Nappy-headed is a degrogetory term for black people. I've only really heard it used that way by people from Texas or Louisiana, so it is likely regonal. Some older people I have heard use it to talk about people who were "passin". So, when used in conjunction with an insult, like ho, it is completely reasonable to say it is racist. It does have other uses as an adjective, but in this context it is used because of its racists overtones.
Not really. It's a term to described the arguably disheveled look of black people's hair. An adjective. It's only negative if you see that as being negative, if you like that kind of hair (like I do, and which apparently a majority of the black community do) then it's not. If anything it is ever so slightly negative, like when my mom used to call my style of dress ragamoffin.
Having grown up listening to hip-hop, I've heard it used in a positive light (Fugees for example). I used to tease my cousin for having nappy hair, or calling him a brillohead.
But whatevz, this is really delving into minutiae.
|
You also claim to be able to reason out the deeper mysteries of the universe without time, study, or education. Having seen how that worked out, I'm not exactly going to take your word here on a less tangible subject.Actually, i can control my emotions because i understand their cause.
I can focus on certain elements of the situation to force an emotional response. If a car almost drives me off the road, i can focus on a number of things to get a different emotion,
Yes cause reading only the most public of reports written by journalists is such a great idea. Yu do realize that is what gave DnD such a bad rap to begin with right? Some idiot journalist sensationalized a report without a proper understanding of the subject.
Not to mention, even statistics teachers admit how easy it is to make stats say whatever you them to.
Yes cause reading only the most public of reports written by journalists is such a great idea.
Wow, this got off topic quickly. Let me pile on unnecessarily by saying the only one reading public reports and leaving it at that is you. But you're reading reports by the Heritage Foundation or Exxon.
You've said time and time again that being actually educated in the science would taint your mind so you couldn't question things. And not accepting the fact that your questions would be answered through actual education.
/fin
But whatevz, this is really delving into minutiae.I'm not sure I follow you here, you say it can be used in a positive light, and then in the very next sentence admit that you used it to tease a cousin?
I got teased for being smart. It doesn't follow that being smart is thought of as bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea that because someone's been offensive for a long time when he finally goes over the top and it gets...
I think you missed the point.
Which is that if Imus has been saying "offensive" things for years, and didn't get in trouble until 2007, and the thing he said wasn't even as bad as other things he has said, it means we've grown overly sensitive.Also, he gets a pass because it's free speech and we're all entitled to be jerks. And you're entitled to not listen to him be a jerk, or to call in and tell him he's a jerk. You're not entitled to never being offended.
Suggesting that it could have been used as a complement seems like a bad argument to me.
No, I'm saying it CAN be used complimentary. It was used descriptively. Like if he said that I was a tall person. I'm tall. Why would I take offense?
Yeah and he was using "ho" the same way. Bull.Suggesting that it could have been used as a complement seems like a bad argument to me.No, I'm saying it CAN be used complimentary. It was used descriptively. Like if he said that I was a tall person. I'm tall. Why would I take offense?
No, calling them hos was completely inappropriate.
@Iron Truth: The irony is how easily offended you get at how someone responds to your posts. I never took what you said grossly out of context. Its not me interpreting it wrong. Its how you wrote it.
You equated the difficulty of choosing not to be offended with the difficulty of making peace in israel saying they're both incredibly difficult. I say the former is fairly easy and the latter is ovwerwhelmingly, painstakingly difficult thus you're comparing apples to unicorns.
I'm not offended. I'm pointing out you don't care about the context of words within a post, therefore you don't actually care what people are saying. If you don't care what I have to say, why should I care what you have to say?
My post wasn't a mile long, there was no reason to snip it apart, or exclude any of it.
And I'm not comparing what you think I'm comparing. I'm saying that the post you wrote is a vague non-answer, and it's so vague, it can equally be applied to the opposite side of the argument.
People saying offensive things can:
a) choose not to say them
b) choose not to be defensive and pick a fight when people tell them they said something offensive
Your post is the equivalent of "lets all just get along". A vague and largely useless platitude as far as solutions go.
Apply your solution to a situation for me. Lets keep it simple and not use too many factors, but we'll assume it takes place in the USA:
A white man calls a black man a n+%$$@.
Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?
A white man calls a black man a n%*%~!.
Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?
The white guy. But "being in the wrong" is different from "shouldn't be allowed to express himself."
In that case, I'd expect the black man to express himself right through the white guy's teeth.
|
And by "rewards" we sometimes mean "not getting lynched".I love that this discussion seems to have come down to how bad it is to get offended and we should just all "man up" and not let the other guy have power over you, while just giving the problem behavior a pass.
