Can a white person sing along to the word "n i g g a"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

As do I, but not when it descends to racism.

---

This is where your true colors (lol) show. The freedom of speech is an inalienable right, a right that may not be infringed, suspended, taken away, restricted, or violated -not at any time, nor for any purpose whatsoever. You can not be sane if you consider something "semi-alienable". By making reservations, conditions, and exceptions, you're admitting that there is something or someone above a human's rights, who may violate them at their discretion. No one is above another person. I have the freedom of speech, even if that speech is not received by the majority, that was what the Founders of America were protecting, not the voice of the majority but the voice of the minority, the dissenters, the protesters. To truly support the freedom of speech is to support the freedom of speech to those who you disagree with, otherwise you are just creating an outward illusion for others to look upon that is hypocritical in nature. People like that want the respect for being "x" but in their hearts they are truly- becoming a lie.

I would like to add, that no one should ever, ever, ever, ever "sing" along to a rap song. It's just not how it is done, listen to the track.

I too dislike the double standard as it is hypocritical; my friends and I joke around with racist terms like: dago, wop, limey, etc- cause in truth, what the hell is a dago? I'm part dago buuuut it doesn't offend me. They're words and they only hurt if you let them. If people want to get very technical then, the only people who can be offended by using the N-WORD are those who have been subject to the word in a negative context.

I know a black guy, who sometimes calls my friends and I the n-word, so since I was called it does that give me more "right" to it, not that I didn't have all the right beforehand. Unless those people who would suppress humanity, who claim to be equalizers, have their way- I am free to say what I wish.

Note: I must say that this post is rather ugly in format and not the best articulation of my thoughts but it will suffice for now as I am not in the mood to make it look and sound all nice and pretty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The question of the thread

Can a white person sing along to the word "n i g g a"?

---

I'm white, so let me check.

Yep. We can. I just did. We should probably do the test with a larger sample population than just myself to be sure, but I feel fairly confident in concluding that white people are indeed able to sing the word "n i g g a".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'm just asking for one answer. It's either right for everybody to do or it's wrong for everybody to do.

---

Why must something be so absolute?

Can't something be more acceptable when done by one person than by another? A child would face fewer repercussions for stealing from a supermarket than an adult would. I know that's a bad example, but it's an example where something something is not absolute.

Picture someone like... Dave Grohl. Picture him singing a song in which he uses the word "nigger". Imagine the context he uses it in is completely neutral - i.e. he is using it to describe the appearance of a black person. After all, that's what the word does, right? Does he need to use this word? No (I'm going to ignore the possibility that he really needed to rhyme something with 'digger'). Does he know this word's historical usage (i.e. it's racist overtones). Assumably, yes. So should he be using it? No, IMO.

Now imagine someone like Dr. Dre. Clearly, he says "nigger" a lot. Does he need to use this word? No Does he know this word's historical usage (i.e. it's racist overtones). Assumably, yes. So should he be using it? No, IMO.

So we are agreed thus far.

Now I'm never going to be able to stop people from using this word. I'm not Big Brother. People can say what they want. So, because they can both say it without anyone trying to hold their mouths shut, from who is it most acceptable?

I'd say it is more acceptable (or less unacceptable) coming from Dr. Dre. As a black person, his race, his ancestry, heck, his family have had this word, and everything that came with it, used against him negatively. He has a greater right (but not necessarily a full right) to use it, as surely he is acutely aware of it's impact, as he is black.

For Dave Grohl to use it is to be arrogant on his part. He has never faced it's scourge; he cannot be as aware as somebody whose personal history has been associated with it. To use it is to say "I don't care what this means to people." He can never be personally offended by the word, as a black person can.

If I could have my way, then I would like no one to use it; in music, in jest, in everyday language. We don't need this word. It's history is very dire indeed.

But as people are going to use it, then black people have a greater right to it, as I have attempted to explain. Black people using it does not make it acceptable for white people to use it, but, additionally, black people using it is, in my view, still unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

This is where your true colors (lol) show. The freedom of speech is an inalienable right, a right that may not be infringed, suspended, taken away, restricted, or violated -not at any time, nor for any purpose whatsoever. You can not be sane if you consider something "semi-alienable". By making reservations, conditions, and exceptions, you're admitting that there is something or someone above a human's rights, who may violate them at their discretion. No one is above another person. I have the freedom of speech, even if that speech is not received by the majority, that was what the Founders of America were protecting, not the voice of the majority but the voice of the minority, the dissenters, the protesters. To truly support the freedom of speech is to support the freedom of speech to those who you disagree with, otherwise you are just creating an outward illusion for others to look upon that is hypocritical in nature. People like that want the respect for being "x" but in their hearts they are truly- becoming a lie.

