• Donald Trump elected President of the United States - Deal with it, lmao
    1,893 replies, posted
[QUOTE=phygon;51344607]No. It's always been an incredibly offensive word, dude.[/QUOTE] When I was a kid they said it on the news, I don't think everyone considered it offensive.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;51344640]When I was a kid they said it on the news, I don't think everyone considered it offensive.[/QUOTE] The difference is that when you were a kid, straight people didn't find it offensive. How many news readers do you think you saw who were trans when you were a kid? How many do you see nowadays? It [I]is[/I] offensive, and always has been. But in the 90s, we didn't give a shit what we said about groups of people even if what we said was really marginalising. Now, society is moving forward in that we attempt to be more welcoming. Certain things are not okay to say anymore because we have a duty to take responsibility for the marginalization and isolation of certain communities.
I hate this election year. I hate it. A cesspool of political ideas now have merit. I have little hope for the coming four years other than Trump will probably cause another recession.
At least it's only for 4 years, surely the Democrats can easily get someone that can beat Trump. Right?
[QUOTE=Ardosos;51344640]When I was a kid they said it on the news, I don't think everyone considered it offensive.[/QUOTE] Back a couple decades it was still considered "acceptable" to publicly discriminate angainst POC and LGBT people, with words like "nigger", "faggot", "chink" and "dyke" being commonplace language. It was still just as offensive then as it is now, we were apparently just worse fucking human beings back then. (And guess which recently elected president was born and raised in those "golden years".) Trans acceptance is still a new concept, like, within the last decade, and it still has a long, long, [I]long[/I] way to go. I mean, not too long ago, it was [I]literally illegal[/I] to be gay or part of a mixed race marriage. You could be fired from your job or thrown out of armed forces for being gay. And that's not even getting into the shit women have had to (and continue to) put up with over the years. We love to look back on history, at people like the nazis and the communists and think "wow we're so much better than them these days!" And pat ourselves on the back, and to be fair, we [I]have[/I] made massive strides since then. But the cold hard fact is that our world is still full of discrimination, still full of hate speech, still full of ignorant, arrogant, narrow minded people who either don't know or refuse to acknowledge how toxic a lot of the shit we're dealing with today is. That's why the Trump presidency is so fucking scary for so many of us. He has made it clear as day how he and his supporters feel about their fellow human beings. Trump declaring plans to deport millions of people, planning to reverse gay marriage rights, allowing delusional scumbags like Pence to go ahead with their horrendous ideas like "conversion therapy"... It no different to Hitler standing up on a podium and blaming all of Germany's problems on Jews and capitalism. And if you think me comparing Trump to Hitler is "extreme" or "cliche", just remember that Hitler launched his political campaign under the pretences of "restoring Germany to it former glory". Hitler was open about his hatred towards POC and LGBT people. Hitler announced his nationalistic and xenophobic opinions loudly and clearly. Hitler was supported by just as - if not more - toxic people with horrible plans of their own. And as rancid icing on the rotten cake, Hitler also lost the popular vote but rose to power regardless. Sounds familiar, don't it? When people call Trump a fascist, and call his policies archaic, and talk about how legitimately fucking afraid they are, [I]this is why.[/I]
-snip, retarded post-
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51344823]-snip, retarded post-[/QUOTE] The outer pane breaking up would have created shards that increased the impact area on the inner pane I expect. Kinda like an exit wound from a bullet, you're dragging the projectile AND any impact surface you hit with you after all.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51344654]The difference is that when you were a kid, straight people didn't find it offensive. How many news readers do you think you saw who were trans when you were a kid? How many do you see nowadays? It [I]is[/I] offensive, and always has been. But in the 90s, we didn't give a shit what we said about groups of people even if what we said was really marginalising. Now, society is moving forward in that we attempt to be more welcoming. Certain things are not okay to say anymore because we have a duty to take responsibility for the marginalization and isolation of certain communities.[/QUOTE] I don't get it. If everybody used it as the regular way to refer to them then it's not derogatory. How can it be considered offensive if people who used the word didn't do it in a way that was particularly disparaging?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51344833]The outer pane breaking up would have created shards that increased the impact area on the inner pane I expect. Kinda like an exit wound from a bullet, you're dragging the projectile AND any impact surface you hit with you after all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, makes sense lol. Realized it was a dumb question immediately after posting
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344845]I don't get it. If everybody used it as the regular way to refer to them then it's not derogatory. How can it be considered offensive if people who used the word didn't do it in a way that was particularly disparaging?[/QUOTE] You do realize that referring to black people as niggers was considered the regular way (along with negro) back in the 1800s, right?
