when speaking about/to an African-American, but that African-American's are allowed to use whenever they deem it appropriate. So far:
1. n*gger (I don't want WRAL causing a lock of this thread)
2. nappy headed
3. ho
4. magic negro
5. articulate
6. bright
7. clean
8. nice-looking


please add to the list

5/22/2007 3:11:10 PM

9. whack
10. dope

5/22/2007 3:12:24 PM

also...if you have a link to any reference to said words, that would be fantastic

5/22/2007 3:13:27 PM

nig-nog?

nagger?

nigglet?

5/22/2007 3:14:17 PM

Is "black" still on the shit list?

5/22/2007 3:15:48 PM

well I don't know, but I thought I'd be as careful as possible

5/22/2007 3:25:17 PM

You chit chat people should stay the hell out of The Soap Box. We have enough dumb to deal with already with Salisburyboy around again.

5/22/2007 4:06:30 PM

This is dumb.


If you're unable to realize why it's not ok for white people to say certain words, then you seriously need to just quit thinking about it and give up.

5/22/2007 4:18:30 PM

i'm guessing "niggardly" is off limits since black people who dont know what the word means will take offense

5/22/2007 4:25:41 PM

And white people who don't know what the word means will snicker.

5/22/2007 4:29:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

There are some good ones on here

5/22/2007 4:57:17 PM

Quote :

"If you're unable to realize why it's not ok for white people to say certain words, then you seriously need to just quit thinking about it and give up."

articulate, bright, clean, nice-looking...yeah, I'm unable to realize why it's not ok for white people to say these words...white people can't use terms like nappy headed, ok...(I think that's retarded since I used the word nappy/nappy headed, to describe tree-hugging white kids with dreads, as well as people who have hair extensions like Britney Spears, so as far as I'm concerned, the fact that black people seem to think it's exclusive to them, is a tad much, but for the sake of this argument, I'll pretend it is) so then white people can use polar opposites of that word either? So I guess I'd better just not compliment or critisize any person of color, ever, because no matter how justified I might be, just the fact that I'm using any words at all, means that I am a racist

5/22/2007 5:29:14 PM

^ are you kidding me?

what is this bullshit? Duke, lock this retarded flamebait

5/22/2007 5:38:42 PM

90% of your posts are retarded flamebait

5/22/2007 5:40:45 PM

That one must be in the other 10% then.

5/22/2007 5:42:03 PM

Quote :

"So I guess I'd better just not compliment or critisize any person of color, ever, because no matter how justified I might be, just the fact that I'm using any words at all, means that I am a racist"

There's a thing called context.

5/22/2007 5:46:28 PM

Quote :

"If you're unable to realize why it's not ok for white people to say certain words, then you seriously need to just quit thinking about it and give up."

THIS is dumb

but i've explained my views plenty of times on here about how i feel about censorship and fucking bad language

cry me a fucking river, boo hoo i got called a bad word and it hurt my pride because my pride is sorely misplaced and i don't actually understand what it means to have pride

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 6:10 PM. Reason : jank]

5/22/2007 6:09:56 PM

^ Wait, are you saying it's okay to hurt peoples' feelings, or that it's okay to say racists things to black people, because racism isn't real?

5/22/2007 6:19:00 PM

i'm saying that when it comes down to it, they are JUST WORDS. they are sounds that we learn to interpret with meaning and context. i'm not saying it's "ok" to call a black guy a nigger. i'm saying that the proper response to being called one is shrugging it off and saying whatever, that's your opinion.

and yes, racism exists and it is appalling. but, it's not appalling because of the words used, it's appalling because of the fact that someone can hate another for no difference other than appearance

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM. Reason : jank]

5/22/2007 6:22:09 PM

Quote :

" and yes, racism exists and it is appalling. but, it's not appalling because of the words used, it's appalling because of the fact that someone can hate another for no difference other than appearance "

The words represent that appalling hatred though, that's the whole issue with calling someone a nigger or a nappy headed hoe, if you mean it as a way to chastise their race. People aren't hating on the words, they are hating on what the person meant when they said those words.

It's NOT the words themselves, it's what the words mean, and the meaning of the words is derived from context.

You would have to be an idiot to believe you merely can't say certain words, it depends on what you mean by those words. Likewise, people even use the word "nigger" in certain contexts (South Park, The Daily Show) without negative repercussions.

5/22/2007 6:38:02 PM

I think it's ok to hurt people's feelings. The main thing is consistency in rules and laws. Telling one group of people that it's ok to say whatever they want but telling another group that they could get fired for saying certain phrases violates my sense of fairness.

It always tripped me out that the ACLU would spend millions of dollars in court cases defending people's right to offend others (like the kid that got suspended for his "bong hits for Jesus" shirt), but they are oddly silent on other 1st amendment / censorship issues like Imus's.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM. Reason : 2]

5/22/2007 6:45:02 PM

^

5/22/2007 6:46:17 PM

Quote :

"I think it's ok to hurt people's feelings."

I meant that from an ethical sense. You generally wouldn't tell your kids it's okay to call people names, for example. Legally, free speech is in the constitution.

Quote :

" The main thing is consistency in rules and laws. Telling one group of people that it's ok to say whatever they want but telling another group that they could get fired for saying certain phrases violates my sense of fairness."

This is where you lose grip of reality. There is no rule or law that tells a certain group they can say whatever they want.

Quote :

"It always tripped me out that the ACLU would spend millions of dollars in court cases defending people's right to offend others (like the kid that got suspended for his "bong hits for Jesus" shirt), but they are oddly silent on other 1st amendment / censorship issues like Imus's."

Why does this trip you up? The ACLU doesn't deal with cases like Imus', why would they have anything to do with it?

5/22/2007 6:55:59 PM

Quote :

"There is no rule or law that tells a certain group they can say whatever they want."

There are societal rules nowadays that tell certain groups they CANNOT say whatever they want. That much is obvious. The part that seems to annoy people is how these rules only apply to some groups but not others.

Quote :

"The ACLU doesn't deal with cases like Imus', why would they have anything to do with it?"

The ACLU doesn't deal with free speech and censorship issues? Huh? Don Imus got canned because of something he said. If he had been fired for criticizing George Bush, the ACLU would have been all over that shit.

Here is a similar case where they went after a school newspaper for firing the editors who printed cartoons offensive to Muslims.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/24197prs20060217.html

Quote :

""While we certainly understand the sensitivities surrounding the publication of explosive and controversial content," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "It has been the long-standing belief of the ACLU that the best response to speech we find odious and noxious is more speech - not less." "

Or are you making the distinction that the ACLU typically goes after cities and schools as opposed to private businesses? Because I can see the merit in that reasoning.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 7:34 PM. Reason : 2]

5/22/2007 7:07:08 PM

Quote :

"The words represent that appalling hatred though, that's the whole issue with calling someone a nigger or a nappy headed hoe, if you mean it as a way to chastise their race. People aren't hating on the words, they are hating on what the person meant when they said those words. It's NOT the words themselves, it's what the words mean, and the meaning of the words is derived from context. You would have to be an idiot to believe you merely can't say certain words, it depends on what you mean by those words. Likewise, people even use the word "nigger" in certain contexts (South Park, The Daily Show) without negative repercussions. "

It would be great if this were true. Unfortunately, it is not what the words mean or the context that people get offended over, its only the words themselves. Thats exactly why threads like this get started, because people are tired of the fact that you are immediately labeled a racist or such if any of the 'forbidden' words leave your mouth, regardless of context.

As evidence, people would never use the phrase 'the n-word' if it was not just the word that offended. Obviously people who say the phrase 'the n-word' are using it in a benign context but still dont say it because of fear of offending.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 7:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2007 7:33:49 PM

Quote :

"There are societal rules nowadays that tell certain groups they CANNOT say whatever they want. That much is obvious."

That's true. Societies have lots of rules, that's almost the definition of society.

Quote :

"The part that seems to annoy people is how these rules only apply to some groups but not others."

Can you cite a specific example? I don't know how to respond to this, because it's so broad in meaning.

Quote :

"The ACLU doesn't deal with free speech and censorship issues? Huh? Don Imus got canned because of something he said. If he had been fired for criticizing George Bush, the ACLU would have been all over that shit. "

Don Imus got fired because of backlash from advertisers and the listeners. If you remember, they were originally NOT going to fire him.

The bong hits kid was punished directly for a free speech issue. Those newspaper kids were punished directly for a free speech issue.

5/22/2007 7:37:03 PM

Quote :

"lock this retarded flamebait"

5/22/2007 7:39:30 PM

Quote :

"It would be great if this were true. Unfortunately, it is not what the words mean or the context that people get offended over, its only the words themselves. Thats exactly why threads like this get started, because people are tired of the fact that you are immediately labeled a racist or such if any of the 'forbidden' words leave your mouth, regardless of context."

People are labeled racist for saying racist things. I assume the "forbidden words" you're talking about is nigger, and you're wondering why you can't say that in public. If this is the case, then you should just look in to the history of the word nigger. If you mean something else, then please, elucidate.

Quote :

"As evidence, people would never use the phrase 'the n-word' if it was not just the word that offended. Obviously people who say the phrase 'the n-word' are using it in a benign context but still dont say it because of fear of offending. "

People also say "the f-word" and "the a-word" in public. These are some of the societal rules that Prawn Star mentioned. Black people on TV will often say "the n-word" too. It's just a custom of our society.

5/22/2007 7:44:56 PM

Quote :

"People also say "the f-word" and "the a-word" in public. These are some of the societal rules that Prawn Star mentioned. Black people on TV will often say "the n-word" too. It's just a custom of our society."

Why do you think it developed into a custom of our society?

(That wasnt rhetorical. I'm just seeing if you have the intelligence to merit your condescending tone.)

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM. Reason : /]

5/22/2007 7:58:58 PM

Are you asking me why a word that is used offensively is deemed inappropriate for general use by society?



[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 8:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/22/2007 8:05:07 PM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/16705/1/rush-barak.mp3

The song starts around 1:50

5/22/2007 8:13:36 PM

1. Context certainly does matter. I bet there are things your dad could say to you mom that you wouldn't appreciate me saying to her. It's the same exact thing with the retarded topic of this thread.


PS- the ACLU doesn't deal with private businesses; what legal grounds would they have, anyways?

5/22/2007 8:13:48 PM

Quote :

"Are you asking me why a word that is used offensively is deemed inappropriate for general use by society? "

At some point in time, it was not a custom of our society to use the substitute phrase 'the f-word' in place of the word fuck, and likewise the phrase 'the n-word' in place of the word nigger. Now it seems it has become a custom, regardless of context or intent. These substitutes were developed for general use for certain reasons. I am asking you what you think those reasons are.

5/22/2007 8:21:08 PM

Quote :

"the ACLU doesn't deal with private businesses;"

What do you think the Boy Scouts of America is? Because they sure as hell aren't a government agency.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 8:24 PM. Reason : 2]

5/22/2007 8:24:27 PM

Quote :

"At some point in time, it was not a custom of our society to use the substitute phrase 'the f-word' in place of the word fuck, and likewise the phrase 'the n-word' in place of the word nigger. Now it seems it has become a custom, regardless of context or intent. These substitutes were developed for general use for certain reasons. I am asking you what you think those reasons are."

Because society changed to deem them offensive (for good reason, at least with nigger-- I don't know the history of "fuck").

5/22/2007 8:27:58 PM

^^They sure as hell do receive indirect gov't funding.



[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2007 8:28:23 PM

Quote :

"Because society changed to deem them offensive (for good reason, at least with nigger-- I don't know the history of "fuck")."

I didn't do the best job of leading you there, but that's close enough I guess. Society did deem them offensive, absolutely. Thats my point. These words were regularly used in an offensive context, so society deemed the words themselves, rather than the act of using the words in an inappropriate context, offensive.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 8:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2007 8:43:57 PM

Quote :

" I didn't do the best job of leading you there, but that's close enough I guess. Society did deem them offensive, absolutely. Thats my point. These words were regularly used in an offensive context, so society deemed the words themselves, rather than the act of using the words in an inappropriate context, offensive "

So are you arguing that society in general is wrong for deeming words like nigger and fuck inappropriate for general use?

5/22/2007 8:56:11 PM

Quote :

"So are you arguing that society in general is wrong for deeming words like nigger and fuck inappropriate for general use?"

No. I just wanted you to admit that society interprets these words as offensive regardless of context.