---

First, it is your opinion that free speech is an unalienable right. I know plenty who disagree. The ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, and the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, are two very prominent examples of people who don't share your sentiment. They are sane, as far as I am aware. In fact, they are the people responsible for some miraculous economic recovery in their countries. So not only are they sane, but they are skilled. [Please note that I still dislike them]

Personally, I cherish free speech. Although I doubt I cherish it as much as Americans do (along with their right to a gun, which, frankly, is pathetic and stupid). Where I especially disagree with you in your statement is in this line:

Quote:

---

I have the freedom of speech, even if that speech is not received by the majority, that was what the Founders of America were protecting, not the voice of the majority but the voice of the minority, the dissenters, the protesters.

---

What kind of protest is using the word "nigger"? That's silly. You are not protesting anything by using that word. It is clearly an offensive word, and it's use is unnecessary.

Imploring people to not use the n-word is not placing limits on free speech. When did I suggest that I would imprison people for saying it?

EDIT (found some time):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Gain enough maturity and intellect, and you'll be treated like an adult.

---

I treat you like an adult, yet you don't do the same to me. Who's being childish?

Quote:

---

Apparently, you do. See, what I figured was that if I kept repeating a simple fact, you might finally understand it. Apparently, I was mistaken.

---

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. Understand?

Quote:

---

The trick is to know what you know, and to know what you don't know. ... I've picked up knowledge here and there, but I would never be arrogant enough to claim that something I think is "fact", when I don't know it.

---

So you have never learnt anything from another person? I didn't realise that I could trust a teacher for telling me a fact. No, everything I know must be self-researched. I trust you do this on a daily basis.

Quote:

---

Try walking into an NAACP meeting and referring to blacks as "coloreds" or "colored people" and see how they respond. They wouldn't like that, either.

---

This is despite having "Colored" [sic] in their name?

Quote:

---

Besides, the NAACP has become an outdated organization that uses its racial influence for legal thuggery, I have no respect for that group.

---

And I suspect it has no respect for the word "nigger", and for good reason.

Quote:

---

Hell if I know, I just know I've heard that it's "improper" to refer to somebody as "black", and instead we should use "African-American".

---

You should research something before you quote it as fact. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

Why must something be so absolute?

---

Because we try to live in a society in which all laws apply to everyone...

Quote:

---

Can't something be more acceptable when done by one person than by another?

---

Not when it comes to issues like discriminating based on race. Especially in the US.

Quote:

---

Personally, I cherish free speech. Although I doubt I cherish it as much as Americans do (along with their right to a gun, which, frankly, is pathetic and stupid).

---

The irony of it all, is that Americans are always wining about free speech, but are also really anal about censoring really common words like 'shit'.

Quote:

---

Imploring people to not use the n-word is not placing limits on free speech.

---

Basically, it is.

It is a pitty that the word is being used by a certain group of people, and seen as offensive when it is used by a different group. But those semantics will (I assume) disappear to some degree when new generations come and go. Who can use it for what reason in what context, and should race matter? It shouldn't matter, as everyone is equal, but with sensitive words like this, it's not all black and white (haha).

I think the word is too common in black culture and will not disappear. So the double standard will have to go, as generations make room for the next one. So either white people would have to use the word in a non-derogatory way, or black people would have to be punished for saying the word. Neither of those options seems likely, as racists using the word in its original context will never stop using it, especially in the USA. And I don't see black people refraining from using the word.

To conclude:
I believe the original semantics will somewhat fade out, but the word will never be accepted as a normal term to call a black person. It will most likely become a word used mockingly by both white people and black people.

I think we're missing the point here.

Not every black person is african-american. Whoever thought of this formality was an idiot, and why we follow it I know not. Black people are black. Just like I am white. We get so caught up in what to call each other that we're forgetting the original idea. The intent. That's what counts. Good people don't want to harm someone by what they say, it's those other people that ruin it for us. Everyone gets all bent out of shape over a few words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

Why must something be so absolute?

---

Because otherwise it's a racial double-standard. Claiming that something is acceptable for one race but not for another race is racially prejudiced and ignorant.

Quote:

---

Can't something be more acceptable when done by one person than by another? A child would face fewer repercussions for stealing from a supermarket than an adult would. I know that's a bad example, but it's an example where something something is not absolute.

---

Yes, that's a very bad example. First, you're talking about the difference between a child and an adult -- not the difference between a person of one race and a person of another. Second, a child is punished differently because they assume that the child might not know any better, whereas the adult obviously does know better.

