butthole about the historical significance of the taunts being thrown his way?

If a grown man is made to feel humiliated by some jerk because he's fat, does the societal ramifications of his pllight come into play? No. He's hurt just as badly as a black guy being called a you-know-what.

So, in that context, I say screw history. If society is going to be concerned about the feelings of one group, it should be equally concerned about the feelings of another. If a white comedian is going to be chastized for using the n-word in jest, then so should a black comedian be chastized for using honky, since, in the 21st century, the possibility exists for either group to be offended.

History has nothing to do with that. People right now are offended by these things. So let's either do away with them altogether, or else lighten up when it comes to race and allow people on both sides to joke around without fear of reprisal. And when someone says something truly offensive, like Al Campanis or Charles Barkley, either fire both of them or let it go. But don't fire one and keep the other just because of "historical significance." That, to me, is ridiculous.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

I'm saying society should either care about the feelings of everybody, or else it's being hypocritical.

No, its not, because you're treating two situations as equal that aren't, and expecting equal reactions to two situations that aren't equal. If the situations were equal it would be hypocrisy, but they are not - the only way they are is if you "screw history".

I don't know if you've read anything about the slave trade... if you haven't, you should. Then tell someone to "screw" that history.

AIDS is a disease which is very recent, whereas cancer has been around a long time. To the sufferer, what the hell difference does that make?

If a modern kid is being made fun of, does he give a skunk's butthole about the historical significance of the taunts being thrown his way?

The only reason the taunts have significance is because of the history.

If a grown man is made to feel humiliated by some jerk because he's fat, does the societal ramifications of his pllight come into play? No. He's hurt just as badly as a black guy being called a you-know-what.

Of course the social ramifications come into play. We live in a society that doesn't value fatness. That is why being called fat hurts people. If we lived in a society that does value fatness - which do exist, as in other societies fatness is a symbol of wealth - such taunts would not be insulting.

So, in that context, I say screw history.

Yes, you say that. Repeatedly.

And most of society completely disagrees with you.

If society is going to be concerned about the feelings of one group, it should be equally concerned about the feelings of another. If a white comedian is going to be chastized for using the n-word in jest, then so should a black comedian be chastized for using honky, since, in the 21st century, the possibility exists for either group to be offended.

I disagree because the n-word has a much longer history behind it than the word honkey does.

History has nothing to do with that.

Yes it does. Just because you screw the history doesn't mean the history doesn't matter - it merely means you don't think it does.

Might I presume that the history you're telling other people to "screw" isn't a history you share with those people? What on earth gives you the right to claim that other groups should "screw" their long history of kidnapping, murder, oppression, enslavement, bigotry, etc they have suffered?

Would you tell a Jewish person to screw the history of the Holocaust?

People right now are offended by these things. So let's either do away with them altogether, or else lighten up when it comes to race and allow people on both sides to joke around without fear of reprisal. And when someone says something truly offensive, like Al Campanis or Charles Barkley, either fire both of them or let it go. But don't fire one and keep the other just because of "historical significance." That, to me, is ridiculous.

Then boycott the companies that aren't operating in the manner you prefer.

[DetroitFolly]

Now the plot thickens. Sarah Palin came out quite forcefully against Rahm. Rahm apologized, and as part of it, has apparently invited some people to the white house as a gesture. Now, Rush Limbaugh yesterday started whining about our PC society, and tossed this gem out there.

"Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people -- these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney-toons. Now I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think their big news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters "effing retards." So now there's gonna be a meeting -- there's gonna be a retard summit at the White House.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: If you want to look at how this is broken down, Emanuel compares Democrat activists to retarded people, then apologizes to retarded people, not to the Democrats. Normally if you call somebody a retard, you apologize to them for calling them a retard. But he has apologized to the retarded people for daring to lump them with Democrats. It's hilarious."


I think the last part is actually pretty funny (not the language, the point.) But...what happens now? Sarah needs to jump on Rush too, right?

