Agree the choppimg and chaning is making every one jaded

It's not that hard - you are missing the point when you just look at the words devoid of context.

Firstly, I would ask you why you feel you are 'missing out' because you can't use the word "n#gger" because you are white - and that somehow that's unfair?

Surely you can see that the context can differ depending who is saying the word?

To take the racial context out of it completely - if your best mate call you a f#cking c#nt in jest when you are giving each other shit, would you not agree that this is different , and less offensive, than if a stranger in a pub comes up to you and calls you a f#cking c#nt 3 inches from your face?

Context is everything - n#gger was a derogatory terms used by the powerful (white majority) against their slaves and powerless in society (African americans). So I don't think it is that big a deal for a black person to take offence at a white person using it.

As far as blacks themselves using the term - I think to be fair you'd probably need to ask a black person why. But I assume that it is a way of stripping the word of its power.

It's very easy for you to be dismissive of this, but that is because you aren't on the receiving end.

An election isn't due until late next year. Its very easy to get carried away though with the results.

All that has really happened is that now there is a contest, and the question of who will win the election is now actually in question.

As I have stated previously - Turnbull has to walk a fine line.

People like him because they identify him with being a moderate, and social progressive. But the party he represents is much more socially conservative than he is.

His issue will be holding these 2 contradictory aspects together. The marriage equality hoo ha during the week is a perfect example of this.

I think he is still in his honeymoon period too.

Support is much more volatile these days (obviously) - and politics much less predictable.

I had a great big post about this explaining my thoughts on this but deleted it as I couldn't be arsed but I've been sucked in again.

Firstly I don't want to call anyone a "nigger". I think it's a terrible word.

Secondly I've had my own experiences with ethnic slurs and was on the receiving end of it for probably 15 years so don't tell I don't know what it's like. (And yes context is everything.)

"Bastard" is a grievous insult or a term of endearment but I stand by my statement of if you do not want others to use a particular slur don't use it yourself.

How can I ask someone to not call me a particular slur if I then turn around a minute later and use it myself.

I get the arguments. I don't agree with them.

Don't want to be called "nigger", stop using it.

I'll tell you something for nothing I never hear Aboriginals call themselves "coons" or "abos" or "boongs" (terms from my youth) ever so good on them.

As it should be.

Your black American's (shit, African American's, don't say "black", wait is "black" still OK?) need to pull their collective heads out of their arses or shut up about it. You can't have it both ways.

In my opinion.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 27/10/2015 11:58:02 AM

Can't agree with that at all. That sounds like a creeping justification of non-blacks using that term. Its up to black people what they want to call each other.

I don't see how blacks calling each other n#gger can then justify a white person (or any non-black person) calling them that.

The way I look at it is - what black people call each other is their business - it has nothing to do with me.

I guess I don't get why you have an issue with what black people say to each other, why do you have an opinion on that?

The other issue is that many African americans themselves don't use it, and don't like using it either.

It doesn't justify it a all . It does make you sound very hypocritical though.

And, don't you think there would be plenty of African Americans that just can't stand the term and would wish it would die out.

That every single time they hear the word "nigger" it jars them to their very soul, brings back horrible memories and makes them feel ashamed of who they are?

What about those people's feeling?

Don't they count?

I did actually write this in the last line of my post:

"The other issue is that many African americans themselves don't use it, and don't like using it either."

Absolutely agree that their feelings count. But it is not for me (as a non-black person) to point the finger and tell black people what they should call each other.

I think it is a bit too simplistic to call it hypocritical, for the reasons of context which I went thru.

Isn't that fanning racial divisions though? You're saying that skin colour is the primary arbiter of what's considered acceptable speech or not. Isn't that racist and a whopping double standard? How does that fit into your paradigm of racial inclusiveness, where apparently racial lines are supposed to watered down and we're to stop judging people by skin colour?

Yes you did say that. I missed it the first time.



Well I happen to think that's bullshit.

To get into murky territory here are you saying can't call out racism if you happen to be a different skin colour?

Even as a person that is or has been the target of a particular slur you are on shaky ground.

I happen to hate people using a certain slur I won't go into here. As a target of said slur can I ask my fellow targets to stop using the term if there's half a dozen of them and they say it profusely and in general usage?

Difficult wouldn't you say?

It's Turnbull's to call an election at any time (is there a minimum governing period?), so he could choose to do it while poll numbers remain marginally favourable.
With the new voting structure, it would be hard to remove Shorten (unless he resigns). I personally like Penny Wong & Tanya Plibersek, however I think they are too measured for swinging voters who want 'ra ra', because that's how the predominant right wing media like to present what they deem a suitable leader.

I find it confusing how African Americans get upset over "Blackface" (people painting their faces black) but then you have Robert Downey Jr playing a black guy in Tropic Thunder, but no-one gets upset.

Coz he played an Aussie playing a black person.

-PB

By too measured dont you really mean soft and sanctimonious? Wong and Plib arnet cut out for making hard, difficult policy decisions, they are too immersed in their own popularity and sense of themselves as morally ethereal beings to do anything that might challenge that notion. They should go and run charities like or join some gay rights or animal welfare group and be kept far away from taxpayers dollars. No doubt they are nice people and have great ethics and morals blah blah blah but do gooder, obsequious types aren't what this country needs right now.