Quote:

---

I'd say it is more acceptable (or less unacceptable) coming from Dr. Dre. As a black person, his race, his ancestry, heck, his family have had this word, and everything that came with it, used against him negatively. He has a greater right (but not necessarily a full right) to use it, as surely he is acutely aware of it's impact, as he is black.

---

You're still placing a double-standard here. Why does it matter who used to say it or what they used to mean by it? Why wouldn't each specific situation be judged on its own?

Quote:

---

For Dave Grohl to use it is to be arrogant on his part. He has never faced it's scourge; he cannot be as aware as somebody whose personal history has been associated with it. To use it is to say "I don't care what this means to people."

---

And some people -- get this -- don't care. Nobody has a right to never have their feelings hurt, period. If you don't like something, too bad.

Quote:

---

He can never be personally offended by the word, as a black person can.

---

So you know Dave Grohl personally and can say that he can never be offended by the word "nigger? You know every white person enough to know every word that may offend and wouldn't offend them?

Quote:

---

But as people are going to use it, then black people have a greater right to it, as I have attempted to explain. Black people using it does not make it acceptable for white people to use it, but, additionally, black people using it is, in my view, still unacceptable.

---

What you're saying -- that one race doing something is more acceptable than another race doing something -- is racial prejudice.

Quote:

---

First, it is your opinion that free speech is an unalienable right. I know plenty who disagree. The ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, and the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, are two very prominent examples of people who don't share your sentiment.

---

True, some people don't consider free speech to be a right -- among those, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Personally, I cherish free speech. Although I doubt I cherish it as much as Americans do (along with their right to a gun, which, frankly, is pathetic and stupid).

---

Yes, Americans cherish individual rights: like the right to say what we want and the right to protect ourselves. If you think it's pathetic and stupid, you go ahead and foolishly think that, but Americans have that right.

Quote:

---

What kind of protest is using the word "nigger"? That's silly. You are not protesting anything by using that word. It is clearly an offensive word, and it's use is unnecessary.

---

The use of a lot of words is unnecessary. It doesn't matter if it's used in protest or any other manner, his point was that free speech isn't protected only when it's liked, or only when everybody agrees with you, or only when nobody will get their panties in a wad over one simple word. Free speech is protected, period.

Quote:

---

Imploring people to not use the n-word is not placing limits on free speech.

---

Not placing limits on it, no, just discouraging it.

Quote:

---

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. Understand?

---

So you intentionally have a racially prejudiced double-standard? You understand that, and still do it?

Quote:

---

So you have never learnt anything from another person?

---

When did I say anything like that?

Quote:

---

I didn't realise that I could trust a teacher for telling me a fact. No, everything I know must be self-researched. I trust you do this on a daily basis.

---

First -- yes, I try to learn things on a daily basis. Second, I never said anything that could be interpreted as that I never learned things from anybody else. My point was that there's a difference between what you think and what you know.

Quote:

---

This is despite having "Colored" [sic] in their name?

---

Yes. Black people don't like to be called "colored". At least not black people as a whole, in America.

Quote:

---

And I suspect it has no respect for the word "nigger", and for good reason.

---

Only if it's said by a white person. They're kind of like you -- they won't bitch at blacks for saying it, but if a white person says it, they're automatically a "racist".

I would like to add something for the Americans among you, because starting a new thread over it would be stretching this issue.

I found out two days ago that saying 'colored people' or a 'colored person' is not okay in the US. I can kind of understand that. But the organisation for the rights of non-white people has 'colored people' in her name herself!

Apparently you're supposed to say 'people of color'?

What the fuck is the difference?

That is really ridiculous. That is like saying 'a person from Belgium' instead of 'a Belgian (person)'. So what's up with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

I would like to add something for the Americans among you, because starting a new thread over it would be stretching this issue.

I found out two days ago that saying 'colored people' or a 'colored person' is not okay in the US. I can kind of understand that. But the organisation for the rights of non-white people has 'colored people' in her name herself!

Apparently you're supposed to say 'people of color'?

What the fuck is the difference?

That is really ridiculous. That is like saying 'a person from Belgium' instead of 'a Belgian (person)'. So what's up with that?

---

When you say "colored people" or "colored person" It has a racial over tone that refers to mostly African Americans back in the time of slavery. The term or phrase "people of color" refers to all people that are non white. It can only be used in general statement. so I've been told. I should say actually after slavery...I heard that it was the term used in place of the N word when slavery ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TenseikenSlash

When you say "colored people" or "colored person" It has a racial over tone that refers to mostly African Americans back in the time of slavery.

---

Yeah I know...

But it's just ridiculous that 'person of color' is ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

Yeah I know...

But it's just ridiculous that 'person of color' is ok.

