Check Your Privilege

[Manfred Belheim]

Those words are way too general in language, so only through suspicious and artificial means do they somehow get jived as being racial slurs

I'm no expert, but you probably can't say that either. If so, that means absolutely everything else you said is null and void.

 

[Leoreth]

Although I am quite curious as to how widespread is the belief that "degenerate thug" is a racial slur (I have never, ever heard even a hint of this before this thread), there are still two things which are quite clear without even addressing that:

I also haven't been aware of this trend until about a year ago. Not sure if that means it's a recent phenomenon. By the way, I personally didn't interject to attack any particular poster in this context, wasn't even aware the topic had that aspect. That's what you get for staying out of a thread for a while, sorry.

It is tenuous at best to link a term such as "thug" or "degenerate" to a race group instead of individuals in that or other race groups. I am pretty sure i have routinely heard 'thug' used in 90s mafia movies about concurrent times, and seldom did those even have black people (with some exceptions, eg Hoodlum).

Basically it is suspect, cause you might as well try to claim that 'murderer' is now a slur for black person, or 'homeless' or 'drunk' or whatever. Those words are way too general in language, so only through suspicious and artificial means do they somehow get jived as being racial slurs.

Again, this is looking at the issue backwards. Language isn't made in dictionaries. The word thug itself might have no racial implications, and certainly started out without any. But if it is repeatedly selectively used to refer to members of a specific group then the word will start to acquire this connotation.

Your other examples don't have that connotation. You're saying that those are neutral words without any further implication, but that is exactly the point. They are neutral words because they are equally used in all circumstances.

If a word gets "jived" (interesting choice of words here) as being a racial slur then sure the people who changed the use and therefore meaning should be held responsible, not those who point that out.

In effect you (your media, TPTB etc) create another taboo, which serves just so as to dilute focus on the actual social and economical issues, by making all this a circus of 'i knew you were a filthy racist!!!' gotcha moments, usually uttered by tv clowns and idiots/goons.

What taboo is created by advocating to stop calling thugs? You even admitted that it's not a neutral term. Neutrality is good in reporting, and helps focusing on the "real issues".

Racism is a real issue by the way. If you rather want to cry about not being a racist then that is a problem on your end.

If you think violence and murder are acceptable means of political struggle, own it. You're immoral (according to the definition of morality shared by most of mankind). You don't get to scream about other people's supposed immorality.

Unless you live in a society not approved of by luiz, then resistance is commendable and you will probably get blamed for being oppressed and not standing up against it.

 

[Narz]

But it is in contemporary mainstream media.

I've seen rags like New York Post call white guys thugs.

It's more of a sexist term than racist. You never see a female thug.

 

[Leoreth]

That's true. There is no scary black woman trope.

 

[luiz]

Unless you live in a society not approved of by luiz, then resistance is commendable and you will probably get blamed for being oppressed and not standing up against it.

You're just making stuff up, which is trolling. I think China is an oppressive society, for instance, but I don't think it's moral to go around shooting Chinese cops. Or Cuban cops for that matter (certainly I can't be accused of "approving" Cuba). There are far more humane ways to oppose both regimes - and those ways happen to be far more effective as well.

And those are dictatorships. The US is a democracy. Advocating the killing of cops is pretty much apology of terrorism. I think that's punishable not only by forum rules but also by the Law of most countries.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Racism is a real issue by the way. If you rather want to cry about not being a racist then that is a problem on your end.

Just because racism is a thing, this doesn't meant that defending yourself against wrongful accusations of racism is "crying" or a "problem". I'm sure you can't actually mean that as that would be a rather ludicrous stance, but I can't really read that statement any other way...

 

[Leoreth]

You're just making stuff up, which is trolling. I think China is an oppressive society, for instance, but I don't think it's moral to go around shooting Chinese cops. Or Cuban cops for that matter (certainly I can't be accused of "approving" Cuba). There are far more humane ways to oppose both regimes - and those ways happen to be far more effective as well.

And those are dictatorships. The US is a democracy. Advocating the killing of cops is pretty much apology of terrorism. I think that's punishable not only by forum rules but also by the Law of most countries.

Okay, but generally going around morally condemning resistance against oppressive regimes is excessive. If resistance is met with violence, then it can only be answered with violence. Asking people to either remain silent or offer themselves up to be killed only legitimizes oppression.

By the way, if we're talking about unfair characterizations of the other side, lumping it all together as random cop killings is also disingenuous.

Now I agree that such a response would be unjustified in a liberal democracy, but a communist will naturally see things differently. But this is a question of ideology, not morality.

Just because racism is a thing, this doesn't meant that defending yourself against wrongful accusations of racism is "crying" or a "problem". I'm sure you can't actually mean that as that would be a rather ludicrous stance, but I can't really read that statement any other way...