[pfife]

Originally Posted by DetroitFolly

I think the last part is actually pretty funny (not the language, the point.)

it is

[Ingefanclub]

I have used the word "Retarded" twice in the last month or two and as soon as I said it I had to say "sorry" because when I was a kid that was a word I used all the time with my siblings and friends. Now I realize times are changing and it may stem from the Palin factor (high profile person with a downs syndrome child). When I said the word it just slipped out but as soon as i said it I wondered if the person I was talking too might have a child with downs syndrome or autism and they probably would be offended by the word.

So I don't think Rahm is the devil for using the word. Its probably just something that slipped out. Leave him alone he apologized.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

What do you mean it is manufactured?

I'm guessing it was used to just balance out the N word. As DF stated, it'll never have the same impact. Someone somewhere said "Hey, let's think of something to call THEM." Doesn't work that way. Its like a fake nickname. Nicknames cannot be contrived, they have to develop or be the result of a specific instance. You can't go in saying "I need a nickname." Didn't work for Calvin LaLoosh. He wanted to be called Nuke and instead was called Meat.

[Boilerfan]

Originally Posted by DetroitFolly

Now the plot thickens. Sarah Palin came out quite forcefully against Rahm. Rahm apologized, and as part of it, has apparently invited some people to the white house as a gesture. Now, Rush Limbaugh yesterday started whining about our PC society, and tossed this gem out there.

"Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people -- these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney-toons. Now I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think their big news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters "effing retards." So now there's gonna be a meeting -- there's gonna be a retard summit at the White House.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: If you want to look at how this is broken down, Emanuel compares Democrat activists to retarded people, then apologizes to retarded people, not to the Democrats. Normally if you call somebody a retard, you apologize to them for calling them a retard. But he has apologized to the retarded people for daring to lump them with Democrats. It's hilarious."


I think the last part is actually pretty funny (not the language, the point.) But...what happens now? Sarah needs to jump on Rush too, right?

Both Rahm and Rush should be ashamed of their use of the word, but I firmly believe that neither has the capability.

As far as Palin goes, I expect either silence about Rush or in some way defending him.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

How about the "h" word to whites? Because I've been hearing that on TV regularly since "The Jeffersons," and it's usuallly accompanied by a laugh-track.

So by regularly you mean on a TV show that was on 20 yrs ago and 15 yrs ago. A bit exaggerated isn't it?

[eastside billee]

All I know is that I love it when the pot calls the kettle black.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

All I know is that I love it when the pot calls the kettle black.

What I love is Duane vehemently claiming racism experienced by whites is a serious, serious issue but that racism experienced by blacks and other minorities (which actually effects their economic status, job status, housing status, education) is not reallllly an issue and one that has been resolved by laws.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

Both Rahm and Rush should be ashamed of their use of the word, but I firmly believe that neither has the capability.

As far as Palin goes, I expect either silence about Rush or in some way defending him.

If she is silent about Rush she loses all credibility with what she said about Rahm. Enough with the partisan morality...I am left but Rahm disgusts me with what he said, John Edwards is a scumbag and Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Prize...if you are true to your morals what party a person associates with doesn't matter.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

I'm saying society should either care about the feelings of everybody, or else it's being hypocritical.

AIDS is a disease which is very recent, whereas cancer has been around a long time. To the sufferer, what the hell difference does that make?

If a modern kid is being made fun of, does he give a skunk's butthole about the historical significance of the taunts being thrown his way?

If a grown man is made to feel humiliated by some jerk because he's fat, does the societal ramifications of his pllight come into play? No. He's hurt just as badly as a black guy being called a you-know-what.

So, in that context, I say screw history. If society is going to be concerned about the feelings of one group, it should be equally concerned about the feelings of another. If a white comedian is going to be chastized for using the n-word in jest, then so should a black comedian be chastized for using honky, since, in the 21st century, the possibility exists for either group to be offended.