---

Hmm. True. Perhaps I just sounds better or something....

colored person VS. Person of color

I wasn't even aware that saying "colored person" was not okay, specifically. It's always been my point of view that the trend a decade or two ago was to ONLY refer to blacks as African Americans, and now just as "blacks". And even then, you were supposed to sidestep its use in general if you wanted to be "truly" politically correct. Which basically led to people just not talking about it.

And really the whole thing just boils down to political correctness. It's not whether you have the "right" to say whichever term, it's how you can get away with offending the least amount of people. The reason why so many whites attempt to follow this line of thinking isn't all that clear to me, but I think it ends up just creating a lot of unnecessary tensions.

Not that using the word liberally would help things either. I don't think it's even possible to strike a balance. Regardless of ethnicity I don't think you'll ever come to an agreement on how it should be used for reasons I can't explain since I'm not the one who thought up the rationale for why we should have this sort of social "rule". All I know is that using it can really piss off a lot of people, which is easier not to deal with. Therefore I...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OceanEyes28

I'd like it if the word just went out of style. Like "groovy" or "homie." Maybe if black people stop saying it because it's not cool anymore, it'll catch on with white people for a while, and then it'll go away. That would be.... crunk.

---

... sorta wish this would happen.

^^^ and that's sorta what I'm trying to say. I'd like if no one said it, first and foremost. I want to make that expressly clear. So, just because it is common in black culture, does not mean white people are suddenly handed a right to use it willy-nilly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

So, just because it is common in black culture, does not mean white people are suddenly handed a right to use it willy-nilly.

---

I don't think anyone, apart from Sasquatch maybe, really disagrees with this.

Like I said, the natural evolution of things like these mostly determines the theoretical side. The original semantics will not be as offensive in, say, a century as they are right now. It will never disappear, nor will it be fully accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon

I'd like if no one said it, first and foremost. I want to make that expressly clear. So, just because it is common in black culture, does not mean white people are suddenly handed a right to use it willy-nilly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RagnaToad

I don't think anyone, apart from Sasquatch maybe, really disagrees with this.

---

I'm not sure. I disagree with it because it's a racially prejudiced double-standard, just as I disagree with any other racially prejudiced double-standard. I'm sure there are more people out there who also disagree with racial double-standards.

What's ironic is that the people like me who believe "nigger" is either acceptable for everybody or for nobody -- as in, if somebody wants to bitch about its use, bitch at everybody who uses it -- are labeled as "racist" by some others -- as we've even seen here. Those same people that would label me "racist" also support a double-standard, believing that something that is unacceptable for one race to do is acceptable, or more acceptable, for another to do. Which is the very epitome of racism -- that one race shouldn't do something that another race should.

My point all along is that it's right or it's wrong, period. It's not okay for one group but bad for another, it's not "more acceptable" depending on the color of skin of the person who uses it, it's okay or it's not okay. That's it, end of story.

And some people have the arrogance and ignorance to call me "racist" for not believing that different races shouldn't be looked at in the same way? Kids, kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'm not sure. I disagree with it because it's a racially prejudiced double-standard, just as I disagree with any other racially prejudiced double-standard. I'm sure there are more people out there who also disagree with racial double-standards.

---

I meant among those who have posted in this thread.

Quote:

---

What's ironic is that the people like me who believe "nigger" is either acceptable for everybody or for nobody -- as in, if somebody wants to bitch about its use, bitch at everybody who uses it -- are labeled as "racist" by some others -- as we've even seen here. Those same people that would label me "racist" also support a double-standard, believing that something that is unacceptable for one race to do is acceptable, or more acceptable, for another to do. Which is the very epitome of racism -- that one race shouldn't do something that another race should.

---

This is the essence of the problem, and pretty much what I said in my previous posts.

Quote:

---

My point all along is that it's right or it's wrong, period. It's not okay for one group but bad for another, it's not "more acceptable" depending on the color of skin of the person who uses it, it's okay or it's not okay. That's it, end of story.

---

It is bad to say for everyone theoretically. But it's normal that it is accepted when it is used by a black person in an act of self-mockery. The use of the word strengthens the feeling that they are connected by their history too. It's just too bad that is has become normal to use it, from one black person to another, while the semantics are not gone at all, mainly due to still existing racist movements in the US.

Like I said two times already: It will be a natural process, but it will never be fully accepted. So I'm guessing it will remain generally not accepted, but just less politically incorrect. Especially if you consider how black artists in pop culture are the standard for coolness these days.

Quote:

---

And some people have the arrogance and ignorance to call me "racist" for not believing that different races shouldn't be looked at in the same way? Kids, kids.

