how could i have missed that? color me embarrassed.

honestly dude, was the telling you you're not black thing not obviously sarcastic enough? fine, whatever. i am a bad person and your chastisement has been righteous. way to go champ, you can now retire victorious.

Color me surprised that when some random fuckbag on the internet "sarcastically" says racially insensitive things, strangers who don't know him from a kick in the nuts are suspicious and doubt whether the aforementioned things are, in fact, being said sarcastically.

An anonymous internet message board is not the forum for blowing our minds with your hillarious barrier breaking "sarcastic" racial insensitivity. At least, it's not the forum to do it if you hope to do it without being shouted down. But you knew that already, didn't you?

racially insensitive? ok, let's break it down:

Hey, brain. He said you were being (which you admit) "Sarcastically racially insensitive." He was pointing out that the sarcasm (which, again, you yourself have said was sarcasm) doesn't translate all the time, and since you're a big boy, you should understand that.

Way to miss the point, for about the 1,000th time.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 29, 2006 12:09 PM

oyaji said:

Zarth said:

emotedcreations said:
he was screaming the n word over and over again... calling these dudes a bunch of n---s. it was pretty fucking bad... using the term abuse isn't that far off

You have to understand that d20 doesn't believe that black people should be offended when a white man calls them "nigger" and talks about lynching them. He thinks they ought to just man up about it. And that if you don't agree with him, you must suffer from "white guilt."

Gee. While we're talking about daddies and "white guilt" -- my daddy had so much "white guilt" that he spent almost 40 years as a litigator for the NAACP LDF. He always claimed that it was because he believes in justice and equality, but I always suspected that he gave up the opportunity to make millions of dollars as a commercial litigator to work in public interest because of "white guilt."

It seems like a lot of people here are suffering from "not-bright guilt."

mattmar

United Kingdom

November 2004

NOV 29, 2006 12:25 PM

This thread belongs on the Shit Wankers forum.
x

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 29, 2006 12:30 PM

mattmar said:
This thread belongs on the Shit Wankers forum.
x

mattmar said:
I would just like to take this opportunity to say the word Nigger.
x

You're really not the brightest guy in the world are you? Why don't you take your brilliant observations and leave?

d20

San Francisco, CA

September 2003

NOV 29, 2006 12:30 PM

oyaji said:
You are missing my point. The point is the internets are not the place to make whatever point you are trying to make to black people. I'm not certain that there is any place that would be appropriate, but a place where you have no credibility (by virtue of the anonymous nature of the forum) is definitely not the place. Why you feel the need to make such a point is a bit bizarre, really.

fair enough, but i'm not trying to make a point about black people. honestly, all i said at the beginning of this thread was a "wtf" at the term "racially abusing". everything that came afterwards was thanks to Zarth jumping on someone else's (rather measured and sane) response to what i said and going to town on it. so...

oyaji said:
No one is out to get a villian. I have no idea who you are. You are not significant enough to anyone on this site for it to make sense to cast you as a bete noir of some sort. Get over yourself. I'm not saying that to be snarky. I'm saying it because you've given indications that you have an overblown sense of being persecuted on this thread. No one is persecuting you. No one cares enough about you to persecute you.

...in this instance, i'm not sure what else to call Zarth posting in my journal and generally hounding me. i'm aware of how public forums work, and am in fact employed to take care of a significant number of tubes. i don't think everyone in this thread who disagrees with me is going after me, but i do think it's fair to say that a few people are.

either way, wah wah wah, poor me. i know that the CE boards are harsh and can deal with it, i'm just tired of race-related topics turning into instant gong shows due to people getting intensely emotional over the topic.

and, since that has such an obvious response: yes, i know racism is an emotional topic, and justifiably so. this whole goddamn time all i've been trying to say is that i think people are going over the top with it. if you think i'm wrong, cool, but there's a difference between "you're wrong" and the ridiculous levels that CE threads get to.

i don't know why i'm even explaining this. it's a message board... one of the basic things about these are that you shouldn't get personally involved in them. is it really that hard for people to just debate something without it degenerating into shit like this?

mydogfarted

Waldwick, NJ

June 2003

NOV 29, 2006 12:34 PM

Summary:
Do we have a legal right to say the "n word"? YES
Are people allowed to be offended by it or any other word? YES
Just because you CAN do it, does it mean you should? NO
Is Rev. Jackson asking private business owners to bar the use of a word in a setting that the business owner are allowed to do so? YES
Is that wrong? NO

DhD_No_Pants

Katy, TX

May 2006

NOV 29, 2006 12:34 PM

mydogfarted said:
Summary:
Do we have a legal right to say the "n word"? YES
Are people allowed to be offended by it or any other word? YES
Just because you CAN do it, does it mean you should? NO
Is Rev. Jackson asking private business owners to bar the use of a word in a setting that the business owner are allowed to do so? YES
Is that wrong? NO

Good Summary.

