1
   

More Hate Crimes- Hangman's noose found on NYC prof's door

 
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 06:19 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;41785 wrote:
Face value...no. But if I could, I'd beat someone's ass for calling me that. Or try.
If you think it is permissible...why not be the big man that you profess that you are, and say the word in a crowded mall, full of black people....seems like that would prove the point. If the law is on your side...then the black people stomping you into the dirt, would be facing jail time...and perhaps, justifiably so...but you wouldn't be around to gloat. And therein lies the rub....you want there to be absolutely no reprocussions from your inordinate usage of a word that has fallen out of favor, being used by "whites" referring to "blacks".
No culpability. No responsibility...just going on "white privilege"...the status quo for time immemorial. Well, today, if class and culture and intelligence don't prevent you from using the word...some big black burly brute will, or some crazy black woman (personally, I'd be afraid of the woman...they like to throw hot grease)...try it and see.


I don't use the word, or any hateful speech because it is detrimental to my professional life (several of my co-workers are hispanic, one is black), and I generally find the treatment of people as part of a race in lieu of their individual characteristics idiotic.

You do agree however that all speech should be free, and that criminal penalties should exist for physical violence. This issue is now closed, since consensus has been achieved.
0 Replies
 
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 06:19 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;41805 wrote:
Oh, is that what you see? I rest my case. Not at all surprised.
I was born at night .....but not last night....it's a question that doesn't warrant asking or answering....but when you don't see the big deal, and are crying like a baby to actually use the word without the slightest consequences...I can understand your position. I better not ever hear anyone of you say it to my face.
And you call yourself "a moderator".....you couldn't moderate manure in a pig's sty.

i'm going to ignore your last comment......

Hypothetical:

We are at our first ever ConflictingViews get-together.
we are discussing a current event, such as this.

someone asks "Do you think it should be considered a crime to say the n-word"?

Do you:

A) lose it and throw down on the person for being a racist?
B) answer, "yes, it should be a crime because...."
C) answer, "no, it shouldn't be a crime because..."




from your post above, it sounds like you'd do A.
































unless, of course, if it was a black person posing the question, right? because you own the word?
AMERICAFIRST cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 06:32 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;41383 wrote:
People on this site have been banned for less. If this isn't racist, then I don't know what would be.
That the point,,"YOU DON'T KNOW"everything to you is the "WHITE MANS' fault, get over it dude, all races have their crappie people..
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 07:55 pm
@briansol,
briansol;41823 wrote:
i'm going to ignore your last comment......

Hypothetical:

We are at our first ever ConflictingViews get-together.
we are discussing a current event, such as this.

someone asks "Do you think it should be considered a crime to say the n-word"?

Do you:

A) lose it and throw down on the person for being a racist?
B) answer, "yes, it should be a crime because...."
C) answer, "no, it shouldn't be a crime because..."




from your post above, it sounds like you'd do A.
unless, of course, if it was a black person posing the question, right? because you own the word?


Look, don't get it twisted....I don't use the word. I don't refer to my friends by the word. I don't approve of the word....have I been called the word by other blacks...yes. Was I offended? no....why? because everything is "context"...they did not mean it as "demeaning"...it was to breed "familiarity", and a paradigm of understanding in the "shared experience" of being black in America....something that is beyond anyone white...it's like asking me to identify with Amish culture....it's foreign. It's interesting but it's beyond my comprehension...and I take it as such. I had an Amish friend who tried to explain the culture and customs to me...I could only absorb so much...was I supposed to get mad and upset because I didn't understand the motivations for why they did what they did? Or, was it one of those things that didn't require any further questioning or commentary, and simply to be let go?


Should it be a crime to say the word? Should it be a crime to tell some one "f...you?
A crime....I don't think it meets the standard for a "crime"...however, it's word, that should cause one to be ostracized...because it's offensive. It has an offensive and dark history, and it's a word that should not be in use, "by anyone", black, white or brown.
Reality of the situation is that using the word, could be hazardous to ones' health and well-being.
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 08:59 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;41831 wrote:
it's a word that should not be in use, "by anyone", black, white or brown.


now you're flip-flopping.

10 posts ago it was ok for black people to use it because they own it.
now you're saying its not ok for anyone to use it....
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 10:00 pm
@briansol,
briansol;41838 wrote:
now you're flip-flopping.

10 posts ago it was ok for black people to use it because they own it.
now you're saying its not ok for anyone to use it....