---

Who? :huh?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

And some people have the arrogance and ignorance to call me "racist" for not believing that different races shouldn't be looked at in the same way? Kids, kids.

---

Are you referring to me? I don't think you are racist in a conventional sense, just as I am not a racist. You called me a racist even though I never use racist words, have friends of many races, etc.

It is racist to believe in superiority of one race over another, but not racist to suggest that different people have different rights to different things. One size does not always fit all. This is an opinion, but I don't believe it is racist in the sense that one race is better than another. Black people have a greater right to the word IMO, but not because black people are superior.

I didn't outright call you racist anyway. I said that because you think the word "nigger" should be used in some situations (as long as everyone can use it freely), then it may be that you are somewhat more racist than I am, as I'd never tolerate the word being used by everyone, and indeed think that no one should use it. You're not a racist, as you don't believe in superiority of race, do you? Neither do I. So don't take my words too literally, 'kid'.

It honestly is a double-standard. I'm not going to go into who should be able to say it and how much it should be said since it's not my place, but when you attempt to create social etiquette that varies based on the color of one's skin you also create an ethnic bias. Whether or not it frames a certain ethnicity as "superior" is beside the point. It runs counter to social equality and fortifies perceived ethnic boundaries.

That said, the way society generally views its proper use is a byproduct of existing discrimination. I find it hard to view it as just a social quirk. Attempting to have a logical debate on its use is rather pointless when it stems from and is driven by something much, much larger that won't be disappearing without a lot of effort and/or time.

[QUOTE=Alpha Weapon;1221130]







First, it is your opinion that free speech is an unalienable right. I know plenty who disagree. The ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, and the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, are two very prominent examples of people who don't share your sentiment. They are sane, as far as I am aware. In fact, they are the people responsible for some miraculous economic recovery in their countries. So not only are they sane, but they are skilled. [Please note that I still dislike them]

Personally, I cherish free speech. Although I doubt I cherish it as much as Americans do (along with their right to a gun, which, frankly, is pathetic and stupid). Where I especially disagree with you in your statement is in this line:



What kind of protest is using the word "nigger"? That's silly. You are not protesting anything by using that word. It is clearly an offensive word, and it's use is unnecessary.

Imploring people to not use the n-word is not placing limits on free speech. When did I suggest that I would imprison people for saying it?

Free speech is an unalienable right, whether or not people recognize it is up to them, with the right to life comes the right to speech.

The Second Amendment is easily understood when the reason behind its inclusion is discovered. The British government seized all guns from the colonists so they could not fight back efficiently. The founders put this in because a person has the right to defend themselves and it goes along with when a government no longer serves the people, the citizens can oust the current government and create a government which does (inspired by John Locke), oddly enough even though the colonists used that logic to revolt, it is illegal to do so now against the U.S government which I find sad and hypocritical. It's in place to protect against criminals, who are more afraid of regular citizens secretly having a gun than law enforcement, and for protection against tyrranical and renegade governments.

Using the n-word is not a form of protest, however what I did say is, that free speech protects the voice of the minority, the protester, the dissenter; I see now that I needed to use "and" in the sentence as you could not figure it out. I never said they were protesters however, it is in the minority and more importantly if is speech, which all is protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

Free speech is an unalienable right, whether or not people recognize it is up to them, with the right to life comes the right to speech.

---

That is not a fact, although I agree with it. But the right to speak out against a perceived injustice is to utilise free speech, not the right to use every single word we know of, despite the obvious racial implications these words may or may not carry.

Quote:

---

The Second Amendment is easily understood when the reason behind its inclusion is discovered. The British government seized all guns from the colonists so they could not fight back efficiently. The founders put this in because a person has the right to defend themselves and it goes along with when a government no longer serves the people, the citizens can oust the current government and create a government which does (inspired by John Locke), oddly enough even though the colonists used that logic to revolt, it is illegal to do so now against the U.S government which I find sad and hypocritical. It's in place to protect against criminals, who are more afraid of regular citizens secretly having a gun than law enforcement, and for protection against tyrranical and renegade governments.

---

You're wrong. The right to change an ineffective/unjust/tyrannical government (Locke) can be achieved democratically. States have a monopoly on the means of violence. If violence against the sovereign state was justified on the grounds that people didn't agree, then the Social Contract (Rousseau) would be nullified, and one would likely find themselves in anarchy. In democratic states, we simply vote for someone else if you don't agree with the prevailing party. Though this is somewhat limited in America's two-party system.

Quote:

---

Using the n-word is not a form of protest, however what I did say is, that free speech protects the voice of the minority, the protester, the dissenter; I see now that I needed to use "and" in the sentence as you could not figure it out. I never said they were protesters however, it is in the minority and more importantly if is speech, which all is protected.

