BF2S Forums It's not acceptable...think about it.

FEOS wrote:

I'm still amazed by people who are defending their ability to hurt people who've done nothing to them, and will never do anything to them.

i'm not. it's not about hurting them, it's about boosting their own ego.

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm still amazed by people who are defending their ability to hurt people who've done nothing to them, and will never do anything to them.

I'm not entirely sure if you mean me with that, but I can assure you it's nothing to do with hurting people.

But see, the problem is...it does. And yet people are still defending it.

And no...wasn't directed specifically at you, ghetto.

shut up you limey fuck

nerd alert

jord wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if you mean me with that, but I can assure you it's nothing to do with hurting people.

But see, the problem is...it does. And yet people are still defending it.

And no...wasn't directed specifically at you, ghetto.

People are defending the use of the word within a social dynamic of which there is nobody there who it directly applies to/offends. Nobody is defending the use of the word against someone with learning difficulties.

It's too ingrained in vocabulary to stop anytime soon.

The point being, few of those same people use those other epithets with the same frequency in that same social dynamic, and if they do, don't defend their use so strongly. Because they realize those things are indefensible, so they don't even try. But it's OK when it's a person with a mental handicap that's involved? Then it's somehow defensible?

And being "ingrained in vocabulary" makes it OK?

Blue Herring wrote:

FEOS wrote:

jord wrote:

People are defending the use of the word within a social dynamic of which there is nobody there who it directly applies to/offends. Nobody is defending the use of the word against someone with learning difficulties.

It's too ingrained in vocabulary to stop anytime soon.

The point being, few of those same people use those other epithets with the same frequency in that same social dynamic, and if they do, don't defend their use so strongly. Because they realize those things are indefensible, so they don't even try. But it's OK when it's a person with a mental handicap that's involved? Then it's somehow defensible?

And being "ingrained in vocabulary" makes it OK?

Honestly I don't see the problem with any word anywhere. I got called shit 10x worse than any "racial slur" back in school for being white, if they really can't stand you using a specific word, they can go somewhere else. The only reason "nigger" has such a bad stigma attached to it in modern day is how close to home it hits and how fresh the use of the word still was. Give it some time, and the word will be just like any other "naughty word".  Kids will use it to sound mature, adults will use it when they're really pissed off/drunk, and a select few with really really tight assholes will demand your mouth be washed out with soap.

How a word may be used in the future is not really an argument about how you can use it in the present.

ot: Simple fact is, if we stop using words that offend people, they will only find new words or actions that offend them. You can't please everyone.

In certain situations or company a word will be offensive to a unintended target, in others it won't be, and will not be taken as an attack on one of those that would be offended if the happened to be there. Arguing that me calling my friend retarded for say, hiking into avalanche country, alone, without proper equipment is an attack on mentally handi-capped people is stupid and people that think that it is are retarded for doing so.

Nic wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point being, few of those same people use those other epithets with the same frequency in that same social dynamic, and if they do, don't defend their use so strongly. Because they realize those things are indefensible, so they don't even try. But it's OK when it's a person with a mental handicap that's involved? Then it's somehow defensible?

And being "ingrained in vocabulary" makes it OK?

Honestly I don't see the problem with any word anywhere. I got called shit 10x worse than any "racial slur" back in school for being white, if they really can't stand you using a specific word, they can go somewhere else. The only reason "nigger" has such a bad stigma attached to it in modern day is how close to home it hits and how fresh the use of the word still was. Give it some time, and the word will be just like any other "naughty word".  Kids will use it to sound mature, adults will use it when they're really pissed off/drunk, and a select few with really really tight assholes will demand your mouth be washed out with soap.

How a word may be used in the future is not really an argument about how you can use it in the present.

The issue is how people will react, and right now people are whiny little shits. It doesn't change until people find something else to whine about.

ot: Simple fact is, if we stop using words that offend people, they will only find new words or actions that offend them. You can't please everyone.

Of course they will, "power through manipulation".

In certain situations or company a word will be offensive to a unintended target, in others it won't be, and will not be taken as an attack on one of those that would be offended if the happened to be there. Arguing that me calling my friend retarded for say, hiking into avalanche country, alone, without proper equipment is an attack on mentally handi-capped people is stupid and people that think that it is are retarded for doing so.

That's right. If you say it around a person with intellectual deficiencies and you weren't meaning it as an attack on them, it's still not an attack on them. The only reason they take offense is because they're taught to, and the only reason they're taught to is because it gives power to those teaching. It's a Sociological form of terrorism in which it is proclaimed that "one group of people may say what they want wherever they want while another group of people shall be chastised for it". And what's the logic? One group ancestors fucked over another group's ancestors.

Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-05-27 13:21:54)

Finray wrote:

So are we not allowed to say stupid now? Or idiot? Or anything else that describes less than normal intelligence?

This thread is fucking retarded, it's a word, it's been adopted into the language and this is it's use. Get over it.

I understand you have a child FEOS who is classed as retarded? Correct me if I'm wrong. I could understand why you would take offence if you saw this word being used everywhere, but nobody is walking up to your child and calling him/her retarded to his/her face. The intention of using the word in an offensive manner is to cause offence to the person we're talking to, not people who are actually classed as retarded.

So it's socially acceptable that I call you a nigger in public?

Or if I was to call you a faggot in front of a gay person?

Or use any racial slur in public?

No.

Yes, the word has gone from a medical term to a mainstream insult, but that still doesn't make it acceptable.

Finray wrote:

Yes, it is. The only people are going to be offended are over-sensitive people. Not every single black person is going to be offended by that word. They know that by saying to me for example "Sup my nigger" you're not saying "What's up Fin, oh by the way I really hate black people and everything about them nigger nigger nigger". That's just DUMB. It's a fucking word.

Same story for faggot or gay. PC gone mad.

It's not "pc gone mad", black people on the whole get offended by a white person's use of the word "nigger".

Finray wrote:

No, stupid black people get offended.

it's a racial slur.

Ungoodspeek is Crimethink, citizen.

Finray wrote:

No, stupid black people get offended.

I get offended...


not stupid, not black.