If no one gets offended, if no one reacts, the behavior won't change. Any particular response might not change anything, but over time it can. And has.No, by rewards he means positive attention. If you cry wolf about something being offensive you're lauded as some hero of decency whereas the offender is decried as, at best, a boorish lout, at worst a fascist a-hole.
I think one of the problems is that we all have these private definitions of what is offensive, maybe because offense is subjective but whatever. The point is that, when you hear us talking about people needing to just shut up, you're thinking about someone saying something genuinely hurtful or harassing or an atrocious racial slur or something. About 1% of things people "take offense" at are that clear cut.
What I think about are the things that I've said that have made people freak the crap out about my language. Which are saying words like penis, or the f-word in public. People freak the s#@$ out over mundane stuff every damn day, and you seem to be saying it's not okay for us to be bothered by that. We should let ourselves be meekly bullied into not saying any even slightly off-color words or phrases.
That and the reward of getting the person punished. i think some of these supposed white knights just flat out get off on causing ruin to people.
|
|
Proof that offense is a choice and subjective,
Black person says the n-word, it is taken as a greeting,
white person says n-word, it is taken as greatly offensive.Sometimes offensive things need to change, sometimes the offended need to change, sometimes both need to change, sometimes people need to ignore it.
It is wise to know which to apply to a particular incident.
And i have seen a white person attacked for remarking that it was offensive to hear THEM use that word. turn the colors around and the sensitivity crowd would want the whites hung for saying it. But how DARE someone not dark enough have an opinion about the word
|
|
Suggesting that it could have been used as a complement seems like a bad argument to me.No, I'm saying it CAN be used complimentary. It was used descriptively. Like if he said that I was a tall person. I'm tall. Why would I take offense?
Then again look at the way fat guys get talked to. I am sick of being referred to as "big man" and all of the stuff like "boss" "chief" etc that i never see a smaller person called.but it is not worth fighting really and the people talking that way have no idea that some of us might get tired of it.
Oh, to answer an earlier thing Meatrace, getting offended is basically just being angry. It just happens that years past, the word(s) might cow an individual into submissiveness, as they reasserted the reality of their situation. Now as people are gaining some measure of empowerment, instead of being submissive, they get angry that someone is trying to make them submissive.
Imus calling them nappy-headed ho's was verbally trying to put those women "in their place", because he didn't approve of their appearance. I figure we all agree it's offensive, but as I see it, that is the "why" it's offensive. He tried to devalue them as women and as basketball players, because they didn't fit his conception of beauty, or 'polite' appearance.
Going back to that short example I made, your reply about the black guy punching out the white guy, the black guy is basically rejecting the submissive nature being assigned to him, by using violence to assert his own dominance. I personally don't agree with that method, but that has more to do with me not wanting to promote violence.
|
|
Oh, to answer an earlier thing Meatrace, getting offended is basically just being angry. It just happens that years past, the word(s) might cow an individual into submissiveness, as they reasserted the reality of their situation. Now as people are gaining some measure of empowerment, instead of being submissive, they get angry that someone is trying to make them submissive.
Imus calling them nappy-headed ho's was verbally trying to put those women "in their place", because he didn't approve of their appearance. I figure we all agree it's offensive, but as I see it, that is the "why" it's offensive. He tried to devalue them as women and as basketball players, because they didn't fit his conception of beauty, or 'polite' appearance.
Going back to that short example I made, your reply about the black guy punching out the white guy, the black guy is basically rejecting the submissive nature being assigned to him, by using violence to assert his own dominance. I personally don't agree with that method, but that has more to do with me not wanting to promote violence.
So you are saying we may never state any form of disapproval and if we do we deserve attack?
|
|
I don't know. Are you capable of disapproving without using racist or sexist insults? That would be a start. You could try avoiding other insults not directly related to what you disapprove of too.So you are saying we may never state any form of disapproval and if we do we deserve attack?Oh, to answer an earlier thing Meatrace, getting offended is basically just being angry. It just happens that years past, the word(s) might cow an individual into submissiveness, as they reasserted the reality of their situation. Now as people are gaining some measure of empowerment, instead of being submissive, they get angry that someone is trying to make them submissive.
Imus calling them nappy-headed ho's was verbally trying to put those women "in their place", because he didn't approve of their appearance. I figure we all agree it's offensive, but as I see it, that is the "why" it's offensive. He tried to devalue them as women and as basketball players, because they didn't fit his conception of beauty, or 'polite' appearance.
Going back to that short example I made, your reply about the black guy punching out the white guy, the black guy is basically rejecting the submissive nature being assigned to him, by using violence to assert his own dominance. I personally don't agree with that method, but that has more to do with me not wanting to promote violence.
Ok how about this, if i say i do not find the broad nose of many african attractive is that an evil racist thing? Would people take it that way anyhow? Isn't the real question here who is allowed to voice an opinion?