---

Of course free speech protects the right of the minority. But what you're advocating is the right for everyone to use the word "n*gger", which would be to protect the rights of the majority (i.e. everyone) to use the word. I don't want the government to start imprisoning people for using certain words, but I would like if people certainly used the word less, if not ceasing altogether. This is not some infringement against a minority - indeed it more fully protects rights of the disadvantaged, who are safe from a word which has been (and is still on a certain level) used to oppress and offend them.

In my opinion, if the song uses the word "*****" then it's probably crap anyway. Go listen to some Beattles, Depeche Mode, Toad the wet Sprocket, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, REM, Huey Lewis, Michael Jackson, Darius Rucker, etc. Don't listen to crap.

i say that he can why cant he

Highskill, you totally missed the boat on the intellectual part of intellectual discussion.

The way I see it, the word has taken on a new meaning. It's like the word gay or fag. Both of those words have previously had different meanings, happy and a slang term for a cigarette, and now they both mean homosexual. Today, nigger, or nigga as it comes up in rap, is more of a term of endearment.

Now, if black people are using it, given it's whole history and all, that can mean one of many things:


1. Black people are finally okay with it being used. I mean, Obama's President; all that slavery stuff is in the past now, right?
Right, it's all forgiven cause he's President? We can all have our rainbow coalition and our koolaid and our free* healthcare and save the whales, and call each other nigga? Cause I mean, aren't we all each other's nigga now in this golden age?


2. Black people think it's their word, because that's what us evil white folk called them.
Ok, cool. Then I guess me and my white friends will refer to each other as "gwai lo" (white devil/ ghost), because that's what the Chinese refer to us white guys as. Cause that makes a whole lot of sense. So China, back the fuck off, gwai lo is ours now, and you can't say it.


3. Maybe black people think it's ironic?
"You guys know what would be totally cool? If we called each other 'nigger,' cause that's what the white people used to call us when we were slaves. Oh, and lets use it around them as a subtle fuck you to them, like "Oh, fuck you whitey, I'm not your nigger anymore, but you see Tyrone over here, he's mine. But he's not my nigger, he's my nigga." Yeah I'm confused too

It's gotta be one of those.

Anyway, I think if they use it, so should everyone else.

AT THE SAME TIME. You don't see other races using such terms in regards to each other. Asian- Americans don't go around calling each other gooks or dinks. White-Americans don't go around calling each other white bread or anything like that. Indians/ Arabs don't call each other towelhead or Abu. But of course black people go and call each other nigger.

If you treat yourself with respect, then so will others. If you're a slut, you can't slap a guy if he says he'd like to fuck you.





Hell yeah, I totally blew up the censors.

*free= totally taking like 60% of our paycheck for this

@ Pete - Bravo!!! I love you my conservative/rational gwai lo.

Okay, just because Chez isn't around as much to enforce the rules of Intellectual Discussion doesn't mean it's a one-liner free-for-all. Lucky for you guys, I'm more than willing to step in. :)

Read the rules of Intellectual Discussion and follow them or I'll warn you. It's cool with me if your post is brief, but you should at least put some thought into it. I've given spam warnings to two people in this thread so far, so I thought it was time to make a post for everyone's benefit. And here it is.

As an afterthought to Alisyn's post, I'd like to point out the little "Thanks" button on the lower-left side of each post. It's the one with the check and the X. When you have small things to say in response to a post, do it that way. It's not such a big deal in GC where conversation like that is encouraged, but in ID where debates and intellectual discussions are meant to be held, it's a bit derailing.

I'm not wanting to discourage you from responding, just do so in an appropriate manner.

In other news, I've been meaning to post in this thread for a while. I'll have to do that at some point.

While I'm not quite sure what he's really talking about in the second half of the video, the first half definitely has a correlation to this thread. It's an interesting listen.

YouTube - Chris Rock view on the n word

Hang on... I'm willing to test this question...

*play Nigga Please on youtube and sings along*


Hmm, all data points to the conclusion that a white person can, in fact, sing along to the word "Nigga."

Should you care to hear my opinion on whether or not they should... Personally, Nigga is a despoilment of the word nigger which comes from niger meaning...obviously...black. The meaning and social status of the word has shifted many times in just the last few years.

Apart from just now, I don't sing and I don't say it... But then I don't say much in the way of anything. Do I think that I would let a general social taboo prevent me from saying it, should I like to? No.