Kyriakos decided to dismiss racism as a problem and complain about being accused of being a racist. Even though I hadn't accused him of being a racist. Shrug.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Kyriakos decided to dismiss racism as a problem and complain about being accused of being a racist. Even though I hadn't accused him of being a racist. Shrug.

You must be reading what he said through a different lens to me then because I don't see that. Certainly not in the part you quoted anyway.

 

[Narz]

That's true. There is no scary black woman trope.

Lol, you clearly haven't interacted with enough black women who hate their jobs.

Strangely there seems to exist both bitter/terrible-mother & super-sweet/earth-mama black women tropes (at least in my mind).

 

[Kyriakos]

Racism is a real issue by the way. If you rather want to cry about not being a racist then that is a problem on your end.

Can you turn 'superhero' into a slur, so that they won't produce more such crap films?

Btw, i now see you wrote you think i thought you aimed to accuse me of racism. I am identifying that as a covert slur against south europeans and will report you asap

 

[Flying Pig]

That's true. There is no scary black woman trope.

There absolutely is a fierce black woman trope, though, and that's often quite unhelpful.

 

[sophie]

There absolutely is a fierce black woman trope, though, and that's often quite unhelpful.

Well it's more than that:

the pernicious stereotype for black women is that they are pushy, aggressive, proud, and emasculating. It is a thing that can and has been harmful in workplace environments.

http://wihe.com/black-womens-dilemma-be-real-or-be-ignored/

 

[luiz]

Okay, but generally going around morally condemning resistance against oppressive regimes is excessive. If resistance is met with violence, then it can only be answered with violence. Asking people to either remain silent or offer themselves up to be killed only legitimizes oppression.

By the way, if we're talking about unfair characterizations of the other side, lumping it all together as random cop killings is also disingenuous.

Now I agree that such a response would be unjustified in a liberal democracy, but a communist will naturally see things differently. But this is a question of ideology, not morality.

It's completely a matter of morality. Just because one call oneself a communist one does not have a moral excuse to go around killing cops. Not anymore than anyone who calls himself a "fascist" has a moral excuse to go around killing union leaders or whatever.

I don't condemn all resistance against oppressive regimes, I condemn murder and terrorism. I also condemn people who qualify democratic regimes as "oppressive" in order to justify murder.

 

[BvBPL]

Okay, but generally going around morally condemning resistance against oppressive regimes is excessive. If resistance is met with violence, then it can only be answered with violence. Asking people to either remain silent or offer themselves up to be killed only legitimizes oppression.

The experiences of the Indian independence movement; the US civil rights movement; opposition to apartheid in Australia and South Africa; the gay rights movement; the women's rights movement; East Timor; the fall of the Soviet Bloc; suffrage movements generally; the Color Revolutions; the removal of Estrada and Marcos from the Philippines; and the Velvet Revolution, among many others, demonstrate the effectiveness of nonviolence as a means to salve social wrongs and overthrow despots.

The choice between violence and nonviolence in social movements is absolutely a moral issue. For change to be constructive, it must come from a good heart. Numerous examples of liberators turning into tyrants demonstrate that avowing virtue while using the tools of death is all too often followed by the presumably good-hearted violent revolutionary turning into the same monster he once fought.

 

[Rashiminos]

And let the goalpost-moving begin.

"lol why are we even talking about this" - great retreat when someone's proved you're defending racism.

I recall this thread pertaining to "institutional racism"...

To not only assume but INSIST that anyone who uses the phrase "degenerate thugs" is quoting Nazi racial theory and is therefore a "white supremacist" is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. It must have got through to you by now that the majority of people do not use the unusual definitions and jargon that you use, so to insist that they are not only using language "incorrectly", but are KNOWINGLY espousing the opinions you would be espousing if you used those words, can only be a deliberate act of beligerence on your part. What an absolutely disgusting attempt to derail the conversation yet again. I really don't know why people seem to let you get away with it so often instead of just dismissing your ludicrous insinuations and insults out of hand. You should be ashamed frankly.

That's a problem (with a somewhat locally optimized solution) best illustrated by forum tags. As for the underlined linguistic discussion, one could make an effort to trace one's own introduction to the term back to periods of increased popularity. A term's mutations into other meanings do not necessarily negate the baggage associated with prior usage.

Not even getting into the cartels in Central and Southern America, which are literally so bloodthirsty and barbaric that they would make ISIS blush.

If you think violence and murder are acceptable means of political struggle, own it. You're immoral (according to the definition of morality shared by most of mankind). You don't get to scream about other people's supposed immorality.

Shared morality... interesting.

