MERGED--> all discussion of Sen. Allen incident

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
Wouldn't be more honest to simply say "I don't care if you are offended by 'Oh my God' "?



and this is what you are looking for, isn't it?

you're so persecuted.

i detailed, several times, how i would of course modify my speach if you brought it to my attention that you were offended by such a phrase, or any other phrase. anyone would.

but you cannot reasonably expect that i am going to be aware of the possibility to cause offense with such a common phrase as i would be of words like "n*gger" or whatever.

but go ahead -- the world is against you.

soldier on.
 
nbcrusader said:


Again, that is part of the question I'm asking. “Historic intent” may not be someone’s current actual intent. Using this standard, at what point do you allow someone to have a different intent from the intent of other people from a different time? And is the application of this standard based on a clean analysis of a situation, or does it get tainted by other motives (such as politics)?



so you're essentially saying that ignorance (saying that you don't intend the historical intent, which, you know, is part of the definition of the word) is an excuse for using whatever language you wish.

when i go home this weekend, i'm going to call my mother a bitch. when she gets upset, i'm going to say, "hey! that's not my intent! don't assume that i think that you're a bitch just because i call you a bitch! how dare you infer intent on my choice of words! it's up to you to prove that i mean something other than what i said i meant!"

how liberating!

but i promise i won't say "oh my god."
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
and this is what you are looking for, isn't it?

you're so persecuted.

i detailed, several times, how i would of course modify my speach if you brought it to my attention that you were offended by such a phrase, or any other phrase. anyone would.

but you cannot reasonably expect that i am going to be aware of the possibility to cause offense with such a common phrase as i would be of words like "n*gger" or whatever.

but go ahead -- the world is against you.

soldier on.

:sigh:

Yes, this discussion was all about you - just setting you up here.

The idea that the "right" to be offended is predicated on the person being "terrorized and intimidated" is just BS. It is a standard selectively employed to demonstrate sympathy towards one group and indifference towards another.

You can speak to your mother whatever you want, I'm not sure it helps define what we are discussing here.
 
In Pennsylvania, Rendell Running Away

In Pennsylvania's gubernatorial race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Ed Rendell (D) way ahead of rival Lynn Swann (R), 57% to 38%.

Says pollster Clay Richards: "Lynn Swann has failed to make any significant headway against Gov. Rendell over the summer, about
a quarter of Republicans are voting for the Democratic Governor."

do some in the GOP just not like people of color?
 
Is the sky blue? Is the grass green? Is Pluto a planet? Oops, wrong analogy...I think that's just been sorted out:wink:
 
martha said:
Yeah, but what can a football player offer as a politician? I'm actually serious, knowing that I live in a state that has elected two crappy actors as governor. :reject:

We've had a former football star as governor twice. He was a terrible governor, I was really happy when a Democrat beat him. Unfortunately, the Democrat turned out to be a crook. He was recently found guilty of corruption charges. I wish we had a few decent politicians in this state.:mad: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
INDY500 said:


I agree.
You know, I really should share this simple axiom (that most of us learned in grade school) with the "easily offended" over there stewing in their mock indignation on the Senator Allen Exposes Himself As A Racist thread.
Naaaaah. Why bother?

Spoken like someone who truly has never been oppressed one day in their life.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Spoken like someone who truly has never been oppressed one day in their life.

Are we talking about the oppression of poverty, famine, war, slavery, disease, tyranny etcetera...or the "oppression" of being offended?
 
INDY500 said:


Are we talking about the oppression of poverty, famine, war, slavery, disease, tyranny etcetera...or the "oppression" of being offended?

Oppression can be mental or emotional, especially when history shows that slurs can often be associated with violence, mistreatment, or inequality.
 
As regards the question that begins this thread, I admire that the original poster is willing to soldier on in her quest for faith despite the insensitivity and judgementalism of the Christian she spoke with.

I don't use the term "Oh my God." I was raised not to, and as a Christian I feel it's important to use God's name carefully and respectfully, not carelessly. (I do however say "Oh my gosh" all the time, which begs the question of what, really, is the difference. I guess it's all in my mind and heart, which in a sense is what matters most). However, as Irvine pointed out, I know that the vast majority of the people in this world don't think twice about the casual OMG and have no intent to disresepct God or offend me. I really don't think God's pride is so easily pricked and even the commandment (which I would suspect has as much to do with making careless oaths, or oaths which you have no intention of keeping analogous to "swearing on my childrens lives" which you hear on Survivor or Big Brother than expressing emotional excitement) was more for our benefit than because God has thin skin. So I don't worry about it too much, and I hope I would have the good sense not to lecture on this issue to someone who is expressing interest in faith.

As to the comparison to racial/gender/sexual ephitets, I don't think there is any comparison. Nbc keeps talking about intent--well, the use of "Oh my god" never has been and is not now used with intent to to harm anyone (including God). It is at most, carelessness. The other words discussed in this thread both in the past, and in the present have been used with intent to hurt and harm. It absolutely boggles my mind how some posters here cannot see how it might be somewhat acceptible for people to use offensive words in reference to themselves and never acceptable for those outside the group to use the words. (And I say somewhat because there are many blacks, myself included, who do NOT like hearing ANYONE including fellow blacks use "******" or "nigga").

It just seems so obvious to me! Here's an analogy: You know how you can criticize/make fun of your family and it's okay, but let anyone else start in on your family, and your hackles rise? It's like that.
 