Vestril

Coronado, CA

February 2003

NOV 29, 2006 12:44 PM

either way, wah wah wah, poor me. i know that the CE boards are harsh and can deal with it, i'm just tired of race-related topics turning into instant gong shows due to people getting intensely emotional over the topic.

and, since that has such an obvious response: yes, i know racism is an emotional topic, and justifiably so. this whole goddamn time all i've been trying to say is that i think people are going over the top with it. if you think i'm wrong, cool, but there's a difference between "you're wrong" and the ridiculous levels that CE threads get to.

My problem is that you don't really seem qualified to judge what an acceptible amount of outrage about racism is. I still have no idea why you've made such a crusade out of this, in this thread or the Richards one.

i don't know why i'm even explaining this. it's a message board... one of the basic things about these are that you shouldn't get personally involved in them. is it really that hard for people to just debate something without it degenerating into shit like this?

Your choice of words has been fairly provocative in both threads, and you've generally been inflammatory and insulting in this one. You're contributing more than your fair share to the "degeneration" of the thread.

mattmar said:
I think this is getting blown up out of all proportion. Words themselves are not capable of being offensive: it is the intention behind them that is offensive. If your intention is to malign or incite violence against some person/s, then fine: you're a butthole. This is why a word, be it Nigger or Fag or Haddock or whatever, can never be 'banned' - it makes an utter mockery of the issue. Whether you say "Kill all Spicks" or "Kill or persons of Hispanic descent", you're still a racist. It is of vital importance to maintain perspective, and not to resort to reactionary myopia.
x

Words hurt people, racism is a problem in America--making an effort to address these two issues isn't really a bad thing. I hear what you're saying, a word is not necessarily racist in and of itself--but it can have a viceral effect on someone, especially when spat out by an intolerant prick. That deserves examination as well.

Also, none of that excuses your first post in the thread, which was painfully juvenile. Why? Read mydogfarted's post.

d20

San Francisco, CA

September 2003

NOV 29, 2006 01:03 PM

Vestril said:
My problem is that you don't really seem qualified to judge what an acceptible amount of outrage about racism is. I still have no idea why you've made such a crusade out of this, in this thread or the Richards one.

you know, that's true. i think off the bat i should have qualified it more as an entirely subjective statement -- or just not said it, since i've been around long enough to know the potential reaction to it. either way, you're right that people can be as outraged as they want, despite my personal distaste for it.

Vestril said:
Your choice of words has been fairly provocative in both threads, and you've generally been inflammatory and insulting in this one. You're contributing more than your fair share to the "degeneration" of the thread.

in the other thread, i think my comments were pretty much in line with your average CE debate (note: average CE debate, not the racial CE flail-fests i decried). with regards to this thread: i'm not usually polite to people who go out of their way to call me an idiot. if people who aren't Zarth (hi douchebag!) bristle at it, well, it's not for you.

mattmar

United Kingdom

November 2004

NOV 29, 2006 01:10 PM

...can have a viceral effect on someone, especially when spat out by an intolerant prick. That deserves examination as well.

Also, none of that excuses your first post in the thread, which was painfully juvenile.

But surely you hate the intolerant prick for being an intolerant prick, and not because s/he has a tendency to say a particular word, right?
An intolerant prick is a douche and says the 'N word' (Nigger) alot: One dislikes him.
Chris Rock is a champ and he also says the 'N word' alot: One loves him, despite for his mediocre film output. (Seriously, Down to Earth?)
This whole thing reminds of Lenny Bruce's point that if the then president JFK went on TV and pointed out all the 'Niggers' in his cabinet that were helping to make America a better place, then maybe a young black child wouldn't come home crying from school because some idiot called him a 'Nigger'. It's a WORD, nothing more. It was this point that I was trying to make with my first post. I realise now that perhaps that was not abundently clear. If I sounded racist, then I apologise for misleading you all.
x

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

NOV 29, 2006 01:11 PM

d20 said:
you know, that's true. i think off the bat i should have qualified it more as an entirely subjective statement -- or just not said it, since i've been around long enough to know the potential reaction to it. either way, you're right that people can be as outraged as they want, despite my personal distaste for it.

Which is just what I've been saying all along. I'm burying the hatchet now.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

mamhth

Placentia, CA

January 2004

NOV 29, 2006 01:27 PM

It's sad that Jesse Jackson has to turn his media hungery ego to this event, while rape and murder are happening at a horrific rate in Darfur. But then again there's no money to exploit in Sudan, just poor africans.