• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being a racist while having a soft skull

Meadmaker said:
It sure looked like you called her princess.


If you didn't intend to, maybe it's still within the edit window, and you can clarify it, because it sure looks to me like you called her princess.
Click to expand...

Would it be too self indulgent and abstrusely meta to say, “People looking for ways to be offended will always find offence”?

Probably
 
JoeMorgue said:
I mean really what's the discussion here? It would be great if everyone could just put their cards on the table and say what they mean.

Yeah it's not good that a 77 year old racists was killed.

It's not as bad as a 77 year old not-racists being killed.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thread but from the articles I have seen we only have killer punchy scum's word that the old dude did anything racist.

Not that it is relevant to anything anyway, if he did.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Would it be too self indulgent and abstrusely meta to say, “People looking for ways to be offended will always find offence”?

Probably
Click to expand...

It sure looks to me like, "Harden up princess" is calling someone a princess.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm sorry, Belz, but that's a dumb rejoinder. I've seen the same argumentative approach used by many posters on this board, in many different scenarios. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it isn't. Just because a racist said a thing doesn't make the approach void of utility.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you understand. The approach is already ridiculous. I'm adding to the counter-argument by pointing out that this is exactly the kind of arguments racists make to try to avoid looking like racists and instead imply that it's the other side that's racist.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Perceptions vary. I perceive that some posters are perfectly fine with violence in response to words when it suits their ideological ends.
Click to expand...

There are some of those, yes. But in this thread only one of the posts you quoted indicated that the assailant should be set free, perhaps in jest. That doesn't sound like anyone here is supporting said assault. It's just that no one's shedding tears for the person who died.
 
Thermal said:
Sidebar: Yes, I'm aware that my habit of vocally arguing counter-narrative gives the wrong impression to some. That says heaps more about their simplistic, binary thinking than it does about me.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate to screw with other people doesn't say anything about them.

What is 'impossible' about Pujols being calm in the face of the geezer?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you want to go back to that post and see what he was responding to. Because even after I explained it to you you still don't understand what he was talking about.

You understand incorrectly. In my beloved NJ, you might never hear the n-word muttered by a white guy, but I welcome you to go to the neighborhoods I frequent and not hear "mother ******* white ass cracker' half a dozen times directed at you.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that must really suck for you. You have a hands-on and intimate knowledge of what it felt like during Jim Crow. :rolleyes:
 
theprestige said:
I'm concerned that the racist is dead. Racist speech is not, and should not be, a capital crime. Nor should it be a license for extrajudicial violence and vigilantism. Somebody died because somebody else decided to get violent. That's concerning regardless of what repugnant thoughts and speech the victim displayed.
Click to expand...

Will it change your opinion if the victim stole a TV or did drugs at some point in his life? Maybe he had counterfeit money in his wallet.
 
Sideroxylon said:
My point is language and how it is used to whitewash context.
Click to expand...

Sure. But it can (and often is) used to do the opposite. To exacerbate, to override, and to mislead about context. And it can be used to inflame and to incite irrational responses from people. Let's call it "redwashing" since I can't bring to mind a single term for it.

I try to use neutral language when I can. I don't always succeed - all of us have a topic that gets us passionate. But I do try.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is being whitewashed in this discussion? What is being redwashed?
 
Belz... said:
Of course it does.



They sure are. So let's just ignore everything else that may be into play and everything will be just fine.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Will it change your opinion if the victim stole a TV or did drugs at some point in his life? Maybe he had counterfeit money in his wallet.
Click to expand...

You seem to have your head stuck in a vile alternate reality where you imagine a very different conversation with very different people than what's actually going on in this thread. I'm afraid it's going to be a lonely place for you.
 
theprestige said:
You seem to have your head stuck in a vile alternate reality where you imagine a very different conversation with very different people than what's actually going on in this thread. I'm afraid it's going to be a lonely place for you.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to parse this. I've asked you a question. If you don't like the annoying parallels feel free to ignore it.

The fact is that many of us have discerned patterns in these racially-charged conversations every time they pop up, and they seem to always center around the same posters.
 
Sideroxylon said:
It’s someone calling someone a princess. If it’s not me as subject or Emily’s Cat as object, what’s going on?
Click to expand...

Your third-person hypothetical didn't come through clearly. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

Because... and I'd like to be very clear about this... It is only words.

At the very absolute outside worst, you could potentially hurt my feelings. That's it. Nothing more. The pen is mightier than the sword, only in that the pen can change people's minds through persuasion and reason. The sword coerces obedience through violence and the threat thereof. Words do not cause physical harm.
 
Sideroxylon said:
It’s someone calling someone a princess. If it’s not me as subject or Emily’s Cat as object, what’s going on?
Click to expand...

Sure looked to me like you were addressing a specific person, but doing so as a sort of hypothetical to maintain plausible deniability.

Regardless, see EC's reply.

People shouldn't punch other people in the face because of words, no matter which words.

ETA: Not meant to imply that you, specifically, condoned any sort of face punching.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Your third-person hypothetical didn't come through clearly. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

Because... and I'd like to be very clear about this... It is only words.

At the very absolute outside worst, you could potentially hurt my feelings. That's it. Nothing more. The pen is mightier than the sword, only in that the pen can change people's minds through persuasion and reason. The sword coerces obedience through violence and the threat thereof. Words do not cause physical harm.
Click to expand...

Is it only words? Why do many African Americans get so angry when someone calls them a ******? Maybe they should “eat a spoonful of cement and harden up, princess”?

ETA: inexplicably the forum seems to censor the word ******.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Nah, he's only charged with manslaughter.

Glib comments about Mouthy McSoftskull taking a dirt nap aside, our puncher does seem to be in a bit of legal trouble. Hopefully the racial slurs will be a mitigating factor.

A murder conviction seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

That's too bad, because it's warranted.
 
trustbutverify said:
That's too bad, because it's warranted.
Click to expand...

No, its not. There are requirements for murder that this case simply does not meet. Here are some definitions for you...

• Manslaughter is the killing of another person under extreme provocation or while under the heat of passion. Typically, it does not require an intent to kill, but rather the intent to do something else.

• Murder is a homicide committed with "malice aforethought." That doesn’t mean it is a malicious killing. Malice aforethought is the common law way of saying that it is an unjustified killing. And, for a killing to be a murder, there typically has to be either an intent to kill, or, at minimum, conduct so reckless that it is punishable as murder.
Pujols didn't get up that morning and think "I'm going to kill someone today"; he didn't arrive at work and decide he was going to punch some old guy for calling him a ******. For a murder charge to stick, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pujols intended to kill him.

On the other hand, in regards to the 77 year old victim, you can't be a racist and get to live to 77 without having used that kind of pejorative previously. I'd bet my very last dollar that Old Racist Guy has a history of using pejoratives against Blacks, he will almost certainly have called Black people ******* before... and this time, he picked the wrong victim to racially abuse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom