Did Holder have a point?

[VUPDblue]

 

[dross]

So, have you ever participated anywhere online where someone has made a comment about "black pride" (or related)? If so, could you point me to where you asked them that question? I'd really like to see what the result was.

I haven't had that conversation online anywhere. I have had that conversation a couple of times face to face. I dislike racism when it comes from black people as well. In fact, I see it more often from that side of the spectrum.

 

[dross]

It's somethign you're "not particularly passionate about" but it's something you've argued heatedly enough to get at least one thread shut down and then felt the need to start another thread on the topic.

I'm kind of curious to see what you are passionate about.

Have I argued heatedly? Perhaps in the three posts where I challenged the racist slurs. Have I argued heatedly in this one? I thought I've been pretty mild.

What am I passionate about? The Bill of Rights, personal freedoms, natural rights. Most people on this forum just happen to agree with me on those subjects.

 

[dross]

Dross you start a thread that you know will incite controversey and then just sit back and what it broil. What was your real purpose of this little excercise? What satisfaction have you gained. To be honest I don't believe that you are sincere in your answers and that you simply like to instigate controversey. I hope that you have acheived your desired results. As so eloquently posted above..... I'm outta here!

Sit back and watch? I've answered all questions and met all challenges on this thread. Unfair. What satisfaction? None. Frankly, I'm surprised at the responses. I thought my position would have more support. I was wrong about that, so be it. You don't think I'm sincere? You are wrong.

 

[dross]

Wow, this has been a very interesting read! To respond to the OP's original question of whether there is anything that should be considered "too far:" 100% no. The beauty of the country we live in is that there isn't a line drawn as to what can and can't be said; regardless of how idiotic and baseless it may be.

There's a difference between what should be banned, and what should be verbally stomped on. I'm not suggesting that ANY speech be regulated, censored, banned, or to use the word of our founders, infringed. I'm just saying that when racially disparaging comments are made, good people should step up and tell the user the words are out of bounds.

One of the moderators has already banned the use of the "N" word in any context, which is his prerogative. Why did he ban the use of this word? So many of you believe that no word is out of line, why should this word be banned from the forum?

 

[VUPDblue]

There's a difference between what should be banned, and what should be verbally stomped on. I'm not suggesting that ANY speech be regulated, censored, banned, or to use the word of our founders, infringed. I'm just saying that when racially disparaging comments are made, good people should step up and tell the user the words are out of bounds.

One of the moderators has already banned the use of the "N" word in any context, which is his prerogative. Why did he ban the use of this word? So many of you believe that no word is out of line, why should this word be banned from the forum?

There are certain things you just don't say (or type) in polite company. The "N" word is one of them. For that matter, any patently inflamatory slur or insult is on that list. Take the "C" word for example. Heads would roll if it was used here. INGO is simply not that kind of place. Discuss the use or ridicule of those words all you want, that's what makes a good debate, just please don't use them directly. A couple very good reasons for this are that INGO is supposed to be a PG13 environment and actually posting those kinds of words brings us to more of an "R" rating. Also, those kind of words turning up lots of times in a search and linking to INGO does not reflect well upon the site in general. We are all adults here, so lets keep it clean. Again, discuss the merits or de-merits if you will, of these words but please don't use them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I read the first few posts. I scanned the next oh, 20 or so.

Here's my response.
<rant on>

If someone has hurt feelings, that person may, as Lars so often puts it, "fill out a form 34j-67 and submit it to management."

If someone makes a racist or other comment or slur, I fully respect that person's right to his/her opinion. I do not have to share it to do so.

Finally, I don't give two sh!ts if you're White, Black, Asian, or purple with pink polka dots. If "ni**er" must be referenced only in terms of "the N word", someone tell me why the F##K it is that "honky", "cracker", "gringo", "gaijin", and any number of other pejoratives applied solely to White people and "wop", "gook", "kike", etc, applied solely to each of their respective groups are perfectly OK! Someone tell me why of "the C word", "the F word", "the N word", and "the S word", only one refers to a group of people defined by the color of their skin? Why does that group get special treatment?

Why is it Jesse Jackson can refer to a city of over eight million people of many ethnic groups as "Hymietown"? What would his response be if someone referred to the much smaller area known as Harlem (which IS predominantly Black) as Ni%%ertown?

It offends me that this level of favoritism is shown to one group of people over another. It matters not to me which group is the subject- what matters to me is that no one is any better than I am, nor is anyone any worse, by virtue of his/her skin color, by virtue of his/her gender, or by virtue of his/her national origin. These things and religion are man-made differences. The good Lord sees each of us as His children, all equal in His sight, IMHO, and dammit, that's good enough for me.

<rant off>

Blessings,
Bill

ETA: The above references are not INGO-specific, but societal. That is, why does society in general as opposed to INGO specifically say that one group has some preferential status?

 

[CulpeperMM]

i think dross has really made some excellent points in this post, and for the most part i agree (or at least do not disagree) with his sentiments, if not all of his arguments.

However, there are a few things i would like to point out.

1) This site is private property. We may or may not like the rules, but that doesn't make it right for us to complain. I don't go into another man's house and gripe that i have to take my shoes off, or not smoke. If i want my shoes on, or to smoke i can go back to my house. End of discussion. So if the owner of the INGO house doesn't want to see certain words, i won't use them in his house as long as i want to stay there... In my house, we go by my rules.

2.) As far as in the general public, and their use of certain faux pas words, i have to quote Tripper Harrison: "it just doesn't matter". To many of the people that these terms of derision of aimed at have become terms of endearment to the targets. Certain folks refer to themselves as rednecks and hill-billies. Others refer to themselves or friends as our newly banned word.

Racism comes from the heart. The hatred of certain people for using certain words, while others using the same word is just fine... that's racism, generally speaking. A person using a certain word to describe someone, may very well be racism. It may not be. You cannot change this by banning words or confronting people with these feelings in their heart. At best you'll get controversy, at worst a fight.

3.) However, the PC crap has gotten so ridiculous. And it is mostly one way. I think the OP has to understand the level of frustration that he has bumped into when suggesting that Eric Holder (public enemy #2, IMO) is right in calling the nation cowards when dealing with race. I believe he is baiting, and some may take it. But we, the respsonsible folks that don't go around calling names, are just tired of being called racist because we happen to be in the majority ethnic group. This self loatheing in this country is stupid and destructive. When we can all shrug our shoulders and ignore race completely, that will be the day that it is no longer an issue. But when the government uses affirmative action to reward and punish people systematically because of their skin color, it is an issue and it will continue to be as long as it is a policy issue.

4.) The only hope of eliminating the race issue is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We know that he loves people of all the nations, and that we are to love one another. Just as Phillip was told by the Holy Spirit to share the Gospel with the Ethiopian man, we are to share the love of Christ with those of all nations, regardless of skin color. When Christ is our focus, race will not matter to us.

Unfortunately, i know most will not take that path.

Thanks all for your input into the discussion, and dross, the OP for having started. I appreciated reading all of your honest opinions.

 

[dross]

There are certain things you just don't say (or type) in polite company. The "N" word is one of them. For that matter, any patently inflamatory slur or insult is on that list. Take the "C" word for example. Heads would roll if it was used here. INGO is simply not that kind of place. Discuss the use or ridicule of those words all you want, that's what makes a good debate, just please don't use them directly. A couple very good reasons for this are that INGO is supposed to be a PG13 environment and actually posting those kinds of words brings us to more of an "R" rating. Also, those kind of words turning up lots of times in a search and linking to INGO does not reflect well upon the site in general. We are all adults here, so lets keep it clean. Again, discuss the merits or de-merits if you will, of these words but please don't use them.

I fear you missed the point I was trying to make. My point was simply that there were several people arguing on this thread who were arguing that any word is okay, and if a person or group didn't like it, then they were being too sensitive. Then you make the point that the word is so volatile that it can't even be used on the site when it's being used as an example of something that shouldn't be said. Your banning of the term tended to make my point that if racial epithets are such powerfully negative terms that they can't even be referred to, then it can't be claimed with a straight face that they're alright to use as names to call other people.

So if I'm thin-skinned for arguing that we shouldn't call people ugly racist names, you must be much more thin-skinned when you don't allow the term to be used even when not aimed at someone.

In other words, you more than made my point.

 

[dross]

I read the first few posts. I scanned the next oh, 20 or so.

Finally, I don't give two sh!ts if you're White, Black, Asian, or purple with pink polka dots. If "ni**er" must be referenced only in terms of "the N word", someone tell me why the F##K it is that "honky", "cracker", "gringo", "gaijin", and any number of other pejoratives applied solely to White people and "wop", "gook", "kike", etc, applied solely to each of their respective groups are perfectly OK! Someone tell me why of "the C word", "the F word", "the N word", and "the S word", only one refers to a group of people defined by the color of their skin? Why does that group get special treatment?


It offends me that this level of favoritism is shown to one group of people over another. It matters not to me which group is the subject- what matters to me is that no one is any better than I am, nor is anyone any worse, by virtue of his/her skin color, by virtue of his/her gender, or by virtue of his/her national origin. These things and religion are man-made differences. The good Lord sees each of us as His children, all equal in His sight, IMHO, and dammit, that's good enough for me.

Actually, the "N" word is not what prompted me to start this thread. The racist terms I had objected to in earlier posts had to do with 1) Muslims, 2) Chinese people, and 3)Obama (referred to a as half-breed).

Most of this thread has been arguing that my position is too PC, and too sensitive. The "N" word came up and has been used as an example of a racial epithet. I had incorrectly assumed I could draw a parallel between that word and the other racist terms I had encountered on this site. To my surprise, many people on this site didn't have a particular problem with the "N" word, either.

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually, the "N" word is not what prompted me to start this thread. The racist terms I had objected to in earlier posts had to do with 1) Muslims, 2) Chinese people, and 3)Obama (referred to a as half-breed).

Whoa! Muslim is not a race, is not an immutable trait, and is not purely religious either for most Muslims. A huge majority of Muslims, in a Pew Foundation survey soon after the 9/11 attacks, expressed support for Osama bin Laden, around 60% or higher in some countries. That Islam is just another religion, without a strong political component built in, a violent political component, is a fallacy. It would be no different than someone espousing a belief in Norse gods, and having, just as a matter of fact, A Nazi political agenda. One is a confound of the other. Always, no, nothing is always, but often enough to suggest the belief systems are intertwined. When did disagreement with the violent tenets of a religion, or any belief system for that matter, become racist?

By the way, I don't know why anyone would choose to criticize Obama by calling him a half-breed. I dislike his Caucasain donated genes as much as I dislike his African donated genes.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My point was simply that there were several people arguing on this thread who were arguing that any word is okay, and if a person or group didn't like it, then they were being too sensitive. Then you make the point that the word is so volatile that it can't even be used on the site when it's being used as an example of something that shouldn't be said. Your banning of the term tended to make my point that if racial epithets are such powerfully negative terms that they can't even be referred to, then it can't be claimed with a straight face that they're alright to use as names to call other people.

So if I'm thin-skinned for arguing that we shouldn't call people ugly racist names, you must be much more thin-skinned when you don't allow the term to be used even when not aimed at someone.

In other words, you more than made my point.

I think any word is okay there are no "Bad" words. Just like there are no "Bad"(being used in the evil not shoddy sense) guns. There are offensive words but those vary from person to person and place to place. The words politically correct I find offensive, along with such words as gun control, and even President Obama And I don't believe he made your point imo (please correct me if I'm wrong VUPDblue) he basically said that this is not the place for that kind of language, sort of like using the f word in front of your grandma or having it in finding nemo. And that it could bring negative attention to this site, the same reason the ban on promoting violent insurrection is in place.

 

[jsharmon7]

There's a difference between what should be banned, and what should be verbally stomped on. I'm not suggesting that ANY speech be regulated, censored, banned, or to use the word of our founders, infringed. I'm just saying that when racially disparaging comments are made, good people should step up and tell the user the words are out of bounds.

One of the moderators has already banned the use of the "N" word in any context, which is his prerogative. Why did he ban the use of this word? So many of you believe that no word is out of line, why should this word be banned from the forum?

Upon reviewing my comments I realize that I wasn't clear on what I meant by that. I understand the difference between what should be banned from a legal standpoint versus what society should ban based on moral grounds. That is actually the exact point I was trying to make. Here in America we have both the legal right to say what we want as well as the practical right to say what we want. Our government attempts to protect us from other members of society via laws and law enforcement in order to allow us to exercise our free speech, no matter how ignorant and narrow-minded it may be. I do understand what you mean by society placing moral restrictions on racism and other forms of bigotry, I just don't agree with it. If society starts to treat certain areas as "out of bounds," what is next? If society decides that guns are "out of bounds" would it then become morally unacceptable to be a gun owner? I know some people feel that that's the case already, but that's for another thread. I just think that in the same spirit of not letting our government infringe upon our rights we shouldn't let each other infringe upon our rights.

To again address your original post (and original intent), I can certainly agree that if society as a whole would take a stand against bigoted slurs then those who use them would certainly think twice. The problem is that this tactic doesn't solve the problem of bigotry, it only drives it underground. It also, as I mentioned, starts us down a very slippery slope. As someone else stated, these terms and slurs only have the power you give them. I know that it's easier said than done, but the problem won't go away until this happens. Bigotry will never die, we just need to stop giving others the power to affect us so easily.

As far as the moderator banning that certain word I would say it is because this is a privately owned and moderated forum and it is his right to decide what goes on here. That's another beauty of living in this great nation.