I am not flip-flopping....black people are the only people who can use the word. period...and get away with using it...for the reasons I mentioned before.
Al Sharpton, Paul Mooney, and Eric Michael Dyson, are but a few who are advocating blacks as well as whites, to stop using the word. period.
It's an ugly word.




Cornel West Vs. Michael Eric Dyson: N-Word Debate Resurfaces

The NAACP "buried" it. New York City banned it. But the N-word continues to resurface in ongoing debates, this time pitting two noted black scholars on opposite ends of the contentious debate.



Princeton's Cornel West and Georgetown University's Michael Eric Dyson deliberate on the place of the N-word in American culture, and whether you can truly bury words, on West's second hip-hop CD "Never Forget: A Journey of Revelations."






"You see, we need a renaissance of self-respect, a renewal of self-regard. And the term itself has been associated with such abuse," West said in an interview. "It associates black people with being inferior, subhuman and subordinate. So we ought to have a moratorium on the term. We ought not to use the term at all."

West teaches religion and African-American studies at Princeton.

In a recent interview with Diverse Issues in Higher Education, West said he wanted the CD to help "the older generation raise their voices and listen to the younger generation so that there can be an internal dialogue between the two generations."

But during a recent radio interview, Dyson has argued that words, particularly those with a dishonorable history like the N-word, refuse to be buried for long.



"I think the Holy Ghost of rhetorical fire will insist that the N-word not be buried. I don't think you can bury words," Dyson said. "I think the more you try to dismiss them, the more power you give to them, the more circulation they have. I think that there are many more issues that the NAACP should be focused on: structural inequality, social injustice, this war in Iraq, the imperial presidency, which has subverted the democracy of the country."



From Michael Richards' tirade to Don Imus' "nappy-head hos" comment, the use of socially unacceptable language has come under increasing scrutiny the last several months. Rappers who have used the word liberally on their recordings have come under criticism as the subject prompted DiversityInc readers to speak out.



Whether the word will ever permanently be banished from the public lexicon remains to be seen, but there's a groundswell of support urging its abolition. Students at the historically black Bowie State University banished the word from two dorms and charges those who use it with fines. The publisher of Ebony and Jet ordered writers late last year to stop using the word. The town of Brazoria, Texas, tried unsuccessfully to pass an ordinance leveling $500 fines for uttering the word.



How a Second Year Teacher Lives: “The N word is fraught with such enormous pain.” –Eric Michael Dyson
Saturday, May 19, 2007
“The N word is fraught with such enormous pain.” –Eric Michael Dyson

The quote in the title of the post is my inspiration for my writing today . . .I heard it on a news program this morning.

Last year, I had the great opportunity to teach contemporary issues. I think I will be teaching this course again for the 2nd semester following African American history. I am excited by this prospect; I have wanted to address the N word with my classes for soooo long. When I first taught CI, I addressed it briefly, not a lot of discussion; however, I am planning to seriously address this issue as apart of this course next year.

Why?

At the beginning of the year, I tell the kids my pet peeves—this is apart of my procedure, so as to let them know what will set me off & rub me the wrong way. They learn them and can quote them on command. The one thing that they are forbidden to do is use the N word. In a school that is 90% African American, this word is used all day by Black students toward other Black students. I never worry about my White students using the word— they just seem to know better—besides, in the mighty South, it could possibly end in a race fight. My African American students use the word so flippantly. Instead of saying, “whats up, hommie” or “hey, man,” they say things like “what’s up my N” or “that’s my N.” For them, it’s a term of endearment. For me, I can’t stand it. I flinch every single time I hear the word. No one can use this word.

I come back to Eric Michael Dyson’s quote; this word is hateful & painful. It is what we as African Americans have fought against for years. Civil Rights activists were murders, beaten and discriminated against—the perpetrators ALL used this word. This word was used jeeringly at public lynchings. It WAS NOT used affectionately. And it IS NOT affectionate. I don’t understand how this word can be RE-DEFINED, when it has a racial stigma still attached to it. There is no way this term could be endearing. In my opinion, saying it is endearing or affectionate is absurd. When we use this word over and over again and allow the world to see it, we proclaim that we are “happy little darkies.” I am not and never will be a “happy little darky.”

The media and poor urban communities are sometimes more effective teachers than I am. I am hoping that I can reprogram or undo some of the damage that these outlets have done. I am hoping that if I show them the original motivation and intent of this word, they will eliminate or minimize their use of the word. I don’t think I can expect miracles, but my sincere prayer is that students will evaluate their use of this disgusting word. . .

