MERGED--> all discussion of Sen. Allen incident

[U2democrat]

Good to hear! However in spite of this incident I fear that he'll win in November...we'll see. Jim Webb has a long way to go before he can catch up.

 

[BVS]

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 didn't avoid anything!

To be honest, it doesn't matter if Webb's operative felt oppressed at that point, the word comes with a history of oppression and how do you determine which one will lead to violence, mistreatment, or inequality?

Although if I was the only black person in the audience, and I worked for the other team and he called me ****** in front of everyone, do you think I'd just be "playing it up"?

I find it interesting that you and INDY seem to imply that racism only occurs when there's an act of violence or physical mistreatment.

 

[nbcrusader]

I find it interesting that you and INDY seem to imply that racism only occurs when there's an act of violence or physical mistreatment.

Projecting false implications to bolster your own arguments is cheap and unnecessary.

To be honest, it doesn't matter if Webb's operative felt oppressed at that point, the word comes with a history of oppression and how do you determine which one will lead to violence, mistreatment, or inequality?

Although if I was the only black person in the audience, and I worked for the other team and he called me ****** in front of everyone, do you think I'd just be "playing it up"?

Using the established framework in these discussions, are you suggesting that "******" and "macaca" are equals in terms of cultural understanding?

Indy's was applying the statement "'offensive words' can only hurt you as much as you let them" to the Allen remark.

Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter if one is actually offended, we are simply policing speech at this point?

 

[BVS]

Projecting false implications to bolster your own arguments is cheap and unnecessary.

INDY made the point that he agreed that words can never hurt you. That's where this discussion started, so I made the logical step that racism can't exist in language. So no false implications here. If he cares to elaborate and clarify then I will listen.

Using the established framework in these discussions, are you suggesting that "******" and "macaca" are equals in terms of cultural understanding?

Hate is hate, to me it really doesn't matter if our culture isn't as current with the Indian slurs vs. the slurs against African Americans and hispanics.

Indy's was applying the statement "'offensive words' can only hurt you as much as you let them" to the Allen remark.

He agreed with concept that words can't hurt, then he said he should apply it to the Allen remark. Much different.

Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter if one is actually offended, we are simply policing speech at this point?

I'm suggesting there will be some that can brush it off and some that have become numb to it, but just because some can adapt doesn't mean "it's just words that can't hurt".

 

[INDY500]

it's funny (or not) how you only list the extremes, and ignore those which surround you in your comfortable middle american life.

Or maybe it's because I would never consider myself "oppressed" except by extreme conditions. Oppression to me implies an overwhelming force or burden, not easily removed or escaped from. True oppression rarely offers it's victims a choice. You are born into it, overrun by it or it knocks down your door in the middle of the night. Which is why I don't believe OPPRESSED to be a synonym of OFFENDED. You choose to remain offended.

I refuse to belittle past injustices or the very real oppressions that rob far too many humans around this planet of their dignity every minute of every day--by claiming to be "oppressed' by anything I could ignore, eliminate, accept or simply walk away from.

All of us have the duty to extinguish true oppression where it exists.
None of us have the right not to be offended.

 

[BVS]

by anything I could ignore, eliminate, accept or simply walk away from.

But this is the issue racism hasn't been eliminated. You can't simply walk away because as soon as you turn the corner you are confronted with it once again.

This is the point you are missing.

 

[Irvine511]

Or maybe it's because I would never consider myself "oppressed" except by extreme conditions. Oppression to me implies an overwhelming force or burden, not easily removed or escaped from. True oppression rarely offers it's victims a choice. You are born into it, overrun by it or it knocks down your door in the middle of the night. Which is why I don't believe OPPRESSED to be a synonym of OFFENDED. You choose to remain offended.

I refuse to belittle past injustices or the very real oppressions that rob far too many humans around this planet of their dignity every minute of every day--by claiming to be "oppressed' by anything I could ignore, eliminate, accept or simply walk away from.