Thanks for starting this thread dross, it's been interesting to see the different opinions held by the members of this board.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Actually, the "N" word is not what prompted me to start this thread. The racist terms I had objected to in earlier posts had to do with 1) Muslims, 2) Chinese people, and 3)Obama (referred to a as half-breed).

Most of this thread has been arguing that my position is too PC, and too sensitive. The "N" word came up and has been used as an example of a racial epithet. I had incorrectly assumed I could draw a parallel between that word and the other racist terms I had encountered on this site. To my surprise, many people on this site didn't have a particular problem with the "N" word, either.

The parallel is accurate, IMHO. You originally commented about a term being applied and the thread being immediately closed before anyone had a chance to speak against the thought expressed. Of course, that presumes anyone would so comment, but be that as it may, the fact is that certain groups are getting preferential treatment.

We see news reports from, IIRC, Scotland, where a crime against a Muslim is given priority over a crime against anyone else, ostensibly solely because "they" are more prone to extremist behavior. We decry this for the blatant unfairness of the policy. I suppose if Americans over there were to start displaying extremist behavior, we could get the same preferential treatment, at least in a fair world, but more likely, those Americans would either find themselves arrested or deported. It's OK to hate Americans.

In addition, using the term, "the N word" instead of the word to which it refers does nothing except make everyone notice that they now must define, of the many words starting with N, exactly which one is referenced. That is, who among us does not "translate" and think that word when presented with it's euphamism? I'm still waiting to hear why that group alone has a "one letter designation" for their racial epithet, right up there with the F bomb (:fawk, the C word (), and the S word ().

At different workplaces, I've commented about things one or another co-workers have done that have been blatantly out of line, and have been told by supervisory personell, "Oh, that's just John." I responded, "Oh... so if I start doing the same thing, will that be, "Oh, that's just Bill"? The hypocrisy of that position being made clear, I was not explicitly told, "No, you'd be disciplined for it." but that implication was very clear.

What it comes down to is that whether it is a governmental action, a workplace lack of action, or a personal/local policy (anywhere), favoring one group of people on the basis of race is just as racist as is marginalizing them. Since it is impossible to favor all groups equally on the basis of race, I am of the opinion that none should be so favored.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Richard]

It's interesting to me that this isn't even really an issue that I'm particularly passionate about. I just think, as I've said, that when people use racial slurs they should be called out on that.

Dross,

When I hear someone calling someone else a bad name & to me it really doesn't matter if it's a racial slur or any of the other numberous things that a person can refer to another person as, if it does not directly or indirectly involve me in some way shape or form then it's really none of my business what names who calls whom.

But to be honest I really don't understand the whole "excitability" that certain segment of society gets over being called racial slur, I mean this isn't the third grade, its the real world and people will call other people names, it's just something that happens to everyone, it's happened to me, it's happened to you, it's happened to my daughter, no-one is immune.

And it's not just a one-way street either, it goes both ways, I've called other people bad names & I am betting that you have too.

That's just the way it is man, no amount of politically correct bitching and moaning (or even public floggings) is going to stop someone from trying to **** someone else off by saying something they think will **** them off.

That's what we should be teaching our kids & not: "oh no Johnny don't say XY or Z because see those people over there? well they will go berserk if they hear you say any of those words".

 

[haldir]

The original question was about Holder being correct when he called us cowards on racial matters. I thought at the time he said it, that yes I think so but for different reasons than I think he was getting at. This thread is a great example of it. We get so tied up in hand wringing about some offensive phrase that might be used. We are unwilling to even discuss real problems in this country because we might be labeled racist. We can't use common sense at airports or border crossings because we might hurt someone's feelings and be accused of racial profiling.

If my fat white ass is driving around the hood at night, they should pull me over to find out what I was up to. Conversely if they see some black or hispanic youths wearing their pants around their knees and colored bandanas in Carmel, they should stop them. But they can't, that would be wrong and offensive.

I have been nearly strip searched twice at airports. Can anyone tell me the last plane blown up by a fat middle aged white guy. How about the extended searches that I have seen TSA doing on 15-18 yo busty young lasses. When was the last blonde 15 yo from Indiana that blew up a plane? Or for that matter 70 yo black men ala Walter Williams.

We see Sheriff Arpaio being investigated because he arrests too many illegal aliens. That is wrong and racist. A rancher whose property is being overrun and damaged by illegals can't do anything about it, that would be wrong and racist. We can't admit the fact that most black males will end up in the penal system at some point, I have read figures between 1/2 and 2/3. Even noticing that fact is wrong and racist.

So instead of talking about real problems let's follow the PC police example and worry about someone using the N word, or a host of other derogatory words. Let's be shocked at the dialogue in Gran Torino and pretend that large segments of our society don't talk like that but mean little by it.