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;51344810]At least it's only for 4 years, surely the Democrats can easily get someone that can beat Trump. Right?[/QUOTE] One can hope yeah. If they figure their shit out in 2 maybe they can win the Senate but since they couldn't do it this time it will be tough
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51344864]You do realize that referring to black people as niggers was considered the regular way (along with negro) back in the 1800s, right?[/QUOTE] And why was it inherently offensive back then? Etymologically it just means "black". It only became offensive gradually because of changes in language and its historical use. Words by themselves don't mean anything without context.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344845]I don't get it. If everybody used it as the regular way to refer to them then it's not derogatory. How can it be considered offensive if people who used the word didn't do it in a way that was particularly disparaging?[/QUOTE] Because people did, and do, use it in an offensive way all the time! It's the term used to refer to a trans person almost exclusively when they get bashed up, or when walking down the street and having it shouted at them! It's the word used to refer to them by people who are either intolerant, or ignorant of what their situation is. In the 90s, the difference was that the word was considered innocuous in the same way that transgender discrimination just [I]wasn't a problem[/I]. Noone cared about it! As we learn more about it we realise that if a newsreader just refers to them as a tranny for example, they might think that's totally fine, they're not being malicious at all, just using the term that they know to refer to them as. However, while it might not be malicious, it's dangerously ignorant at best and unempathetic at worst, because for any given transgender person, that word is the word they associate with being bashed, or watching a friend in their community get bashed. Hearing a person use the word then as if it means nothing just makes them seem worthless in the eyes of themselves and everybody else. Ultimately, I don't know where the milk of human kindness has gone in a lot of people as well. These words don't mean anything to a straight guy, or a cis girl, for example, but they sure as hell mean a lot to the people they're talking about - and say what you want about political correctness, but when it comes to decent respectful behaviour, the decent, respectful thing to do is to learn the connotations and refrain from saying these things. It's not a regression of society, and it's not thought policing though sometimes it feels like it is. It's an advancement of society's understanding of true etiquette and respect towards all others and a natural extension of the christian value to love your neighbour [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;51344880]And why was it inherently offensive back then? Etymologically it just means "black". It only became offensive gradually because of changes in language and its historical use.[/QUOTE] Yes, but that's not nothing. You can't divorce a word from its historical context. In fact the historical context of a word is one of the most important things about it, and more importantly you're right - words mean nothing without context. But when you say a word, you need to accept that in saying that word, you're bringing the weight of that word's history with it, and you really don't get a say in that.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51344888]Yes, but that's not nothing. You can't divorce a word from its historical context. In fact the historical context of a word is one of the most important things about it[/QUOTE] But the word didn't have a historical context yet at this point? It only became a racist word [I]after[/I] people started using other words to refer to black people and racists held onto this one. How would non-racist people at the time refer to black people when there was no other word for it? Historical context is not retroactive, the word becoming racist doesn't change the past somehow along with the connotations (or lack thereof) it had at the time.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344880]And why was it inherently offensive back then? Etymologically it just means "black". It only became offensive gradually because of changes in language and its historical use. Words by themselves don't mean anything without context.[/QUOTE] It has always been a loaded term with negative conotations. Nobody has ever used the term "nigger" to refer to black people in anything other than a negative context. Nobody has ever used the term "trannie" to refer to transgendered people in anything other than a negative context. In the past, refering to those groups of people solely in a negative context was more socially acceptable. More recently, sometimes people have used the terms ironically, which only works because of the pre-existing negative context. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;51344909]But the word didn't have a historical context yet at this point? It only became a racist word [I]after[/I] people started using other words to refer to black people and racists held onto this one. How would non-racist people at the time refer to black people when there was no other word for it? Historical context is not retroactive, the word becoming racist doesn't change the past somehow along with the connotations (or lack thereof) it had at the time.[/QUOTE] "nigger" has always been used to refer to black people in a solely negative context, it has never not been used in that context. "Trannie" is the same when it comes to trans people.