For more info on stopping societal use of the N word, check out this site. Abolish The "N" Word


Perhaps, this may answer your question about the word....STOP USING IT!
0 Replies
 
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 12:04 am
@aaronssongs,
i totally agree that it shouldn't be used... just like mick, spick, whop, and all the rest for pretty much every race out there... they are 100% derogatory, no matter the context.
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 12:43 pm
@briansol,
briansol;41848 wrote:
i totally agree that it shouldn't be used... just like mick, spick, whop, and all the rest for pretty much every race out there... they are 100% derogatory, no matter the context.


Right, they shouldn't be used, but laws banning such words are unconstitutional and moronic. People should grow thicker skin and learn to deal with people being mean to them. You already agree with me on this issue, I just felt like using your post as a segue.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 04:19 pm
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;42108 wrote:
Right, they shouldn't be used, but laws banning such words are unconstitutional and moronic. People should grow thicker skin and learn to deal with people being mean to them. You already agree with me on this issue, I just felt like using your post as a segue.


I find your sentiments to be quite ridiculous. If a word is offensive, and people refuse to stop using it, especially in a public setting, then they should prosecuted, and made to conform ( my opinion, so don't get your panties wadded). Grow a thicker skin? Why would the onus be on the recipient of the offense. See, all your rhetoric about personal responsibility amounts to crap.
If you feel there is none to have, then the point becomes "moot".
It's mindsets like yours that lead to people being "rowdy", out-of-control, and feeling like there are no constraints as far as behavior is concerned. Anything goes, right? One step toward anarchy.
Well forgive me for being partial to "the rule of law", and people respecting one another, and being able to control themselves...I prefer a "civilized society" to a "lawless" one, any day.
As as far as people dealing with other people being mean to them....that's precisely what happened in Jena...some white kids crossed the line, and went way beyond "mean", and one or two of them got their asses beat for it. And you would argue their right to "freedom of speech", and I say bully for that, until it infringes on others' right, to be free of "hatespeech".
I say, "just desserts", for the saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time, to the wrong people.
Open mouth, insert foot ( or a couple of fists, in this case) LOL.Problem?
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 11:28 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;42122 wrote:
I find your sentiments to be quite ridiculous. If a word is offensive, and people refuse to stop using it, especially in a public setting, then they should prosecuted, and made to conform ( my opinion, so don't get your panties wadded). Grow a thicker skin? Why would the onus be on the recipient of the offense. See, all your rhetoric about personal responsibility amounts to crap.
If you feel there is none to have, then the point becomes "moot".
It's mindsets like yours that lead to people being "rowdy", out-of-control, and feeling like there are no constraints as far as behavior is concerned. Anything goes, right? One step toward anarchy.
Well forgive me for being partial to "the rule of law", and people respecting one another, and being able to control themselves...I prefer a "civilized society" to a "lawless" one, any day.
As as far as people dealing with other people being mean to them....that's precisely what happened in Jena...some white kids crossed the line, and went way beyond "mean", and one or two of them got their asses beat for it. And you would argue their right to "freedom of speech", and I say bully for that, until it infringes on others' right, to be free of "hatespeech".
I say, "just desserts", for the saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time, to the wrong people.
Open mouth, insert foot ( or a couple of fists, in this case) LOL.Problem?



The difference between the right to speak freely, and the right to be free of "hate speech" is that one is an actual right, and the other is simply made up and has no Constitutional basis.

Let's use your logic shall we? We start with words bothering us, like cracker, spic, jig, the whole lot of them, and so we ban them and place fines on their use. Then later on we decide words like, "****" and "ass" are offensive, and so we ban those. Then, we decide that certain actions are offensive, like farting in public, or picking one's nose, and so we attach fines to those behaviors, and so on. You want a nanny-state that makes everybody play by your rules. What if the nanny-state decides to rule against YOU though?

Say for example, this government now empowered to ban words and actions, decides that anti-war protests are offensive to veterans, and so protesters are fined. The suppose that the Muslim call to prayer is banned, because it offends Christians, and so on.

You haven't thought this position through at all, and you're looking at it through a biased, emotional lense. Take a step back and ask yourself one question: Do I trust the GOP to decide what is and is not acceptable speech? If the answer is no, and your plan is put into effect, you had better pray to God that the DNC performs FLAWLESSLY in every election, otherwise your own views might find themselves banned as "offensive".