All of us have the duty to extinguish true oppression where it exists.
None of us have the right not to be offended.

have you ever been in a situation where the use of a word makes you fear for your physical safety?

 

[INDY500]

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

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,"
---DNC Chairman Howard Dean
jan 06

Should I feel oppressed by your standards?

By the way "hate", unlike "macaca", doesn't send people running to Wikipedia or a dictionary to see if they should feel offended or not.

 

[BVS]

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,"
---DNC Chairman Howard Dean
jan 06

Should I feel oppressed by your standards?

Has there ever been a history of Republican beatings, have you or your Republican parents ever have to ride in the back of the bus, have you ever been turned down for a job, etc etc...

Try a little harder.

By the way "hate", unlike "macaca", doesn't send people running to Wikipedia or a dictionary to see if they should feel offended or not.

Just because you had no clue what the word meant? Please. The context without the word was good enough.

You're really grasping at straws.

 

[Judah]

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.

No, no, no...according to Repubs, the senator's not racist...he's just an asshole:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/a_new_explanati.html

According to two Republicans who heard the word used, "macaca" was a mash-up of "Mohawk," referring to Sidarth's distinctive hair, and "caca," Spanish slang for excrement, or "shit."

Said one Republican close to the campaign: "In other words, he was a shit-head, an annoyance."

 

[nbcrusader]

INDY made the point that he agreed that words can never hurt you. That's where this discussion started, so I made the logical step that racism can't exist in language. So no false implications here. If he cares to elaborate and clarify then I will listen.

That is a logical step???

The two are unrelated.

That's like saying, "You're divorced, therefore you must have beat your wife. I'll wait for the clarification."

Utter nonsense.

 

[nbcrusader]

Hate is hate, to me it really doesn't matter if our culture isn't as current with the Indian slurs vs. the slurs against African Americans and hispanics.

So, if this is a slur in France (or some other country), it doesn't matter where it is uttered, it is a slur period?

 

[INDY500]

But this is the issue racism hasn't been eliminated. You can't simply walk away because as soon as you turn the corner you are confronted with it once again.

This is the point you are missing.

YES...YES...YES. Exactly my point. Racism is ugly and oppressive and has very real consequences for those whom suffer from it. So ugly in fact, that I would never accuse someone or some institution of spreading or fostering it...unless I damn well meant it and could back the charge up. Others, it would seem, do not share my criterion.

If you're really concerned about racism, which I've no doubt you are, then you should stand WITH ME to prevent the stamp of "racist" from being used cavalierly, unfairly, slanderously or for purely political purposes. To do otherwise is to risk diminishing the actual meaning of the word.

At which point I should apologize for the crossbreeding of threads. Where should this discussion continue?

 

[BVS]

That is a logical step???

The two are unrelated.

That's like saying, "You're divorced, therefore you must have beat your wife. I'll wait for the clarification."

Utter nonsense.

If one only chooses to be offended by language and you can't really be hurt by language, then racism which IS hurtful, can't exist within language.

The only way you're analogy would work is if I would have said, I see no problem in beating your spouse.

 

[INDY500]

Has there ever been a history of Republican beatings

Yes, every other November for the past few decades Republicans have routinely beaten and in Ronald Reagan's case, thrashed, Democrats.

 

[BVS]

So, if this is a slur in France (or some other country), it doesn't matter where it is uttered, it is a slur period?

If I were to go to France and utter a racial slur in English that isn't common in France, I'd still be a racist. I'd be a racist who thought he was getting away with something, but damnitt what if someone did know what I saying?

I guess I would have to make up lies to cover up the truth.

Or let's turn it around, what if I go to France and they teach me the French equivalent. Do I get away with spouting off the slur when I come back to the States?

 

[BVS]

YES...YES...YES. Exactly my point. Racism is ugly and oppressive and has very real consequences for those whom suffer from it. So ugly in fact, that I would never accuse someone or some institution of spreading or fostering it...unless I damn well meant it and could back the charge up. Others, it would seem, do not share my criterion.