I think a more authentic description of that sentiment is stating that someone can go around screaming about undesirable behavior, but they might find ears that have been shielded against verbal effluent. I could also remind that the lungs and vocal cords do last for a little while before becoming hoarse and lapsing out of tune. Even nature plays a hand in silencing people with a 'message.'

If you think violence and murder are acceptable means of political struggle, own it.

To my recollection, Cheezy does own the former. The latter is a semantic argument, which some people have penchants for avoiding or skimming over.

Crow and Spade are slurs for black people?

hm...

Anyway, word associations often are highly artificial. But it is the worst possible reaction to try to taboo mere words and acquired association. If a black person doesn't feel threatened/marginalised then it makes sense they won't really care about lame epithets in the first place- at least by and large. Even the so-called 'n word' is latin for black.

In a number of contexts, yes. Some groups seem to specialize in generating slurs in attempts to (re)name people.

If resistance is met with violence, then it can only be answered with violence.

Meeting a practiced coercive side with less proficient coercion usually serves to proliferate coercion.

 

[Nexlev]

I checked my privilege, it's still intact.

 

[Oruc]

I do know, what I don't know is why you would use it to mischaracterize the person you are talking to.
It is awfully transparent and does hurt instead of help the argument you are making.

Don't be absurd everybody exaggerates, people on left centre-left spend alot of time trying to show how moral they are, you even said I didn't have any morality.

Better for everyone? Except foreigners I suppose. So not better for everyone. Again, why should I favor your well being over theirs only by virtue of the place you were born?

Yes better for everyone I just told you. (well two weeks ago or something)
You would never do that the system is set up so you don't have too, the morality you were taught teaches you that you don't have to concern yourself with those of a lower social strata who side agaisn't you politically (or what you tell them is in their interests politically) they must suffer for their betrayal( It's similar with women or minorities, people can be very vicous toward them if they are on the right).

Even if you thought they had a point all you have to do is bide your time and their numbers will be swamped overwhelmed, their actual voiced concerns (rather then the ones you believe they should have) drowned out, any children they have will be brought up with your morality.

The only reason you need people lower than yourself is so you can virtue signal toward them or use them to virtue signal.

Also, maybe this is the place to drop the hypothetical and challenge your assertion that your situation is equal to that of a refugee for example. We are talking about people whose situation was so bad they decided it was worth crossing a desert, risking death, physical or sexual assault and forced labor, being separated from their family for a long time (maybe forever). Also, have you considered that they might be nativists themselves and would have preferred to stay in a place where language and culture and not completely alien to them?

Well we were talking about immigrants (you yourself said immigrants not refugees, you're just moving the goalposts), low skilled ones at that which with high youth unemployment floods the market for no reason.

One of the supposed reasons your lot tell us we need such high immigration is because they do jobs we won't, but the only reason for that is because low wages is because they can sidestep the local labour pool or economy and bring in some random (although I live in the North so these jobs are still done by natives, I suppose it must be a sign of progress and diversity when you have brown people cleaning toilets)

I don't want to belabor this point too much, because I am admittedly better off than you and this thread is about checking your privilege after all. But I just as well cannot simply ignore the situation of those who are truly desperate. Let me add that I do not believe that your situation and that of immigrants are necessarily at odds, or that the problems with your situations cannot be addressed at the same time, or that immigration is necessarily even a problem in the long term.

I didn't say you had to ignore them, feed them, clothe them and take as many as you can into your home I'm not going to stop you helping people, be a virtuous person.

(Discussing foreign intervention is getting really tangential. In fact it would surprise me to see TF write something like this but even then that was his post and not mine.)

I dont see why it would surprise you, He liked throwing around the word racist around in a kneejerk manner even when it had no relation to the reason for what they were saying. You from the same strain so it's relevant.

Good, you are the only one who is constantly bringing up my moderator status. I would prefer if you'd ignore it until it becomes relevant to the thread. You will notice by the bold colorful letters.

Of course it's relevant you could bring your buddies in at any time to shut me up, you already did it once.

As for the buzzwords, maybe they aren't to me? I'm being quite genuine right now.

Well I don't believe you, I mean you come across as smug rather then genuine.

 

[classical_hero]

Okay, but generally going around morally condemning resistance against oppressive regimes is excessive. If resistance is met with violence, then it can only be answered with violence. Asking people to either remain silent or offer themselves up to be killed only legitimizes oppression.

Tell that to Gandhi, he was very much a fool for being no violent.

 

[Bootstoots]

Of course it's relevant you could bring your buddies in at any time to shut me up, you already did it once.

I'm probably supposed to treat this as PDMA, but I won't.

For the record, that's not what happened. Your posts were reported by another member, not Leoreth. They were way across the line for flaming, so I issued an infraction. It wasn't treated any differently than any other flaming incident, and Leoreth played no part in the decision.