After all the N word is only considered offensive if the speaker is not dark enough. and THAT is truly racist.|
|
I always thought that the word was always thought as offensive but forgivable if the speaker is black. Kind of like calling yourself a fat ba$tared or something, you get a pass for referring to yourself that way, but if someone else called you that it would be insulting. More so if they were thin.
And that is racist. "He can do it because he is the right color" would be reacted to with violence if it were more permissive to a white man.
I always thought that the word was always thought as offensive but forgivable if the speaker is black. Kind of like calling yourself a fat ba$tared or something, you get a pass for referring to yourself that way, but if someone else called you that it would be insulting. More so if they were thin.And that is racist. "He can do it because he is the right color" would be reacted to with violence if it were more permissive to a white man.
If a word or phrase is not pejorative in intent, application, or reception, I have a really hard time seeing how you could label it "racist".
It is absolutely possible for a black person to use the n-word in a racist manner. But I think it's safe to say that, the vast majority of time the word is used by a black person, it is not racist at all.
Context. Does he say it out of the blue? Was he called a honky first?
A white man calls a black man a n@$#!!.Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?
The context is that both are from the US and it's taking place in the US.
Do you think a white man should ever get angry over not being allow to call black people n@#+!*s?
Violence really shouldn't be used to correct ignorance.
Its just as likely as anything else to work, and will definitely make you feel better...
|
People are more easily offended these days because the rewards for expressing offense are much higher than they used to be.
It really is that simple.
I would go with the penalties are less.
Pointing out to a white dude that he is racist is less likely to result in a lynching for example.
Telling a guy not to grab your ass isn't going to get you fired as often, relative the rest of history into the 80's
It's weird.
too many replies to catch up on, but one post near where I left off caught my attention.
people don't choose to be offended, they choose how they react to being offendedThis. Pretty much sums it up what I've said in one sentence.
And when someone says "you just said something offensive", people get to choose how they react to that, as well.
|
|
Context. Does he say it out of the blue? Was he called a honky first?
A white man calls a black man a n@$#!!.Who would be in the wrong for getting angry over this?
The context is that both are from the US and it's taking place in the US.
Do you think a white man should ever get angry over not being allow to call black people n*@++$s?
That is no context at all.
Yes a white man has every right to get angry if he is not allowed to use a word because of his race, but is completely ok for another to say it fifteen times per sentence.
Just to clarify, you think white people should be angry they can't call black people n~#**$s.
You think white people should be allowed to invoke the memory of 400 years of slavery of black people, specifically through a word that was adopted as a pejorative in an attempt to remind black people to be submissive to white people.
You think that white people shouldn't just feel free to use the word, but be angry when people disapprove of their use of the word.
A word adopted in an era when black people, who had been freed, were subjected to a host of laws that denied them their dignity and human rights.
This is your argument?
If I understand him right, he's only upset about it being okay for black people to use the word while it isn't for white people to do so, Irontruth. I would say there is a point to his argument, in that it isn't a good thing either to be seen as part of an ethnic group only instead of as a person, or to single out a specific group for negative treatment. Furthermore, I doubt Andrew is old enough that he can be said to have any direct responsibility for either slavery or dignity-removing laws.
That said, I consider it a pretty small matter to avoid such a word. There are worse things to complain about regarding freedom of speech.
In Holland many people use the word "racism" as a key to escape custody or bills from the police/cops, or even when they feel offended for the wrong reasons, like I saw a Arab guy scream out loud !racism! to a shop-owner for him being caught stealing some odor, easy to say racism if you are being caught by someone with another colour... but an entirly sneaky and wrong argument.
Me (being gay) are being offended much more than any of those other-coloured, other-raced people here in Holland at least, ironically mostly by the people that take racism in their mouth the most, namely Arab males and males from the Antilleans seem to have extreme hate towards gays here in holland.
I understand the point he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he can't separate what he wants his point to be from my point. They are directly linked and he can't just wish them to be separate.
A white person who uses the word n&&@+* is (perhaps unintentionally) invoking the history behind it.
|
|
I understand the point he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he can't separate what he wants his point to be from my point. They are directly linked and he can't just wish them to be separate.
A white person who uses the word n&!&+! is (perhaps unintentionally) invoking the history behind it.
What about an asian person using it ?
I understand the point he's trying to make. Unfortunately, he can't separate what he wants his point to be from my point. They are directly linked and he can't just wish them to be separate.
A white person who uses the word n**$#& is (perhaps unintentionally) invoking the history behind it.
I think the problem with this is that many children these days get poisoned by that horrid tv channel called MTV, on which every freaking person takes the word (you seem to hate so much) in his/her mouth like constantly.
And many people that use it are so young, they don't know anything about slaves and old times. (probably because they suffer bad classes or they don't care about school at all)