If you're really concerned about racism, which I've no doubt you are, then you should stand WITH ME to prevent the stamp of "racist" from being used cavalierly, unfairly, slanderously or for purely political purposes. To do otherwise is to risk diminishing the actual meaning of the word.

At which point I should apologize for the crossbreeding of threads. Where should this discussion continue?

And I understand this point. BUT this doesn't mean to ignore the language of racism, which is in fact what you are saying to do.

Ignoring the language will do nothing but allow more to get away with it.

 

[nbcrusader]

If one only chooses to be offended by language and you can't really be hurt by language, then racism which IS hurtful, can't exist within language.

The only way you're analogy would work is if I would have said, I see no problem in beating your spouse.

No one has even remotely suggest that there is "no problem" with racism.

If you want to accuse politicians of it, and let them "prove you wrong" that's fine. Don't bring that game in here with other forum members.

 

[BVS]

Yes, every other November for the past few decades Republicans have routinely beaten and in Ronald Reagan's case, thrashed, Democrats.

Every other November? I think your counting may be flawed...

 

[nbcrusader]

If I were to go to France and utter a racial slur in English that isn't common in France, I'd still be a racist. I'd be a racist who thought he was getting away with something, but damnitt what if someone did know what I saying?

I guess I would have to make up lies to cover up the truth.

Or let's turn it around, what if I go to France and they teach me the French equivalent. Do I get away with spouting off the slur when I come back to the States?

I agree. If Allen were French, and used a French slur here, it would still be racist.

 

[BVS]

No one has even remotely suggest that there is "no problem" with racism.

If you want to accuse politicians of it, and let them "prove you wrong" that's fine. Don't bring that game in here with other forum members.

But some have said there's no problem with the language or the words, and that the only way your previous analogy would work.

This is no game. I want people to be able to back up something they said, and so far I haven't seen anyone back up "words can't hurt" or "choose to be offended".

 

[BVS]

I agree. If Allen were French, and used a French slur here, it would still be racist.

But you don't agree with other scenario I gave?

And like many have stated he does have a very suspicious background link to this slur, which hardly seems coincidence.

 

[INDY500]

Or let's turn it around, what if I go to France and they teach me the French equivalent. Do I get away with spouting off the slur when I come back to the States?

Tiens, mange la merde.

 

[INDY500]

Every other November? I think your counting may be flawed...

Republicans have held the House since 94. Elections are every 2 years.

 

[BVS]

Tiens, mange la merde.

Eat shit?

It's been awhile...

 

[BVS]

Republicans have held the House since 94. Elections are every 2 years.

Gotcha, I was thinking Presidential...

You're right.

 

[INDY500]

Eat shit?

It's been awhile...

Oui et je regrette.

Just proving a point. I said something in a language you don't even speak. Even if you think you know the meaning...would you always know the intent? Too be sure, sometimes there's no doubt, but always? Which ties in with blasphemy. If you hear something you consider blasphemous...is that always, 100% of the time, the intent of the source?
No, of coarse not.

 

[deep]

How is everyone missing the biggest part of this story?

GEORGE ALLEN SPEAKS FRENCH!!!

Who is the REAL AMERICAN?

 

[Justin24]

Who is the REAL AMERICAN?

hahahahhahaha dude I was drinking a frappuchino and almost spit out my drink reading that.

 

[nbcrusader]

But some have said there's no problem with the language or the words, and that the only way your previous analogy would work.

This is no game. I want people to be able to back up something they said, and so far I haven't seen anyone back up "words can't hurt" or "choose to be offended".

What's to "back up" about people "choosing to be offended". The same inference has been made many time in FYM.

People can "choose to be offended" when they want to force a response or change the focus of a campaign.

NOW was offended by allegations (sexual misconduct) against Bob Packwood, but did share the same response to allegations against Bill Clinton.

It's politics. It happens.