But words are amazing tools, they can be weapons, they can be medicinal, they can be many things. I always think what effect certain expressions would have and I never use them lightly. Not to mention that I can't come up with a situation, at the moment, in which I would need to say it. I don't feel it's necessary to say in order to commune with black people... lol It's just a word and there are enough words out there for us to be choosy and clever without having to say any particular word.

-Sin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Are you referring to me? I don't think you are racist in a conventional sense, just as I am not a racist. You called me a racist even though I never use racist words, have friends of many races, etc.

It is racist to believe in superiority of one race over another, but not racist to suggest that different people have different rights to different things. One size does not always fit all. This is an opinion, but I don't believe it is racist in the sense that one race is better than another. Black people have a greater right to the word IMO, but not because black people are superior.

I didn't outright call you racist anyway. I said that because you think the word "nigger" should be used in some situations (as long as everyone can use it freely), then it may be that you are somewhat more racist than I am, as I'd never tolerate the word being used by everyone, and indeed think that no one should use it. You're not a racist, as you don't believe in superiority of race, do you? Neither do I. So don't take my words too literally, 'kid'.

---

It is racist to suggest that different people have different rights to different things; when you take into account a person's/people's race as to what "rights" they have, what they can do, how great or pathetic they are, etc. then that is racism. Why is what you said racist? Because racism, the most primitive form of collectivism, is based on whether or not race is a factor, not the consequence of whatever is in question. If the outcome is good it is still racist just as it is if it is bad. Groups of people do not have rights, only individuals; otherwise certain people are more important, more protected, more special than others which if that group is a certain race it would be racist. You show once more you don't know the full extent of something, having a limited view of "racism". To you racism only pertains to negative side-affects and superiority, however racism encompasses anything that takes race as a factor. A black person got hired because they are black is racist. Believing that asians are low-lifes is racist. Protecting hispanics more than anyone else is racist, in terms of laws, is racist. Do you get the point.

I shall break down a statement you made: "It is racist to believe in superiority of one race over another, but not racist to suggest that different people have different rights to different things. One size does not always fit all. This is an opinion, but I don't believe it is racist in the sense that one race is better than another Black people have a greater right to the word IMO, but not because black people are superior."

First, I shall follow along your rationale for this. Different people have different rights to different things. Sometimes those "different people" will be broken down into their races. Thus, different races have different rights to different things. An example of such: Asians are given more tax breaks. Why were they given more tax breaks a person may say? The answer is because they are asian - because of their race. That right would be a "racist right". Now with I deduced with your logic: Different races havie different rights to different things. Why do different races have different rights to different things? Is it because of the things? No. Is it because of the rights? No. Their race is the determining factor to what rights they have to different things. This "logic" is based upon racism. I'll continue to prove it so: Black people have a greater right to the word IMO, but not because black people are superior. Who has a greater "right" to the word, what group has this "right"? Is it because of their sex? No, and if so that would be sexist. Is it because of their height, weight, where they live, or their religion? No. Then what distinguishes this group from other groups? Their race. It is because they are black that they have more "right" to the word - that is racist - the factor is because of their race not any other attribute or on an individual assessment.

What is racism then? It is this:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a person's genetic lineage - the notion that a person's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by their internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a person is to be judged, not by their own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a person's mind (not their cognitive apparatus, but its content) in inherited; that a person's convictions, values, and character are determined before they are born, by physical factors beyond their control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas - or of inherited knowledge - which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and humans.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes people from all other living species: their rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of a person's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race - and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share their racial origin.

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge - for an automatic evaluation of people's characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment - and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority - but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one's culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one's ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority - but as "ethnic" pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority - but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee, or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.

"Ethnicity" is an anti-concept, used as a disguise for the word "racism" - and it has no clearly definable meaning. The term "ethnicity" stresses the traditional, rather than the physiological characteristics of a group, such as language - but phsyiology, i.e., race is involved. So the advocacy of "ethnicity", means racism plus tradition - i.e., racism plus conformity - i.e., racism plus staleness. Ethnicity is not a valid consideration, morally or politically, and does not endow anyone with any special rights.

Here's something to throw a wrench at your, "only black people have the right to use the word". Most black people who use the word today are not of the proper age during the civil right's movement. The blacks who did live through it felt the hatred of the word and experienced the pain that word brought. I would say that if a black person who lived through the movement heard a black person say the word they would and should be more hurt than if a white person had said it. Why? Because blacks should know what that word brought and to use it so ignorantly and freely is insulting to the blacks who went through it. Furthermore, that does not mean whites have more right to use the word, or blacks who went through the civil right's movement, or blacks should not use the word - everybody, every individual, has the right to free speech, what they say is up to them, whether people like it does not violate any of their rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

That is not a fact, although I agree with it. But the right to speak out against a perceived injustice is to utilise free speech, not the right to use every single word we know of, despite the obvious racial implications these words may or may not carry.