5/22/2007 9:02:21 PM

If you're trying to say that generally, people look down on your for cursing in public, regardless of what you're cursing about, then I guess you're right. I didn't say or mean to imply otherwise.

But, you said this:

Quote :

" Unfortunately, it is not what the words mean or the context that people get offended over, its only the words themselves. Thats exactly why threads like this get started, because people are tired of the fact that you are immediately labeled a racist or such if any of the 'forbidden' words leave your mouth, regardless of context. "

Which is wrong, because society doesn't automatically label people who use those words racist. Society in fact can't label individual people anything. Society is a sum of the people in society, it can't, on its own, speak to any one person. As I said originally, people are labeled racist for saying racist things, society actually plays no part in this process.

5/22/2007 9:45:52 PM

I'm having trouble finding the word society in that quote. Perhaps its because I wasnt talking about society in that quote.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2007 9:49:47 PM

You imply society in this sentence:

Quote :

"Unfortunately, it is not what the words mean or the context that people get offended over, its only the words themselves. Thats exactly why threads like this get started, because people are tired of the fact that you are immediately labeled a racist or such if any of the 'forbidden' words leave your mouth, regardless of context."

Who is doing this automatic labeling? If it's not society, then the statement makes absolutely no sense.

Further, in the context of this statement later on:

Quote :

"society interprets these words as offensive regardless of context."

Then my interpretation that you feel it's society doing the labeling must be correct (unless you choose to make no sense). If this is not the case, please, elucidate.


[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/22/2007 10:01:20 PM

Quote :

"If it's not society, then the statement makes absolutely no sense."

In the first context I wasnt talking about society as a whole, but a generic random individual who is part of society who would do such a labeling.

You said that people are offended by the word and context, and I got you to say that the words themselves are offensive. Thats all I was trying to accomplish here, dont read more into it.

Quote :

"If you're trying to say that generally, people look down on your for cursing in public, regardless of what you're cursing about, then I guess you're right."

Thats not actually it. I'm saying people look down on use of words that are considered curse words, regardless if they are actually used for cursing. Make sense?

5/22/2007 10:15:22 PM

Quote :

"In the first context I wasnt talking about society as a whole, but a generic random individual who is part of society who would do such a labeling."

I'm sure that's true. You can find generic random individuals to fill any role. I don't see the point of pointing this out, unless you are implying it's the most common, or a very common case.

I disagree that it's the most common or very common case for people to label other people as racist while ignoring context.

Quote :

"You said that people are offended by the word and context, and I got you to say that the words themselves are offensive. Thats all I was trying to accomplish here, dont read more into it. "

I didn't say that though. I said that society deems the words offensive (for the most part). The words themselves are not offensive. It depends on the context the words are used.

5/22/2007 10:25:30 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say that though. I said that society deems the words offensive (for the most part). The words themselves are not offensive. It depends on the context the words are used."

Oh my. How can you miss such a blatant logical contradiction? Society deems the words offensive, but the words are not offensive. The word 'themselves' is only for emphasis, it doesnt change the meaning of the statement.

5/22/2007 10:28:56 PM

I think you are reading my statement wrong.

Society deems, for the most part, the use of the words offensive. The words, on their own, without context (ie. "themselves") are not necessarily offensive. It depends on the context the words are used in.

Society doesn't mean "people." I take society to mean people in general, formal situations.

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/22/2007 10:33:50 PM

x. intelligent
x. good looking
x. free
x. superior


x. seriously, this thread is dumb...and so should be all the contents of posts in here.



[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2007 10:37:58 PM

Quote :

" seriously, this thread is dumb...and so should the contents of all posts in here."

That doesn't make any sense..

5/22/2007 10:39:19 PM

Quote :

"I think you are reading my statement wrong. Society deems, for the most part, the use of the words offensive. The words, on their own, without context (ie. "themselves") are not necessarily offensive. It depends on the context the words are used in. Society doesn't mean "people." I take society to mean people in general, formal situations."

I'm sorry, but I didnt read anything wrong. You havent clarified your statements. You have changed them. You've lost this one. Goodnight.

5/22/2007 10:44:10 PM

I'm sorry, but you did read them wrong.

If you feel that I changed them, then what is wrong with my changed statement?

Your post smells like you're running in defeat (reminds me of Hooksaw).

5/22/2007 10:54:31 PM