He was right we are cowards. We don't want to discuss solutions or even to acknowledge the problem because it might offend someone or hurt their feelings.

 

[4sarge]

The original question was about Holder being correct when he called us cowards on racial matters. I thought at the time he said it, that yes I think so but for different reasons than I think he was getting at. This thread is a great example of it. We get so tied up in hand wringing about some offensive phrase that might be used. We are unwilling to even discuss real problems in this country because we might be labeled racist. We can't use common sense at airports or border crossings because we might hurt someone's feelings and be accused of racial profiling.

If my fat white ass is driving around the hood at night, they should pull me over to find out what I was up to. Conversely if they see some black or hispanic youths wearing their pants around their knees and colored bandanas in Carmel, they should stop them. But they can't, that would be wrong and offensive.

I have been nearly strip searched twice at airports. Can anyone tell me the last plane blown up by a fat middle aged white guy. How about the extended searches that I have seen TSA doing on 15-18 yo busty young lasses. When was the last blonde 15 yo from Indiana that blew up a plane? Or for that matter 70 yo black men ala Walter Williams.

We see Sheriff Arpaio being investigated because he arrests too many illegal aliens. That is wrong and racist. A rancher whose property is being overrun and damaged by illegals can't do anything about it, that would be wrong and racist. We can't admit the fact that most black males will end up in the penal system at some point, I have read figures between 1/2 and 2/3. Even noticing that fact is wrong and racist.

So instead of talking about real problems let's follow the PC police example and worry about someone using the N word, or a host of other derogatory words. Let's be shocked at the dialogue in Gran Torino and pretend that large segments of our society don't talk like that but mean little by it.

He was right we are cowards. We don't want to discuss solutions or even to acknowledge the problem because it might offend someone or hurt their feelings.

Great Post

 

[Chefcook]

I find the term the "N word" quite offensive. More offensive than the word itself. By using this term you only lend validity to those that are racist. Those that would claim that you by using that word are a racist is only fueling a cause in idiocy. By the way here is another definition of the "N word". : "A member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's (insert n word here)…all the people who feel left out of the political process.

By this definition I think we are all (insert N word here)....

 

[SilentWarrior1]

I was taught at a young age that the *N* word was a dirty word. It has been ever since. I have since added "Cracker" to that list, as it depicts the same negative connotation as it's African-American precept. It sounds to me like someone was playing "keeping up with the Joneses".

Now, as some people here know, I can curse like a sailor, and make my own mother blush. That being said, I will never call a woman the *C* word, a black person the *N* word, or call some white person acting like an idiot a "cracker". These are racially or sexually fueled, which making fun of someone for something they can't control is ignorant and childish.

Therefore, people who commit actions considered of less than average intelligence (or in layman's terms, do something stoopid....) will hence be referred to as "Dirtball". It has no racial/sexual connotations, and it's clean enough to use around children.

If you MUST insult someone (and some people DO deserve it from time to time), please have some intelligence and come up with something a tad more witty than the normal curse words. "Insolent twit" happens to be a favorite. Dictionaries and Thesauri can be found at your local library.

That's all. Carry on. *Goes to make more popcorn*

 

[dross]

Whoa! Muslim is not a race, is not an immutable trait, and is not purely religious either for most Muslims. A huge majority of Muslims, in a Pew Foundation survey soon after the 9/11 attacks, expressed support for Osama bin Laden, around 60% or higher in some countries. That Islam is just another religion, without a strong political component built in, a violent political component, is a fallacy. It would be no different than someone espousing a belief in Norse gods, and having, just as a matter of fact, A Nazi political agenda. One is a confound of the other. Always, no, nothing is always, but often enough to suggest the belief systems are intertwined. When did disagreement with the violent tenets of a religion, or any belief system for that matter, become racist?

By the way, I don't know why anyone would choose to criticize Obama by calling him a half-breed. I dislike his Caucasain donated genes as much as I dislike his African donated genes.

I understand Islam isn't a race. I took a verbal shortcut. The post I objected to, the guy said that whenever he meets a Muslim, he offers his left hand because he knows it offends them. Then he attacked their toilet habits, again mixing ALL Muslims, not just Arab, or not even just terrorists or those who give them moral support. Then he went on to call ALL Muslims "camel molesters." I called him out on that, it's to that I was referring. I despise our enemies, and I despise those who cheer their actions.

Exactly my point about Obama. Calling him a half-breed is attacking him for a benign quality out of his control. I despise him because he's a collectivist, which is the same to me as saying he wants to enslave me.