History has nothing to do with that. People right now are offended by these things. So let's either do away with them altogether, or else lighten up when it comes to race and allow people on both sides to joke around without fear of reprisal. And when someone says something truly offensive, like Al Campanis or Charles Barkley, either fire both of them or let it go. But don't fire one and keep the other just because of "historical significance." That, to me, is ridiculous.

Are white people really offended by people like Barkley? If they were, he wouldn't be on the air. The reason he still has a job is because most people have decided what he said is not offensive. The reason the N word is, is because society has decided its history and the power it holds is dangerous and a disgusting term to use.

If white people want to protest the RARE use of the word honkey it will be used less than it already is. If you spoke for white people the use of honkey would result in people protesting the show/sponsors, meaning sponsors pull out, meaning the show is off the air, meaning other shows would be careful not to use it. But that hasn't happened? Why? I think most white people are reasonable enough to know it doesn't hold the same weight as the N word and are not too concerned with a word that you cite was last used on the Jeffersons.

[sub rosa]

there is a double-standard when it comes to making jokes stereotyping white people. there is, and anyone who doesn't see it is blind or dishonest.

as for rahm - never should've been in the position to begin with, so obama can't fire him soon enough for me. using the word "retarded" or "retard" to make a point about people being stupid or using poor judgment is insensitive. so was obama's joke about the special olympics (can't remember the context). palin has a perfectly valid complaint, although i truly question her motives most of the time. it seems she just wants to pounce on anything to score political points.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

there is a double-standard when it comes to making jokes stereotyping white people. there is, and anyone who doesn't see it is blind or dishonest.

as for rahm - never should've been in the position to begin with, so obama can't fire him soon enough for me. using the word "retarded" or "retard" to make a point about people being stupid or using poor judgment is insensitive. so was obama's joke about the special olympics (can't remember the context). palin has a perfectly valid complaint, although i truly question her motives most of the time. it seems she just wants to pounce on anything to score political points.

Yes, calling a woman a C*** is the same as calling a man a pig. Same thing. Same, exact, thing...(sarcasm).

[pfife]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

there is a double-standard when it comes to making jokes stereotyping white people. there is, and anyone who doesn't see it is blind or dishonest.

I don't think people are denying it - we're just explaining why it exists.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Yes, calling a woman a C*** is the same as calling a man a pig. Same thing. Same, exact, thing...(sarcasm).

not the same, never said it was. your point is not made.

honkey does not equal ******. never will.

but as long as an inequality exists at least in allowing stereotyping in comedy, it will breed resentment.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Yes, calling a woman a C*** is the same as calling a man a pig. Same thing. Same, exact, thing...(sarcasm).

I think calling a woman a "C-word" is the same thing as calling a man a dick.

It's just that women are too damn insensitive. (Ducking).

But in both cases you are using a part of the anatomy in negative way.

[Melody]

Eh. Already had this argument on the c-word. And it is NOT the same as calling a man a "dick". Now if our society was one where men were considered primarily useful for giving sexual relief to women and pushing babies out of that part, maybe it would be more similar.

I wish people would use more imagination and wit in their insults. All of these listed above are fall back insults used by people with limited vocabularies and imagination. It's just lazy.

[shabba4detroit]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

So by regularly you mean on a TV show that was on 20 yrs ago and 15 yrs ago. A bit exaggerated isn't it?

They also used the N-word on The Jeffersons.


Which leads me to two points:

First, I just learned this week that Weezy was 21 years older than George ... which would make her television's first Cougar.

And, second ... if black people would stop using the N-word, it would just go away. I don't know white people who use it anymore. I know that I had to explain to my 9 and 8 year old what it was, and why they shouldn't use it, because they heard it in some rap song from their friends.

[shabba4detroit]

Originally Posted by Melody

Eh. Already had this argument on the c-word. And it is NOT the same as calling a man a "dick". Now if our society was one where men were considered primarily useful for giving sexual relief to women and pushing babies out of that part, maybe it would be more similar.