Why, because they are women who deign to stand up against your conservative views?

Look where we got with a leader who wasn't a "do-gooder" in Abbott. Yeah that was totally what our country needed right now.

I think women in general have a more emphatic and generous side (its not a bad thing) naturally.
Margaret Thatcher was an exception to the rule though.

I'd vote for Wong. From the times I've seen her on Lateline, Q and A and the 7:30 report she comes across as quite the deep thinker. (Also doesn't scream a lot and hyperventilate like Abbot or Albanese. Very methodical when she speaks.)

Would like to see her elected just to see Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Piers Ackerman and Andrew Bolt have a conniption.

Left wing socialist, Asian, woman, gay marriage activist, republican and a lesbian to boot.

Psychoanalyst now.

How good is this bloke?

Because its not really about skin colour - its about power imbalances. These types of things occur within all groups to larger or lesser extents.

I guess my point is that why does a non-black person concern themselves with how black people refer to each other?

Legite the Royal Flush of all things that would cause brainsplosions :lol:

-PB

Yeah I get what you are saying - I don't like the term either. But I guess the key difference to the example you are saying is 400+ years of slavery and institutional, legalised racism. I'd say black Americans have earnt the right to tell non-blacks that there is a word they shouldn't use...

And I don't think it is "calling out racism" if black people call each other a term that they don't find offensive when used by each other.

But I do share your revulsion of the term. I don't like it being used by anyone, but I just don't think I have the right to tell black people they shouldn't use it, or be annoyed that non-blacks can't. Just my opinion.

"Let's end racism by giving people language privileges based on race"

Plibersek - I think she is a bit too left for me.

Wong - I think would be great. She is a very rational thinker and I don't think is associated much with 'airy fairy' points of view.

Obviously she is pro-marriage equality, but then again so are 70% of Australians.

The leadership rule makes it hard to get rid of Shorten. But just keep in mind that the rule itself can be removed with a majority vote - its not part of the party's constitution.

Having said that, I don't think they will get rid of Shorten.

If it was a privilege, it is the only one that African americans have.

No, because they are self absorbed, uppity, sanctimonious flakes who aren't quite cultivated in practical, real world issues like the economy, regional affairs and job creation.

Likie or no likie Abbott and Hockey at least they threw themselves to the wolves in order to try and pass effective, pragmatic policy. Plib and Wong will take the populist route, the one that is most advantageous to enhancing their reputation and legacy, which is to tick off a few social reform boxes, spend like drunken sailors on whatever social issue is trending on Twitter and leave a lasting legacy of billions of debt for future generations to deal with. I really think that given what pollies are paid and their vast entitlements they should be able to shed some of their morally elitist glow in order to do what is in the practical good for the country

Context is important, a person using a term that is traditionally used by people of their background to dehumanise people of another background cannot be presumed to be using it in good faith. People of the background affected using it amongst themselves have the benefit of controlling and owning the intent.

Lowering the subject matter impact as an example: if you call someone on the street an arsehole, it can only be assumed you're a jerk. Call a mate an arsehole, it's all in good fun.

If you give people carte blanche to use racist terms, you are empowering racism to grow and fester under the cover of "Nah mate I didn't mean it like that." So yes, this is (one of) the necessary steps to end racism.

:lol: And your rational for this is?...


No, they stubbornly stuck to their core beliefs (like, shock, you are crucifying Wong and Plibersek for). None of it was for the betterment of the country, budget estimates are proof of that. You are both unfounded and hypocritical here.


What evidence do you have that this will happen? Or is it just your bias that tells you that anyone progressive has to be bad for the country?

The LNP = good economic management / Labor = bad economic management false dichotomy was blown out of the water years ago. Being conservative doesn't make you a prudent economist.

Abbott and Hockey did not try to pass effective, pragmatic policy at all.

They promised "no surprises" and then tried to bring in unprecedented changes like GP co-payments and shifting of spending responsibilities to states without any increase in states funding etc etc. All of this with no warning, no explanation etc etc.

I don't see how you can frame Penny Wong as a "self absorbed, uppity, sanctimonious flake".

You are massively exaggerating both the "pragmatism" of Abbott/Hockey, and the "do-gooder" mentality of Wong and Plibersek.

If it's about power balances based on race, then it's totally about skin colour. What you're saying is that moral standards apply differently to blacks and whites based on perceived power differencs, and that whites are refrained from using certain words because of a perceived collective strength over other races. Doesnt at just further demarcate the racial lines and reinforce that we arnet in fact one big collective but different with different rules, skin colour and struggles?

But if the "dehumanised people" own and control the intent, and have transformed it's meaning from a racist slur into a term of endearment, then why shouldn't white people be able to use it as a term of endearment also? Is it because they have white skin, and therefore are banned from using certain types of words due to their skin colour? Explain how that isn't racism?

People of colour are using it from a position of camaraderie, it's a way of spitting in the face of those who oppressed their race.

A white person is an outsider, worse still they are the ones who implemented the power structures enforced by this language, using such language cannot be viewed by an impartial observer as "endearing" with even the slightest level of certainty.

If you think being told not to use a word is oppression and thus fits contextually into racism, you are frankly an imbecile.