Slippery Slopes

[The ClayTaurus]

Let's look at the infamous "N" word.

Whites use it - hate speech. We aren't "allowed" to use it.

Black use it - it's cool...they are allowed.

If the word is offensive, it is offensive.

It doesn't matter whose mouth it comes out of.

I have yet to see a white person get offended because they are called a "cracker" - but let a white person say, "you people", or anything else that can be even remotely associated with discimination, and listen to the uproar.

It's because the word has a different meaning based on who's saying it. I've been called the N bomb before, and I'm white. It's just like dude or bro or similar.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So if a black guy calls me a cracker, and I punch him, it is now hatespeech?

The line isn't drawn because people get hurt. The line gets drawn because certain people make an issue of it, and others don't stand up to those people.

Cracker is hatespeech.

 

[GotZoom]

It's because the word has a different meaning based on who's saying it. I've been called the N bomb before, and I'm white. It's just like dude or bro or similar.

Ohhh..ok....

So if I walk out of my office and pass a black guy on the street and greet him with ...

"hey..wazzup my N...."

nothing will happen to me right?

 

[GotZoom]

Cracker is hatespeech.

Who says? Show me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Amigo isn't hate speech. And your second paragraph couples well with my original post. If there is no two extreme ends to something, then the argument is about where to draw the line... what constitutes reasonable manner. To me, hatespeech is much worse then soft porn because it incites violence. So to me, the line looks like, for porn, it is drawn in an area where no one is being hurt. No one dies after seeing someone's rack. Victoria's secret commercials don't cause someone to get punched in the face. But then, with hatespeech, the line is drawn in the area where people do get hurt. If you call someone the n bomb you'll get punched.

This was my entire point of slippery slopes. We have to go back to banning soft porn because it leads to hard core porn which leads to this which leads to that. Why can't the line be drawn at hard porn? Why can't the line be before hatespeech? There seems to just be a lack of consistency.

The libs think "amigos" is hate speech.

Why NOT ban all forms of pornography? (With certain limited exceptions - there's always exceptions to every rule.)

It seems our culture is way out of whack right now...we need to do something to clean up our act.

I also disagree with you - as I think porn has already caused more suffering than today's so-called "hatespeech" could ever claim.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The libs think "amigos" is hate speech.

Why NOT ban all forms of pornography? (With certain limited exceptions - there's always exceptions to every rule.)

It seems our culture is way out of whack right now...we need to do something to clean up our act.

I also disagree with you - as I think porn has already caused more suffering than today's so-called "hatespeech" could ever claim.

Well then, I suppose we disagree. I think good parenting would alleviate any "problems" caused by porn. In fact, I think parenting skills are the root of many problems in this country, and that should be addressed first and foremost.

And I don't think all porn should be banned because I certainly see no problem with porn in a private bedroom between two consenting adults.

 

[GotZoom]

Well then, I suppose we disagree. I think good parenting would alleviate any "problems" caused by porn. In fact, I think parenting skills are the root of many problems in this country, and that should be addressed first and foremost.

And I don't think all porn should be banned because I certainly see no problem with porn in a private bedroom between two consenting adults.

Now I will agree with you on this!

 

[CivilLiberty]

I think porn has already caused more suffering than today's so-called "hatespeech" could ever claim.

Absurd - how do you find the basis for this belief?

A

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well then, I suppose we disagree. I think good parenting would alleviate any "problems" caused by porn. In fact, I think parenting skills are the root of many problems in this country, and that should be addressed first and foremost.

And I don't think all porn should be banned because I certainly see no problem with porn in a private bedroom between two consenting adults.

One of the parenting skills that should be addressed first and foremost is the skill of pushing politicians to enact laws that will clean up the various forms of media that fill our childrens' minds full of pornography and rubbish. There is no other way to really protect today's children from this as it is everywhere. How can a child be formed into a good person when he/she is bombarded with sleeze all the time? It corrupts.

Originally posted by CivilLiberty
Absurd - how do you find the basis for this belief?

Just take a good look around you.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Ohhh..ok....

So if I walk out of my office and pass a black guy on the street and greet him with ...

"hey..wazzup my N...."

nothing will happen to me right?

No, plenty will happen to you. You can't call a black person the n bomb because of the historical connotation.

Look I get the point, it's not fair that they can say it but we can't.

The N bomb has two different meanings, one if you're black, and one if you're white. It's the same in every race. You can't use epithets to another group, but they will always be used freely within that group, usually out of sarcasm.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

One of the parenting skills that should be addressed first and foremost is the skill of pushing politicians to enact laws that will clean up the various forms of media that fill our childrens' minds full of pornography and rubbish. There is no other way to really protect today's children from this as it is everywhere. How can a child be formed into a good person when he/she is bombarded with sleeze all the time? It corrupts.



Just take a good look around you.

Does war corrupt? How do you explain war to a child? There will always be corruptive forces in this world, the job is not to ban them all but to learn how to ignore them. Self control. The government does need to think and parent for you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, plenty will happen to you. You can't call a black person the n bomb because of the historical connotation.

Look I get the point, it's not fair that they can say it but we can't.

The N bomb has two different meanings, one if you're black, and one if you're white. It's the same in every race. You can't use epithets to another group, but they will always be used freely within that group, usually out of sarcasm.

I suppose you will support mind control next?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Does war corrupt? How do you explain war to a child? There will always be corruptive forces in this world, the job is not to ban them all but to learn how to ignore them. Self control. The government does need to think and parent for you.

You explain war to a child by telling them the truth. America does not go to war lightly. We have good reasons. Tell them those reasons.

 

[Max Power]

No, plenty will happen to you. You can't call a black person the n bomb because of the historical connotation.

Look I get the point, it's not fair that they can say it but we can't.

Yeah, a white person can call a black person a ****** and there's nothing he can (legally) do about it.

 

[GotZoom]

No, plenty will happen to you. You can't call a black person the n bomb because of the historical connotation.

Look I get the point, it's not fair that they can say it but we can't.

The N bomb has two different meanings, one if you're black, and one if you're white. It's the same in every race. You can't use epithets to another group, but they will always be used freely within that group, usually out of sarcasm.

Historical connotation?

Ok...given.

I will start a project. From this point on, I think all white people should call black people....um....lets' see.....eraser. Yeah....all black people should be called erasers.

No mistaken connotation there. Erasers aren't black. No letter "n". Oh..wait...same number of letters in both words and the last three letters are the same...that won't work.

How about the word "frame" - all black people should be called "frames."

Is that now hatespeech?

 

[GotZoom]

Yeah, a white person can call a black person a ****** and there's nothing he can (legally) do about it.

Except the white person would get his ass kicked.

Then he would press charges, the assaulters would get arrested but the charges would be dropped because they acted on their "being offended" by the N word.

And...probably...the poor white guy would be charged with a hate crime for muttering the N word in the first place.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I suppose you will support mind control next?

I'm gonna need a bit more of a connection then that, sorry.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Why not just call them blacks and respect the fact that they don't want to be called *******?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You explain war to a child by telling them the truth. America does not go to war lightly. We have good reasons. Tell them those reasons.

Not American war. War in general. You can't eliminate corruptive forces from the world. That's my point, and if you spend all your time trying to, you'll just keep finding more corruptive forces. If you just teach people how to act decent and ignore corruptive forces, it doesn't matter what form the corruption takes, you'll have it beat.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, a white person can call a black person a ****** and there's nothing he can (legally) do about it.

Well yeah, I meant not legally. You'll probably get assaulted.