Could it be that you don't think so because you think calling someone a dick is somehow acceptable? It shouldn't be.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

Could it be that you don't think so because you think calling someone a dick is somehow acceptable? It shouldn't be.

Either would be a soap licking offense in my household. But what I'm saying is that the inference is entirely different. "Dick" is a crude substitute for a jerk. "C**t" is an extreme vulgarity and an attempt to "put her in her place" which, by inference, is the bedroom and the delivery room. Entirely different. Honestly, most jerks are usually at least a little gratified to be considered as such, so perhaps the better female equivalent in common usage is the b-word since both refer to behavior and aggression.

[eastside billee]

c'mon Melody - that's retarded.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

c'mon Melody - that's retarded.

Who you callin' a democrat? I'm gonna kick your butt!

EDIT: Right after I hit "post" on this, I could almost hear my late father's voice saying, "Boy! You'd better give your soul to God and pay up your insurance because your A** is fixin to be grass and I'm the lawn mower." LOL Always directed at my brothers. I got a harsher punishment: sent to mom to deal with.

[billms]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Obama chief of staff’s 'retarded' insult brings fallout, Palin criticism - Yahoo! News

I hate when people say "thats so retarded" and "you are retarded" so casually. It is truly offensive. Do I think he should be be let go? Seems a bit harsh, but he should be put on blast for being such an insensitive a-hole. Can't blame Palin for being fired up about this.

The only people he insulted are the people he called retarded - like me. I'm not insulted.

Rahm should be pitched but not for this. But it is funny seeing a retard like Palin complain.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Oblong

So the White House chief of staff using a derogatory term for disabled people that most reasonable people agree is harsh falls under the "politically correct" umbrella?

If you believe that you are out of touch.

actually that is almost exactly where the term political correctness came from and where it is today - i think you are out of touch

the gist of politically correctness is worrying about how something sounds rather than what it says - which is exactly what you are doing here - the man wasn't talking about disabled people at all (obviously)

[Oblong]

so if a non Jewish person rips me off by selling me a necklace for $100 that's not real gold, and I say "He jewed me", that's ok since it wasn't a Jewish person I'm talking about?

Ok chief.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by pfife

No, its not, because you're treating two situations as equal that aren't, and expecting equal reactions to two situations that aren't equal. If the situations were equal it would be hypocrisy, but they are not - the only way they are is if you "screw history".

I don't know if you've read anything about the slave trade... if you haven't, you should. Then tell someone to "screw" that history.

Which slave trade? There were lots of slave trades throughout history. The Romans held slaves from lands throughout Eurpope. And? Are there any people around now who were slaves back then? No. Are there blacks around now who were slaves? No, I think the last of them died out (other than the only place I'm aware of that still openly practices slavery, which is in Africa, I believe).

So are we to take one part of history into consideration and not another? Are you saying "screw history" when I bring up slaves from Rome? At what point do we stop? What's the cutoff point? At what point do we move on from "history"?

I realize that there are still people around who had to face Jim Crow laws, etc., and that's terrible that they had to go through that. And I also think those people's feelings should be taken into consideration. My question, though, is, why those people and not others'?

Again, you and your kind whip out a scorecard whenever this issue is brought up. Well, this isn't about keeping score. Wrong is wrong. Why should we, as a society, shrug at one type of slur, and get our collective panties in a bunch at another type of slur? Because of "history"? Well, what history? What's the cutoff point?

The only reason the taunts have significance is because of the history.

Not true. I still say that a fat kid being called "fatso" feels the sting every bit as the great-great-grandson of a slave being called the "n" word. Again, we're talking real world here, not abstract "history."

If a black man punches me in the face, it's going to hurt just as bad as if a white man were to do it. Who the hell cares what happened 100 years ago in that situation? Abstractly, yeah, there are some issues for academics to fuss over, but when the rubber hits the road, bad is bad. And a punch to the mouth, or a slur, hurts just as badly, independent of "history."