I'll say this again. You have three natural rights derived from existence itself, life, liberty, and property. These are derived from the idea that, in the absence of other people, you would be able to live, you would be free, and you could acquire and make things. Introduce a second person. You still have the rights of life, liberty, and property, but your liberty ends where the life, liberty, and property of others begins. The Jena Six case involved six students violating the life and liberty of another student because the student they assaulted called them a name. They committed a savage crime against a person's natural rights because he was executing his Constitutional rights.

Your position has no legal or philosophical grounding.

Free speech doesn't just apply to those with whom we agree.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:03 am
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;42162 wrote:
The difference between the right to speak freely, and the right to be free of "hate speech" is that one is an actual right, and the other is simply made up and has no Constitutional basis.

Let's use your logic shall we? We start with words bothering us, like cracker, spic, jig, the whole lot of them, and so we ban them and place fines on their use. Then later on we decide words like, "***" and "ass" are offensive, and so we ban those. Then, we decide that certain actions are offensive, like farting in public, or picking one's nose, and so we attach fines to those behaviors, and so on. You want a nanny-state that makes everybody play by your rules. What if the nanny-state decides to rule against YOU though?

Say for example, this government now empowered to ban words and actions, decides that anti-war protests are offensive to veterans, and so protesters are fined. The suppose that the Muslim call to prayer is banned, because it offends Christians, and so on.

You haven't thought this position through at all, and you're looking at it through a biased, emotional lense. Take a step back and ask yourself one question: Do I trust the GOP to decide what is and is not acceptable speech? If the answer is no, and your plan is put into effect, you had better pray to God that the DNC performs FLAWLESSLY in every election, otherwise your own views might find themselves banned as "offensive".

I'll say this again. You have three natural rights derived from existence itself, life, liberty, and property. These are derived from the idea that, in the absence of other people, you would be able to live, you would be free, and you could acquire and make things. Introduce a second person. You still have the rights of life, liberty, and property, but your liberty ends where the life, liberty, and property of others begins. The Jena Six case involved six students violating the life and liberty of another student because the student they assaulted called them a name. They committed a savage crime against a person's natural rights because he was executing his Constitutional rights.

Your position has no legal or philosophical grounding.

Free speech doesn't just apply to those with whom we agree.


Excuse me, but were we to take your stream of logic to its' conclusion, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, or a crossing guard saying "go" on a red light, would be applicable...hell, it's free speech, and somebody's right to say it. The bottom line would be the application of common sense, and the rule of law. Someone being destructive, offensive, hateful, or vicious, in my mind, should not be protected under the First Amendment. Now we can argue all day about the pros and the cons...as it stands, you, (at your discretion) can freely use the "n" word, and I can call you a whole slew of epithets, but it would hardly be as incendiary as the "n" word, for various and sundry reasons mentioned before...neither here nor there. You feel as though you should be able to exercise that freedom...while I believe that someone ought to be free to beat your ass, without fear of repercussion, unfortunately, the law doesn't side in my favor. It also doesn't side in the favor of preventing the hanging of nooses, but apparently, that view is rapidly changing.
As I suggested before, please feel free to exercise your right of "free speech", and go into a typical mall, in a town near you, and scream the "n' word, to your hearts' content...and be free (free of your teeth, free of intact bones, and perhaps, free from life)...I await notification. What's the matter, scared to exercise your right? Hmmm, not sure what they call that, but they call that "something".
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:36 pm
@aaronssongs,
screaming fire IS a crime. you can be arrested for that.... just like prank calling 911.
crossing guard... hrm. that's a tough one. but that might fall in under ethics than anything else.

while your idea is good, "common sense isn't very common".
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:44 pm
@briansol,
Well I vote for "A" But stomp the fool for usingg it. Sometimes one has to act then call the police. As this thread proves we are so far apart on the race issue we need to correct it NOW. But congress has more dumb (I'm not calling this issue dumb, just congree) deals to make and they and their handlers want us as far apart so we can't reach a conclusion on anything.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:08 pm
@mlurp,
mlurp;42277 wrote:
Well I vote for "A" But stomp the fool for usingg it. Sometimes one has to act then call the police. As this thread proves we are so far apart on the race issue we need to correct it NOW. But congress has more dumb (I'm not calling this issue dumb, just congree) deals to make and they and their handlers want us as far apart so we can't reach a conclusion on anything.