Which of those two statements is true? [QUOTE=Alice3173;51344864]You do realize that referring to black people as niggers was considered the regular way (along with negro) back in the 1800s, right?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zyler;51344933]"nigger" has always been used to refer to black people in a solely negative context, it has never not been used in that context.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51344379][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw3DkSAUUAElMpo.jpg[/t] lmao[/QUOTE] Clinton seemed to have spent her entire campaign just piggybacking on Trump's seemingly ridiculous antics and spectacular ability to shoot himself in the foot constantly, but didn't put forward any proper effort to fucking [I]convince[/I] anyone. Did she even have a catchphrase, a slogan, literally [I]anything[/I] of that nature ? Because there's nothing I remember that was filled that roll. She was just kind of there, hoping people would be scared of Trump and vote for her instead.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344909]But the word didn't have a historical context yet at this point? It only became a racist word [I]after[/I] people started using other words to refer to black people and racists held onto this one. How would non-racist people at the time refer to black people when there was no other word for it?[/QUOTE] They couldn't have. However, we look back on that time now and generally accept that there weren't many if any non-racist people by our current standards. African Americans were slaves at that point so it's sort of hard to not be a racist by today's definition in that environment. Racism isn't a yes or no thing. And that's sort of the point. Back then it was common to call black people Negroes. But it was also sort of common to do that whether or not you were talking to them to their face, or giving them 90 lashes for not picking up enough cotton or whatever. So the word didn't mean anything at the time to anyone, but it sure as hells means something to black people now. It means a reminder of a time when it was okay to call them that while we owned them as slaves And that's what I mean, you can't divorce yourself from that context. We used to call them that when they had no human rights. So when a person calls them that now, the word is reinforced with the weight of that history and meaning. The same thing for words like tranny. Like it or not when you say it you're using an antiquated word that basically harks back to a time when their rights were severely compromised, and that's not a problem of the other person's interpretation - that's a problem of message.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51344383]Same as nigger[/QUOTE] No it's not the same as nigger, you can call yourself a despicable insult without having to constantly fucking draw parallels with other insults. Saying tranny is the same as nigger is absolutely fucking pants-on-head retarded no matter how you put it and you should seriously rethink your logic if you thought it was something good to say.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344880]And why was it inherently offensive back then? Etymologically it just means "black". It only became offensive gradually because of changes in language and its historical use. Words by themselves don't mean anything without context.[/QUOTE] Actually nigger's origin is older than that and the context is "ignorant stupid person". It never meant just "black person" in the english language.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344947]Which of those two statements is true?[/QUOTE] Okay I see you're not understanding me. There's two things are facts: 1)"nigger" was considered the regular way of refering to a black person in the 1800s 2)"nigger" has always been used in a negative context to refer to black people Both of these statements are true. The word "nigger" was both considered the regular way of an english-speaking white person to refer to a black person, and it was also used in a negative context. This is because when an english-speaking white person refered to a black person in the 1800s, it was pretty much always in a negative context. Does that make sense? The two statements are not contradictory.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51344958]No it's not the same as nigger, you can call yourself a despicable insult without having to constantly fucking draw parallels with other insults. Saying tranny is the same as nigger is absolutely fucking pants-on-head retarded no matter how you put it and you should seriously rethink your logic if you thought it was something good to say.[/QUOTE] The only difference between the two is the group they refer to and the relative age of those words. But I'd appreciate it if you could provide some reasons why you think they're different instead of insulting him and then saying the phrase 'rethink your logic' as if that means the sentence you just made was intellectually credible in any way [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;51344966]Okay I see you're not understanding me. There's two things are facts: 1)"nigger" was considered the regular way of refering to a black person in the 1800s 2)"nigger" has always been used in a negative context to refer to black people Both of these statements are true. The word "nigger" was both considered the regular way of an english-speaking white person to refer to a black person, and it was also used in a negative context. This is because when an english-speaking white person refered to a black person in the 1800s, it was pretty much always in a negative context. Does that make sense? The two statements are not contradictory.[/QUOTE] Nigger was the regular way of referring to a black person in the 1800s and has always been negative - because in the 1800s black people were literal slaves, and when they ended slavery, the word was co-opted pretty quickly. It's not a word with a pleasant history and we need to move past it.