Of course the social ramifications come into play. We live in a society that doesn't value fatness. That is why being called fat hurts people. If we lived in a society that does value fatness - which do exist, as in other societies fatness is a symbol of wealth - such taunts would not be insulting.

Taunts can be insulting no matter what we as a society value. If a kid is constantly being teased for being tall, then those taunts will hurt him just as bad if they're delivered in a manner meant to demean and humiliate him. And yet, tallness is something that's usually valued in our society.

Again, live in the moment. Life is not some abstract academic exercise, where pain is felt according to some historical scorecard.

Might I presume that the history you're telling other people to "screw" isn't a history you share with those people? What on earth gives you the right to claim that other groups should "screw" their long history of kidnapping, murder, oppression, enslavement, bigotry, etc they have suffered?

Would you tell a Jewish person to screw the history of the Holocaust?

I would tell a Jew that being called the "k" word can hurt just as badly as calling a fat kid the "f" word, and that we should all strive to treat each other with respect.

Slurs, in whatever form, don't get free passes from me just because they don't measure up on your historical scorecard. I don't care what happened in the past. A slur is a slur, and should be treated as such.

I'll tell you what. Next time you go to Detroit, if you get the living **** kicked out of you by a group of black guys, make sure you post here how it wasn't as bad as it would've been if white guys had beat you up ... you know, because of "history."

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

So by regularly you mean on a TV show that was on 20 yrs ago and 15 yrs ago. A bit exaggerated isn't it?

You're hung up on a word. Yeah, black and hispanic comedians regularly make disparaging jokes about white people still. You got me on the "h" word. It's outdated from the 70s. Instead we get Martin Lawrence's violently racist standup routine, or a movie called "White Men Can't Jump." Which is fine, and I can accept that as a joke, as long as a filmmaker can also make a movie called "Black Men Can't Swim" without fear of being picketed. And we both know that could never happen.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by Melody

Eh. Already had this argument on the c-word. And it is NOT the same as calling a man a "dick". Now if our society was one where men were considered primarily useful for giving sexual relief to women and pushing babies out of that part, maybe it would be more similar.

I've been in situations at work where it was mostly women, including the boss and assistant managers. Men were a distinct minority, and I can tell you that it made me feel highly uncomfortable coming to work each day knowing I would be subjected to a bunch of man-bashing.

Again, when you're talking in the abstract on a macro level, what you say is true. But to individuals in individual situations, it doesn't matter what happened in history.

If the only man in an office breaks out in hives because he has to go into work every day and hear about how "men are pigs," then it's every bit as hurtful as a woman being called the "c" word.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by pfife

crazy. I don't know man.

I wonder if they'll accept rush's apology?

Solid.

Holy Toledo: Rush Limbaugh vs. Sarah Palin! I can't wait to see what happens next!

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

313, since you obviously have no knowledge of the indignities my people have had to face in the past, perhaps you should make this "White History Month."

Every month is white history month.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by chasfh

Every month is white history month.

Really? Then how come a significant number of kids graduate from high school and can't tell you what decade WWII took place in, or who Thomas Jefferson was?

Here's what I'd like to see: start teaching kids history, black and white. Teach them about George Washington and George Washington Carver. Don't segregate it.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

Again, on an academic, abstract level, you're right.

In the real world, either we care about the feelings of all people or we don't. Some slurs shoudln't be shrugged off because they don't carry "historical weight."

I guarantee you the fat kid in class feels every bit the resentment at the taunts as any black kid ever did from being called the "n" word. So let's stop comedians from making fat jokes, ugly jokes, etc. Or else we could just lighten up about the issue of race. One of the two.

Life is not a history book. Life is life.

Life is also not lived on an academic, abstract level. It is lived in the world. And in this part of the world, the travails of a few isolated white kids putting up with the indignity of being called a word that essentially passed out of common usage thirty years ago is not on the same scale as that of the hundred million or so people of African descent who've lived in this country.