Right...2008, and there is such a divide...who knew? Then there are idiots and "shock jocks" like Don Imus and Howard Stern, who stir up the waters, seeking ratings and disregarding the collateral damage that they do.
But people would rather continue doing what they have always done...saying derogatory words, hiding behind the First Amendment, or alluding to the fact that "some of their best friends are......", yet they feel a sense of entitlement to use said words, as if that makes them hip, or cool , or thugged-out, or relevant.(take your pick)....or possessors of huge cojoneses, because "they got it like that". What a joke.
Everyone tippy-toes around "race"...yet slurs and slights occur daily aimed at the Nig d'jour: Obama, Whoopi, Oprah (whom white women seem to emmulate, ad nauseum), Ludacris...hell, even me.
Ah, but don't call anybody on it. Then all hell breaks loose. Then, you're being the racist. Well, didn't Don Imus call a girls college basketball team, "nappy-headed ho's"???? Yeah, but he didn't mean it like that...he was just trying to be relevant, in a hip hop world...you know, like American Idol, or something. Yeah, like "wiggas"...wearing their pants off their booties, and running around with their hair in cornrows or dreads...It's all so f...... stupid.
It would be like me getting dressed up in a traditional Polish outfit, and trying to do my best Polka....are you feeling me...I know imitation is supposed to be the most sincere form of flattery...but really...stop...just stop...honestly..stop it. Serious. stop. I need a drink. excuse me.
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 07:02 pm
@aaronssongs,
Your right don't call them on it. As then they seek to prove or cover up!
It amazes me in this 21 centery we still can get past race. look at howmany have died trying to get past this useless slur. The civil war didn't start over the slave issue but it became part of it and rightly so. King and the names go on. But Iii t worth losing our country because we can't get past a simple thing like truth. God, made man in His image. Skin is just a bunch of pigments. Darn I am glad there are differences between each person. I would hate it if everyone was as handsome as me. lol
Time to go as Larry King has Bill Cosby on and I want to see this.
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 10:19 pm
@mlurp,
Anyone see the Larry King show tonight. Cobsy was right on.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:28 am
@mlurp,
mlurp;42321 wrote:
Anyone see the Larry King show tonight. Cobsy was right on.


Absolutely.....and Cosby went on to state how is it that a 40-ish woman, from the mid-West, didn't get the significance of the displaying of nooses, publicly.
He stated that it was 'a big deal", and expressed his frustration that people still take incidents like that "so lightly"....like has been expressed in this very forum.
If Cosby said it, then it lends credibility to my argument....as the banner on the screen kept flashing, "beloved and revered TV Dad" (and that wasn't just from black people...)
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:42 am
@aaronssongs,
Aaron, you hvae treaded into Draniline terroritory as far as being a horrible debater.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:46 am
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;42344 wrote:
Aaron, you hvae treaded into Draniline terroritory as far as being a horrible debater.


Oh no...what a red letter "A" ( or is it H.D.) that I have to wear...I'm pressed for time...I'll try to get my act together, later tonite. That was low, 92.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 01:26 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;42178 wrote:
Excuse me, but were we to take your stream of logic to its' conclusion, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, or a crossing guard saying "go" on a red light, would be applicable...hell, it's free speech, and somebody's right to say it. The bottom line would be the application of common sense, and the rule of law. Someone being destructive, offensive, hateful, or vicious, in my mind, should not be protected under the First Amendment. Now we can argue all day about the pros and the cons...as it stands, you, (at your discretion) can freely use the "n" word, and I can call you a whole slew of epithets, but it would hardly be as incendiary as the "n" word, for various and sundry reasons mentioned before...neither here nor there. You feel as though you should be able to exercise that freedom...while I believe that someone ought to be free to beat your ass, without fear of repercussion, unfortunately, the law doesn't side in my favor. It also doesn't side in the favor of preventing the hanging of nooses, but apparently, that view is rapidly changing.
As I suggested before, please feel free to exercise your right of "free speech", and go into a typical mall, in a town near you, and scream the "n' word, to your hearts' content...and be free (free of your teeth, free of intact bones, and perhaps, free from life)...I await notification. What's the matter, scared to exercise your right? Hmmm, not sure what they call that, but they call that "something".


I oppose ANY law restricting the freedom of speech, including the ones you cited. The second you let the government into regulating speech is the second you have given them carte blanche to do away with any speech they see fit. Your position doesn't mesh with:

a) Common sense.
b) History
c) The US Constitution.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 08:40:15