[url]http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/nigger-word-brief-history[/url] [QUOTE]The history of the word nigger is often traced to the Latin word niger, meaning Black. This word became the noun, Negro (Black person) in English, and simply the color Black in Spanish and Portuguese. In early modern French, niger became negre and, later, negress (Black woman) was unmistakably a part of language history. One can compare to negre the derogatory nigger and earlier English substitutes such as negar, neegar, neger, and niggor that developed into its lexico-semantic true version in English. It is probable that nigger is a phonetic spelling of the White Southern mispronunciation of Negro. No matter what its origins, by the early 1800s, it was firmly established as a derogative name. In the 21st century, it remains a principal term of White racism, regardless of who is using it. Social scientists agree that words like nigger, kike, spic, and wetback come from three categories: disparaging nicknames (chink, dago, nigger); explicit group devaluations ("Jew him down" or "niggering the land"); and irrelevant ethnic names used as a mild disparagement ("jewbird" for cuckoos having prominent beaks or "Irish confetti" for bricks thrown in a fight.)[/QUOTE] The historical and scientific consensus is that the term has always been used in a derogatory context in English.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51344955]They couldn't have. However, we look back on that time now and generally accept that there weren't many if any non-racist people by our current standards. African Americans were slaves at that point so it's sort of hard to not be a racist by today's definition in that environment. Racism isn't a yes or no thing. And that's sort of the point. Back then it was common to call black people Negroes. But it was also sort of common to do that whether or not you were talking to them to their face, or giving them 90 lashes for not picking up enough cotton or whatever. So the word didn't mean anything at the time to anyone, but it sure as hells means something to black people now. It means a reminder of a time when it was okay to call them that while we owned them as slaves And that's what I mean, you can't divorce yourself from that context. We used to call them that when they had no human rights. So when a person calls them that now, the word is reinforced with the weight of that history and meaning. The same thing for words like tranny. Like it or not when you say it you're using an antiquated word that basically harks back to a time when their rights were severely compromised, and that's not a problem of the other person's interpretation - that's a problem of message.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing with you there, in fact I'm saying the same thing. The word wasn't offensive at the time, black people wouldn't get offended by being called this way because that was the only way they were referred to regardless of context and it didn't have any particular meaning the way it does nowadays.