What's at issue here is not academic definition. It's real-life scale. And you won't be able to argue successfully that on a real-life scale, the issue you raised about white people is equivalent to the issue of the Black American experience.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

Which slave trade? There were lots of slave trades throughout history. The Romans held slaves from lands throughout Eurpope. And? Are there any people around now who were slaves back then? No. Are there blacks around now who were slaves? No, I think the last of them died out (other than the only place I'm aware of that still openly practices slavery, which is in Africa, I believe).

I'm talking about the one and only slave trade that is applicable to this conversation. American slave trade.

So are we to take one part of history into consideration and not another? Are you saying "screw history" when I bring up slaves from Rome?

No - I say we don't screw history at all.

At what point do we stop? What's the cutoff point? At what point do we move on from "history"?

Maybe there is none - which I think is fine. Interesting that you ask these question after declaring its done multiple times.

I realize that there are still people around who had to face Jim Crow laws, etc., and that's terrible that they had to go through that. And I also think those people's feelings should be taken into consideration. My question, though, is, why those people and not others'?

I already said why - because of the history.

I'm not sure why you keep asking the same question. I keep giving the same answer.

Again, you and your kind whip out a scorecard whenever this issue is brought up. Well, this isn't about keeping score. Wrong is wrong. Why should we, as a society, shrug at one type of slur, and get our collective panties in a bunch at another type of slur? Because of "history"? Well, what history? What's the cutoff point?

What history you ask? The one that's been explained to you several times now. I don't know when the cutoff point is - but you apparently want it to be now. Thankfully you appointed yourself to determine that for society, so now the rest of us don't have to worry about it.

It sure is easy to suggest that other people "screw" their long history of oppression and terrible treatment in order to make a point.

Not true. I still say that a fat kid being called "fatso" feels the sting every bit as the great-great-grandson of a slave being called the "n" word. Again, we're talking real world here, not abstract "history."

History is the real word, not some abstract entity.

If a black man punches me in the face, it's going to hurt just as bad as if a white man were to do it. Who the hell cares what happened 100 years ago in that situation?

No one - which is why no one suggested that history does matter in that situation. And punches are not the same as slurs. Glad I could clarify that for you.

Abstractly, yeah, there are some issues for academics to fuss over, but when the rubber hits the road, bad is bad. And a punch to the mouth, or a slur, hurts just as badly, independent of "history."

No, all bads are not equal. That's obvious in many facets of life. You failing to distinguish between bads doesn't mean there are no differences between bads, it means you fail to distinguish between bads.

Taunts can be insulting no matter what we as a society value.

Right, and some are worse than others because of what we as a society value.

If a kid is constantly being teased for being tall, then those taunts will hurt him just as bad if they're delivered in a manner meant to demean and humiliate him. And yet, tallness is something that's usually valued in our society.

Yup, which obviously means that being teased for being tall is the same as being called an n-bomb. Good point. Those are obviously equal.

Again, live in the moment. Life is not some abstract academic exercise, where pain is felt according to some historical scorecard.

I'll handle how I live my life, thanks. Feel free to stop telling me to forget history - its my decision, not yours.

I would tell a Jew that being called the "k" word can hurt just as badly as calling a fat kid the "f" word, and that we should all strive to treat each other with respect.

Sure it can, but in real life, its doesn't. Life is not some abstract exercise - some insults are worse than others based on their history.

Slurs, in whatever form, don't get free passes from me just because they don't measure up on your historical scorecard. I don't care what happened in the past. A slur is a slur, and should be treated as such.

And, IMO, some slurs are worse than others because of the history behind them. I don't equivocate two slurs that are obviously of different consequence because you decide to arbitrarily throw out the historical scorecard for logical convenience in a message board argument.