INDY500 said:


Are we talking about the oppression of poverty, famine, war, slavery, disease, tyranny etcetera...or the "oppression" of being offended?

You failed to mention the oppression of racism. Unless of course, you believe that all oppression ceased with the 13th amendment.

You see there are two kinds of offended here. One is of the sort where you say "sticks and stones" and move on. Another is of the sort that makes you wonder whether you won't be hanging in a tree or dragged behind a truck in a few minutes.

When I was a kid I was called, as most kids probably were, a lot of names--nerd, jellyfish, muscles (ironically, of course). Some of those words hurt my feelings but I took it and moved on. On the other hand, when I was riding my bike to school and a truck goes by on the road and the guys inside yell "hey ******!"--and no they weren't black--I had a distinctly different type of response. I was scared shitless. I was wondering--in all seriousness, are those guys going to come back and kill me. Now they may have just been "having fun" and never had any "intent" to actually harm anyone, just as my friend's dad who joked about "running that ****** over" about a black man walking along the road (while I huddled in the backseat, terrified) probably would never have done it, but how was I to know that?

After all, in all the stories about racial violence against blacks, the bad guys generally weren't saying things like "We're going to teach you a lesson, African American."

I'm very tempted to say that if you're a white, straight, Protestant male you'll just never understand but I'd like to hold out for the possibility that a person can actually put themselves in someone elses shoes.
 
INDY500 said:


Are we talking about the oppression of poverty, famine, war, slavery, disease, tyranny etcetera...or the "oppression" of being offended?

it's funny (or not) how you only list the extremes, and ignore those which surround you in your comfortable middle american life.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Oppression can be mental or emotional, especially when history shows that slurs can often be associated with violence, mistreatment, or inequality.

Instead of avoiding Indy500's comment, perhaps the implication could be addressed straight on.

Do you think Webb's political operative felt oppressed at the Allen rally? Or do you think he is playing this up a bit?
 
nbcrusader said:


Instead of avoiding Indy500's comment, perhaps the implication could be addressed straight on.

Do you think Webb's political operative felt oppressed at the Allen rally? Or do you think he is playing this up a bit?

I would say he felt oppressed. It was like "oh, he's saying this because my skin is brown?" This really pisses me off.
 
nbcrusader said:


:sigh:

Yes, this discussion was all about you - just setting you up here.

The idea that the "right" to be offended is predicated on the person being "terrorized and intimidated" is just BS. It is a standard selectively employed to demonstrate sympathy towards one group and indifference towards another.

You can speak to your mother whatever you want, I'm not sure it helps define what we are discussing here.



sorry, but when you toss out words you think i'm saying -- "irvine doesn't care if Christians are offended" -- you've made the argument effectively about you, and how you don't get the same sort of "special treatment" afforded to traditionally identified minority groups. i'm so sorry you feel left out. perhaps you can continue to make your case that the lack of mainstream culture not abiding by all the tenets of your particular version of Christianity (no one really thinking that "oh my god" is a violation of a Commandment) is tantamount to discrimination.

it boggles the mind that you feel free to detach words from their very definitions rooted in history in order to try to build a case that it is the intent of the speaker that defines racism/whatever instead of the word itself. that's an excuse for ignorance -- gosh, i didn't intend to offend when i said "macaca" -- which is really the standard you're setting. it doesn't matter what i say, it only matters what it is i tell you i mean by what i said. because, of course you'd believe me when i retract and explain my words.

you know what? when someone calls me a faggot, when someone calls me a fucking redneck, when someone calls me a mothefucking gringo, i am terrorized and intimidated. it has nothing to do with a "right" to be intimidated. i was intimidated. and for good reason when you're walking along a street in particular sections of the city and someone calls you faggot to your face.

and do you know why i feel intimidated? because history tells me that a bashing might be coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20060802/co_po/manarrestedforgaybashingatsandiegopride
 
Nothing in this conversation was intended as personal in either direction. Framing it this way misses the points raised in the posts. I hope that wasn't the intention.
 
nbcrusader said:
Redneck is a term of terror and intimidation? Is there a consensus on this?


ah, but see, this is where context matters.

when i'm a white boy in the inner-city and a black man corners me and asks me for some change and i say i don't have any and he takes a step back and calls me a "fucking redneck," yes, the intent of that word was to intimidate me.
 
nbcrusader said:
Nothing in this conversation was intended as personal in either direction. Framing it this way misses the points raised in the posts. I hope that wasn't the intention.



[q]Wouldn't be more honest to simply say "I don't care if you are offended by 'Oh my God' "?[/q]



:shrug:
 
having just watched the video ... the "macaca" is clearly a racial term, though i think the "welcome to america" part was meant to distinguish the down-home Allen from his opponent who lives "inside the Beltway" and is meeting with "Hollywood moguls" (read: Jews?).

one of my best friends, who is indian, is having a field day with this.

she and her boyfriend are ironically using it between themselves -- "macaca, please!" or "strictly for my macacas" or "where my macacas at?"

she also mentioned that Allen's mother grew up in Tunisia (she's white) where macaca is a very common slur for the Indian diaspora.
 
Last night I was at a fundraiser with several of Virginia's top democratic elected officials from the legislature and congress and we were having a great time making fun of Allen. He's such an embarrassment.
 
Also in Virginia....We discussed this over lunch today (myself and coworkers). Even our died-in-the-wool Republican said she thinks he's an idiot and wouldn't vote for him. :huh:
 
Back
Top Bottom