True Hate Speech

how far is too far?

Published on June 15, 2004 By kingbee In Misc

this is an article i never imagined id find myself writing in 2004.

during the nearly 2 months ive been here, ive seen a number of variations on the following theme: .

'conservatives are are more responsible, less vile, more pragmatic and realistic and willing to deal with the repercussions of their beliefs'.

it could as easily been a liberal claim. thats not the issue

over the past 2 days, ive seen several posts about namecalling in which admittedly offensive, hurtful insulting perjoratives were compared to a racial slur. .

in my opinion--although i dont believe im alone in this--while name-calling of any type is childish, irresponsible and may even be unnecessarily cruel, use of racial slurs inexcusably inhumane because a slur is much more than an insult. slurs accomplish only one purpose: they represent an assertion members of the target group are less than human. .

there is no justification whatsoever for their use in any context by anyone who is not a member of the target group and i personally dont agree with the proposition that members of the group use it among themselves as a means of blunting, defusing or 'taking ownership' of it. .

comparing a slur to even the most abombinable non-slur is never valid nor logical because at bottom line, none of us chooses the racial or ethnic group into which were born. attempting to establish a correlation between a non-slur and the denial of anothers humanity evidences both abyssmal ignorance and racism at best.and flagrant intentional racism otherwise. .

in this case both posters happen to have been self-proclaimed conservatives but it makes no real difference. a conservative racist is not one whit worse or better than a liberal racist. or a centrist racist.

suggesting that an objection to using racial slurs is a tactic to hijack a specific thread is incomprehensibly obtuse..

its absolutely intolerable that racial slurs are used in the physical world. carrying it over into the virtual world is the social equivablent of shitting on hallowed ground. .

either way--and even if you totally disagree with my take on this--there are also practical repercussions that invalidate the claim to any sort of the type of philosophic or political pragmatism to which i referred in the third paragraph.

since ju is so well spidered by google, its almost inevitable that within a few days any idiot who uses that word as a search term will be directed here. that my friends is truly an unnecessary fucking shame

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Jun 15, 2004

aaaagh, my eyes. anyhoo...

"you can move on choose a more favorable battle on your own terms. unless youre involved in a blog that draws attacks on your religious beliefs you can avoid all that becase you dont stand out as as being religious so no one will know unless you choose to tell them. "

That seems to be the answer. Since no one can tell that I am a conservative Christian unless I express my beliefs, I should avoid expressing my beliefs so that I won't be accused of being a homophobe. On the other hand they can express theirs with no fear under the umbrella of "tolerance".

But when someone starts a thread about Reagan, and I say that I felt he did an good job, post data that I think proves it, and the person just says that he was a homophobe and I must be one too... have I expressed my Christianity?

When someone says that gays are being persecuted over the marraige thing and I say that it really isn't a gay issue, but an issue with an activist legal system thwarting the popular vote in California, have I... preached?

Ask folks if they have ever heard me try and win an arguement with "because God says so". Brad has watched be argue now for 5 years here, at wincusto, and at skinz.org. I think anyone that knows me knows I have never fallen back on religous dogma to prove or disprove anything.

Perhaps Christians should butt out of 'gay' themed blogs. If I were trying to "convert" homosexuals your point would be more apt, but people ask for opinions and then don't seem to want mine... my opinion isn't worthy of voice?

Anyway, I didn't mean to veer off the point of your post. I apologize again if my reference to the 'n' word was troubling to you, but to me, personally, being called a homophobe because of my religous beliefs is just as bad.

kingbee

on Jun 16, 2004

you should own "male guilt" for the hundreds of years that women were treated as lesser beings for quite some time, ive been trying to determine when and how it came to be that gained control of religion and medicine (both of which im fairly sure were for a very, very long time, a very long time ago the realm of women). there is no question in my mind women possess an extra sense and are superior to men in most aspects and no less than equals in the rest. rather than attempting the impossible (redressing the inequitable treatment of women in the past) ive been doing what im able to eliminate it in the present.

DylanZimmerman

on Jun 17, 2004

I've noticed JU users are either very right or left wing. I tend to sit on the fence myself, being of particularly politically naive. It's pretty worrying the amount of bigoted, ignorant and hateful shit that gets thrown around under the guise of political opinion. Lucky there's smart guys around like you have the eloquence to shout it down.

Anyway, thanks for the comment, always appreciate anythin that mentions a beat writer.

Not that its interesting but just so you know, the state flower of California is just called the california poppy or "Eschscholtzia Californica". It's sometimes called the Flame flower, or copa de ora ( cup of gold) or la amapola. It wasnt the state flower till 1903, and the 6th of April is California poppy day. Before that Native Americans used it for food and oil. Ain't I just fulla useless info?

Cool articles genius.