I'll tell you what. Next time you go to Detroit, if you get the living **** kicked out of you by a group of black guys, make sure you post here how it wasn't as bad as it would've been if white guys had beat you up ... you know, because of "history."

Right, because violence = slurs. Solid point.

I forgot, this is the person that fails to distinguish between different levels of bad.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by chasfh

Life is also not lived on an academic, abstract level. It is lived in the world. And in this part of the world, the travails of a few isolated white kids putting up with the indignity of being called a word that essentially passed out of common usage thirty years ago is not on the same scale as that of the hundred million or so people of African descent who've lived in this country.

First, the bolded part: Are we to shrug off injustices or indignities because those affected are ... minorities?

Secondly, as I said before: there are a lot of predominantly black neighborhoods in the USA, which means in those neighborhoods is a minority of white kids. I doubt it's a "few isolated white kids." I bet the number of whites who live in predominantly black areas is in the hundreds of thousands, at least.

The word isn't important. What is important is how that word is used. Whether it's "honky" "white boy" or "cracker," if the word is used to humiliate and demean someone, history makes no difference whatsoever.

What's at issue here is not academic definition. It's real-life scale. And you won't be able to argue successfully that on a real-life scale, the issue you raised about white people is equivalent to the issue of the Black American experience.

In terms of what? Scale? So, again, because those affected are a minority, they don't matter? If that's the case, then let's stop worrying about blacks, since they also are in the minority?

If not, then what's the cutoff point where we stop caring about a particular group's feelings?

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

Really? Then how come a significant number of kids graduate from high school and can't tell you what decade WWII took place in, or who Thomas Jefferson was?

Are you making this up? Or are you going to provide actual proof of this?

And what does this have to do with what I said, anyway?

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by pfife

I'm talking about the one and only slave trade that is applicable to this conversation. American slave trade.

Show me someone who was a slave, or has ever even talked to someone who was a slave, and your point might have some validity. Otherwise, it's all in the past.

What history you ask? The one that's been explained to you several times now. I don't know when the cutoff point is - but you apparently want it to be now. Thankfully you appointed yourself to determine that for society, so now the rest of us don't have to worry about it.

I say don't worry about something that happened 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago. Treat each other with respect, see a joke for what it is, and move on. I think that's a fair way to look at things.

It sure is easy to suggest that other people "screw" their long history of oppression and terrible treatment in order to make a point.

What's the alternative? Continue crying in your milk because of injustices that happened 40 years ago? Last time I checked, it's illegal to discriminate against blacks, and has been for two generations.

History is the real word, not some abstract entity.

No, we live in the real world. History is relative. If a white kid grew up having his butt kicked every single day of his life by blacks, and was teased the entire way, then that's HIS history. That doesn't count to you, though.

No, all bads are not equal. That's obvious in many facets of life. You failing to distinguish between bads doesn't mean there are no differences between bads, it means you fail to distinguish between bads.

You're absolutely right. All bads aren't equal. For instance, hitting someone isn't as bad as murdering them.

But some bads are equal. And a punch to the nose, or words used to humiliate and demean someone are indeed equal.

Yup, which obviously means that being teased for being tall is the same as being called an n-bomb. Good point. Those are obviously equal.

To the person being teased, they are indeed equal. I know a girl who came home from school crying every day because her classmates meowed at her, mocking her affinity for stuffed cats. I'd say her situation was much worse than a black guy's white friend calling him the "n" word. And yet, you cry ... the history!

That's where I say screw history. We live now. If a black guy punches you in the face, it's the exact equal as if a white guy did it. Screw history.

Right, because violence = slurs. Solid point.

Okay, fine. Then if you have a black boss who calls you honky every day, and talks about how white people are all lazy, etc., then come to me and explain how it's okay, because of "history."

I forgot, this is the person that fails to distinguish between different levels of bad.

No, you refuse to accept that sometimes bad equals bad. Black people don't get a free pass because of injustices that happened two generations ago, no matter how badly you want to give it to them.