On one hand the US election system proved to work perfectly as intended on the other hand it elected trump
regardless of who you voted for, I honestly don't care, but the people that were critical of trump for saying he would not accept defeat and would contest it, saying he needs to suck it up and not start some boo hoo twitter civil war and accept defeat, are now the exact same people that are crying, threatening to kill themselves, demanding that the outcome to be changed, and some are even going as far as starting riots, the hypocrisy is astounding.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344978]I'm not disagreeing with you there, in fact I'm saying the same thing. The word wasn't offensive at the time, black people wouldn't get offended by being called this way because that was the only way they were referred to regardless of context and it didn't have any particular meaning the way it does nowadays.[/QUOTE] It was offensive at the time, to black people and just not to white people who used the term. You understand? It was a derogatory term used to refer to black slaves, it has no other purpose except to disbarage black people for being slaves. That's how it was used then, and it's how it was used now.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51344978]I'm not disagreeing with you there, in fact I'm saying the same thing. The word wasn't offensive at the time, black people wouldn't get offended by being called this way because that was the only way they were referred to regardless of context and it didn't have any particular meaning the way it does nowadays.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, exactly. I think it's a huge deal nowadays even when you compare it to the 90s and I think words like faggot and tranny are the same Ultimately I think we have a responsibility as good people to avoid these words when referring to people. Words get displaced and replaced all the times and these ones are really suitable for the trash bucket because they're just mean things to say these days [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=NateLB;51344989]regardless of who you voted for, I honestly don't care, but the people that were critical of trump for saying he would not accept defeat and would contest it, saying he needs to suck it up and not start some boo hoo twitter civil war and accept defeat, are now the exact same people that are crying, threatening to kill themselves, demanding that the outcome to be changed, and some are even going as far as starting riots, the hypocrisy is astounding.[/QUOTE] That's called a vocal minority. It's not indicative of all the people who value a peaceful transition of power as a cornerstone of world democracies. If you judge a group by the yelly people in it you're just never gonna get along with anyone
[QUOTE=Zyler;51344966]Okay I see you're not understanding me. There's two things are facts: 1)"nigger" was considered the regular way of refering to a black person in the 1800s 2)"nigger" has always been used in a negative context to refer to black people Both of these statements are true. The word "nigger" was both considered the regular way of an english-speaking white person to refer to a black person, and it was also used in a negative context. This is because when an english-speaking white person refered to a black person in the 1800s, it was pretty much always in a negative context. Does that make sense? The two statements are not contradictory.[/QUOTE] Saying it was always used in a negative context to refer to black people is a generalization, even for the time. If one single individual ever referred to black people in a positive way in the 1800s, then you statement falls apart. [QUOTE=27X;51344964]Actually nigger's origin is older than that and the context is "ignorant stupid person". It never meant just "black person" in the english language.[/QUOTE] But "negro" does and it's offensive all the same nowadays.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51345003]Saying it was always used in a negative context to refer to black people is a generalization, even for the time. If so much as one single individual ever referred to black people in a positive way in the 1800s, then you statement falls apart.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, I'm not saying the word was never used in the history of the world in a way other than what it was intended to mean. I'm saying that the word has always been intended to be disparaging and derogatory, that was its purpose. It was invented by white slave owners to refer to black slaves in a derogatory fashion. Read the source I gave you. "Nigger" has never not been a racist, loaded term. [url]http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/nigger-word-brief-history[/url] [QUOTE]The history of the word nigger is often traced to the Latin word niger, meaning Black. This word became the noun, Negro (Black person) in English, and simply the color Black in Spanish and Portuguese. In early modern French, niger became negre and, later, negress (Black woman) was unmistakably a part of language history. One can compare to negre the derogatory nigger and earlier English substitutes such as negar, neegar, neger, and niggor that developed into its lexico-semantic true version in English. It is probable that nigger is a phonetic spelling of the White Southern mispronunciation of Negro. No matter what its origins, by the early 1800s, it was firmly established as a derogative name. In the 21st century, it remains a principal term of White racism, regardless of who is using it. Social scientists agree that words like nigger, kike, spic, and wetback come from three categories: disparaging nicknames (chink, dago, nigger); explicit group devaluations ("Jew him down" or "niggering the land"); and irrelevant ethnic names used as a mild disparagement ("jewbird" for cuckoos having prominent beaks or "Irish confetti" for bricks thrown in a fight.)[/QUOTE] The historical and scientific consensus is that the term has always been used in a derogatory context in English.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.