You're wrong. The right to change an ineffective/unjust/tyrannical government (Locke) can be achieved democratically. States have a monopoly on the means of violence. If violence against the sovereign state was justified on the grounds that people didn't agree, then the Social Contract (Rousseau) would be nullified, and one would likely find themselves in anarchy. In democratic states, we simply vote for someone else if you don't agree with the prevailing party. Though this is somewhat limited in America's two-party system.



Of course free speech protects the right of the minority. But what you're advocating is the right for everyone to use the word "n*gger", which would be to protect the rights of the majority (i.e. everyone) to use the word. I don't want the government to start imprisoning people for using certain words, but I would like if people certainly used the word less, if not ceasing altogether. This is not some infringement against a minority - indeed it more fully protects rights of the disadvantaged, who are safe from a word which has been (and is still on a certain level) used to oppress and offend them.

---

Free speech is a right, whether or not to somebody recognizes that right is up to them, it does not stop being a right if they don't recognize, acknowledge, or believe it to be so. Of course it seems you have a case of moral cowardice and/or moral agnosticism, but that is not shocking.* And yes, free speech does mean anyone can use anyword as well, but you have a limited view of free speech, which is not free speech then. Allowing people to use whatever words they want is not evil, bad, or immoral. If you want people to use it less then don't accept it in your presence, don't support the industry that is involved in it, take personal steps to diminish the use of whatever word(s), but censorship or spouting irrational, racist, "perceived rights" is not the way.


And I never said that a government couldn't be changed through non-violent means, however when the government has a tyrannical, authoritarian, etc. grip on the people it is somewhat hard to change the government, because they people may not (probably don't) have the right to vote, or to vote for any real change. Which the means they can't change the government to recognize humanities inalienable rights, so what then can they do? Take the abuse in power or to fight for their rights? To be slaves or to be a free people. An actual revolution is a justified way to regain freedom, because any government that infringes/violates the rights of the people has no claim to legitimacy, sovereignty, or rights to exist. Therefore people can overthrow the government to set up a government that will protect their rights. Once more democracy does not equal freedom to everyone just the majority which can never be justified as it does not ensure the rights of all the people and everyone has inalienable rights. And in the case of the colonists they were not represented in Parliament, they really had no vote(s) to change things, so they were stuck with what they had unless they stood up and took claim to their rights. People may not agree with what the government is doing, however that does not mean the government is oppressive and needs to be overthrown. The reason I say this is because what a person may want, could end up violating somebody's rights and the government is there to protect against such violation. It is not as simple as I want this or I revolt, the government must not be protecting, upholding, or respecting the rights of the people for them to overthrow the government. Another example would be: "person A" or "group A" wants universal healthcare but the government respects, upholds, and protects the rights of humanity and thus cannot do that. That example does not give a right for "group A" or "person A" to overthrow the government, because the government or anyone cannot violate the rights of anyone, ever!Thus, anarchy would not be the end result.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill - but the inalienable individual right of another person to live. This is not a "compromise" between two rights - but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society - but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society - but is implicit in the definition of your own right. Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.

And allowing people to use whatever words they want is not evil or bad. If you want people to use it less then don't accept it in your presence, don't support the industry that is involved in it, but censorship is not the way.

Once more, you are claiming that a group has more rights than an individual and that you fight for the rights of the "minority"; when will you ever learn that the smallest minority is the individual? Individual equals 1. Group is 2 or more. A group as such, has no rights. A person can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which they possess. The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some people, but not to others - that some people have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please. A group has no more rights than the rights of its individuals members. If the government or a person restricts what any individual can say then that is a violation of that individual's rights.

And I too find it peculiar that only blacks use a insulting word to address themselves in common speech but no other race, at least at such a wide spread level, does the same.

This may be subject to editing, but I believe I have gotten everything down.

Saying it and following along with a song is perfectly fine, if they didnt want us white people to say it they wouldnt have put in the snogs right...I have four black friends that I grew up with and they are like my brothers and when we hang out they refer to me as there ***** and in return I refer to them as the same thing...But outside of my friends I would never use the "N Word" for simple reason I used it once before when I was young around a group of black people thinking it was cool because all my friends were okay with it well I got my ass beat down by about 6 black people...That is exactly why I never use it outside of my friends...

Yes, s/he can imo. I do it myself. Afterall it is just a song. As long as it isn't directed offencively at a black person, no offence should be taken. Much like my view on swearing. It is fine, providing it isn't thrown at others to insult. It is your choice to get offended.