Later, love Dyl.xx

stevendedalus

on Jun 19, 2004

Here's tolerance to all Ns,Hs, Ls, Cs Bs--they're all in the family called humanity

kingbee

on Jun 19, 2004

dayyum stevendedalus...im only allowed so many insightful ratings per 24 hour period and this is the 2nd time i can remember you earning more than one of them in that time period. both were well deserved too

MasonM

on Jun 19, 2004

Resorting to name-calling of any kind is simply exhibiting an immature mind and a lack of ability to express ones ideas in an acceptable manner. I feel the same way about using profanity in ones speech or writing. While an OCAASIONAL mild expletive may add the "air" a writer wishes to create in a sentence, heavy, constant use of profanity also shows a lack of intelligence and or vocabulary. I view slurs and basic name-calling in the same vein.

My ethnic background is Irish/Apache. The Irish have often been referred to as the "N" of Europe, and well, Indians are hardly well thought of even today in America. I personally do not make a huge issue of slurs and name-calling simply because it says far more about the person using the words than it ever will about me. Let them use their slurs and petty names,; it reveals them for what they are.

I try to express myself in a manner that not only communicates the ideas I wish to get across, but also a level of intelligence and decorum that I feel commands a certain amount of respect regardless of the topic at hand.

kingbee

on Jun 19, 2004

I view slurs and basic name-calling in the same vein.

while both are rooted in the same mixture of ignorance, insecurity, inability, immaturity, impotence, etc., the distinction between an insult and the particular slur upon which i focused is its uniqueness. unlike some other perjoratives, there is only one intended and perceived purpose: to dehumanize its target.

from what ive seen, your assessment of your self-expression here is accurate. youre skilled and respectful.

(im curious about 2 things: any word from goodyear? there's someone in films--im apparently experiencing not-so-early onset senility because i cant even recall if its a guy or a chick-who is also irish-apache. can you help me out?)

MasonM

on Jun 19, 2004

No word from Goodyear. I've already accepted another position. I need a paycheck and can't afford to sit on my duff and wait around. I have no idea what actor/actress you may be referring to.

I have to disagree with your take on slurs vs name-calling. I see them as one in the same thing, with the exact same intention. Slurs ARE name-calling. It's all meant to be hurtful and to degrade the intended recipient. I think trying to draw a distinction between them is just splitting hairs that don't need to be split. It's all unneccessary attacks by intellectually deficient minds.

MasonM

on Jun 19, 2004

youre skilled and respectful.

Thank you for that. While we do not always agree, I try to express my disagreement in a civil and intelligent manner. I find that you also express yourself in a similar and I respect that.

messybuu

on Jun 19, 2004

Yeah. I agree that "homophobe" can't be compared to a racial slur. It's more along the lines of "fag" or "queer".

there is no justification whatsoever for their use in any context by anyone who is not a member of the target group and i personally dont agree with the proposition that members of the group use it among themselves as a means of blunting, defusing or 'taking ownership' of it.

I don't know about that. As somebody who's part-Mexican, I've been called racist for my views on immigration, even though in California, that immigration is based on mainly Mexicans.

MasonM

on Jun 19, 2004

they represent a denial that members of the target group are less than human. .

kingbee, I'm not normally one to try and nit-pick someone's writing but I thought you may want to take another look at this sentence in your article. I understand what you are actually saying, but I think this says the opposite of what you meant. As it reads, it says that slurs actually deny that someone is less than human. I don't think that's what you meant, is it?

Just thought you might want to edit that. Just helping out. Feel free to delete this comment after you examine the sentence.

kingbee

on Jun 19, 2004

Slurs ARE name-calling. It's all meant to be hurtful and to degrade the intended recipient

let me try to be more clear. slurs are a subset of insults. racial slurs are a subset of slurs--as are religious slurs, cultural slurs, etc. this particular racial slur exists in further subset and is unique in that its has been used for well over two centuries to maintain a specific racial group--collectively and individually--is irredeemably sub human. factor in the impact of over 200 years of usage to justify systemic inhumane treatment both inside and outside the law on the basis of racial inferiority and you wind up with a word thats exponentially more damaging than ordinary --or almost any other--insults. my point isnt that it cant be used. one can hit an old lady with a baseball bat. theres no reason nor any excuse for doing so.

kingbee

on Jun 19, 2004

Just thought you might want to edit that. Just helping out

jeez. i really appreciate you bringing that to my attention. now you know why i they wouldnt demote me to copy editor.

kingbee

on Jun 19, 2004

I don't know about that.

possibly im not being clear or perhaps your misinterpreting the statement. my point is that while its not uncommon for members of a racial group to refer to themselves using words that would be totally objectionable when used by those who arent members of that group, it really doesnt help the overall situation--even it its done to 'reclaim' the word or diminish its power. all that really does is keep the word in circulation.

MasonM

on Jun 19, 2004

kingbee, i understand your point, I just don't agree that it's any worse, or better, than any other insulting name. As for being "damaging", a word in itself, causes no damage. It's a word. A word has no more power than that given to it. I feel that any insulting name or word shouldn't be used because it's a hateful means of communicating. The IDEA behind the word is what counts. What the word communicates is what counts. Whether it's directed at a single person or a group is irrelevant. It's still hateful. The word, whatever it is, in itself, has no power or substance at all. It's the hate behind it. And that applies to any and all dereogatory remarks, not just "slurs".

Slur, as defined, is just another word for insult.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!