That's ok, you can ad hominem and such all you like now, you already lost the argument when you admitted that you don't consider a black person calling a white person a cracker to be racist. Thanks, we have some lovely parting gifts for you, but unfortunately, a clue is not among them
"Aw, you're no fun any more." - Eric Idle
That's ok, you can ad hominem and such all you like now, you already lost the argument when you admitted that you don't consider a black person calling a white person a cracker to be racist. Thanks, we have some lovely parting gifts for you, but unfortunately, a clue is not among them
[/QUOTE]
Relative impact is not the issue. The classification of "racism" is what is at debate. I also assert that there does not have to be victimization for there to be racism. A black man assuming all mexicans to be catholic would be racist, but would be difficult to use in a way that makes the mexican "victimized." The joke often made by americans that the british are terrible cooks is racist, even though the two entities in question are both majority white. The oft-made assertion that "white men can't jump" is also racist. As is the dreaded "N word."
I agree. It does. And it does so in the worst way. Notice how she starts using scientific jargon to justify her racist stance? "Melatonin in the skin...allows one to say a word." That has nothing to do with the issue and she knows it. It's just a way for her to sound smart and 'logical' while spewing her rant. Of course there are bar drunks that are going to eat this shit up 1) because it's on the Radio/TV, and 2) because they're not educated enough to research the entirety of the situation. They're not going to go out a read literature on racism in America and understand why it's wrong to say the N- word. They're going to take her half-baked logic to heart, and that's where (as you say) the damage can really set in.
I've never claimed to have been victimized. I'm speaking purely from an objective viewpoint with no regard to race, sex, creed or color. Something most people who are quick to shout "racist!" cannot attain.
Relative impact is not the issue. The classification of "racism" is what is at debate. I also assert that there does not have to be victimization for there to be racism. A black man assuming all mexicans to be catholic would be racist, but would be difficult to use in a way that makes the mexican "victimized." The joke often made by americans that the british are terrible cooks is racist, even though the two entities in question are both majority white. The oft-made assertion that "white men can't jump" is also racist. As is the dreaded "N word."
And you believe that racial epithets aimed at white people are not meant to intimidate and dominate them?
Heh, some mexican people here in this very building disagree with you - the ones broadcasting our mexican format radio station. Let me put it this way... if you stood downtown in the outdoor mercado down here and shouted "ALL MEXICANS ARE CATHOLICS!" you'd be called a racist very quickly, now wouldn't you? But then again, you ARE white...
It's also racist, and just as illegal, to deny someone a job because they are white. EEO is not racist. Affirmative Action, however, is. But to you, it isn't, because it's racism in favor of a perceived downtrodden minority.
I can almost hear her making an air jerking motion.
DUDE. Are you guys betting on who is gonna lock threads?
[/QUOTE]I'm just saying, I need some incentive here man... whats in it for me?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, I don't listen to her so I don't really know what she "should" sound like, it just sounded real to me, like someone who realized they really made a mistake.
The only time I heard any bit of genuine inflection was the very final "It was wrong". Otherwise it felt like she was reading off a faulty teleprompter the words as written by the producer doing damage control.
What am I then, punk? Chopped liver, huh? Is that what you's sayin'?
At best the clip appears to demonstrate ignorance, but does mere use of the word prove "hatred or intolerance"?
It's a fair cop.
I'll tell you exactly why I am saying she is racist.I'm still wondering why people (particularly Dave) are calling her racist merely due to the use of that word. She may well be racist, I have no idea, but from the evidence I still don't quite see it.
At best the clip appears to demonstrate ignorance, but does mere use of the word prove "hatred or intolerance"?
Even the document Chaz links to points out the inherent racism in the belief that it's ok for some to use this word, but not ok for others to use it.
Oh well. I suppose the answer is simply:
-Adam
She's in show business precisely because of her divisive and inflammatory views. She identifies the caller's weak spot, and attacks it. It's her schtick. That's what she does, and this is how she does it.
I agree, and that is a good point. One of the things that angered me about that exchange is that the caller acknowledged that black celebrities use it too much and that it shouldn't be thrown around, but "Dr." Laura kept going on with it anyway.
Words are NEVER inherently good or bad. What's bad is the meaning they carry, and while '******' said by a white person will carry a demeaning connotation, because that's how it's percieved by most people (without necessary intention from the speaker!), when a black person says that you don't interpret it as a despective word because, well, in some cases it is absurd.
