Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Recently I experienced what I can legitimately say is the worst dream I've ever head in my life. I've had nightmares before, but this takes the cake.

I dreamed that my sister died.

I've never had a dream affect me as much as this one has.
 
LooseCannon said:
Language has meaning, and in North American English, both of those words carry incredibly cruel connotation.
Click to expand...

That connotation carries over because people refuse to take away their strength to be offensive by getting all riled up upon hearing them no matter the context. And they shouldn't. It should only be offensive when it's trying to hurt people's feelings. The best example for the hypocrisy of all this is the word gypsy. It's been used in the exact same manner as nigger for hundreds of years. (Actually originated in the same manner, too, they both started out as neutral words that turned negative with discriminative events) And yet it isn't the offensive word nigger is when used in an inoffensive context. I bet nobody would give a shit about his nickname if it was Gypsy Whore or something. If you think Romani people like to be called gypsies by people of different races, then you're in for a rude awakening.

I highly doubt anyone would call themselves "Nigger Faggot" unless it's a joke. Perhaps a joke in bad taste, but that's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Lampwick 43 said:
Recently I experienced what I can legitimately say is the worst dream I've ever head in my life. I've had nightmares before, but this takes the cake.

I dreamed that my sister died.

I've never had a dream affect me as much as this one has.
Click to expand...
Death in dreams should not be interpreted literally. Usually it signifies a change - sometimes positive, sometimes not. Maybe your sister is going through an important period of her life: she's changing something and that's what your dream showed you.

In addition, in various countries' folklore and legends, dreaming that someone dies is believed to bring good luck and wealth. So cheer up, your sister's going to be all right. :ok:
 
The Flash said:
If you think Romani people like to be called gypsies by people of different races, then you're in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...
I actually don't think that, and I avoid the term just as seriously as I avoid other slurs.

You're talking about a fantasy world wherein intent and offense are quantifiable and easily identifiable, when in reality, they simply aren't. Slurs aren't just words people have decided are negative, they are words that have been used frequently and overwhelmingly in a negative light, and have the weight of history behind them. The definition of the word is not defined by the person speaking it, but by the person hearing it. Which is why I might be offended by a certain term, whereas Sroggy may NOT be. However, it's on the onus of the speaker to be aware of the historic and cultural contexts of a word and to avoid offending their audience (if they wish to avoid such offense).

People saying, I didn't mean it that way is a copout for not wanting to educate one's self about the weight their words carry.
 
But this is about who you're directing the slur to. In this case, the slur is directed to the person himself. The YouTube user isn't saying it to anyone. There's no "audience". I didn't argue that nigger and faggot are inoffensive words. Because they are.

The "weight of history" argument works in my favor here. It showcases that weight of words are not stagnant. You can take the weight away, just like you can load the weight on it. I don't see why we're supposed to keep those words as offensive as they are.
 
The Flash said:
e user isn't saying it to anyone. There's no "audience".
Click to expand...
Wrong. Every time that person posts a video, leaves a comment, does something on youtube, it's keyed to his username. Which means people are seeing it. He might be directing it towards himself, but he is still filling comments up with words that directly oppose YouTube's own policies for commenting.

I can assure you that if someone showed up with that username here they'd be banned in a heartbeat.
 
LooseCannon said:
Wrong. Every time that person posts a video, leaves a comment, does something on youtube, it's keyed to his username. Which means people are seeing it. He might be directing it towards himself, but he is still filling comments up with words that directly oppose YouTube's own policies for commenting.
Click to expand...

This makes no difference, because people being offended when they see a word/phrase that's not directed to them is THE thing that I'm getting at here. I'm not ignoring its existence, I'm saying it shouldn't exist. It makes things way easier for those who are looking to offend and gain something (such as pleasure of making people uncomfortable). Which is what that YouTube user was trying to do. Get people to react to his name by offending them.

If nobody gave a shit about how "offensive" his name is supposed to be, he'd either not attempt to do it again, or move to something else that might offend people. There you have it, the "offense" in the word is gone. It's never gonna go away unless people stop putting that value on it by reacting to it in this certain way. It should only be offensive when it's meant to be used in its initial meaning, in its initial connotation. Which is racial discrimination in one, and sexual discrimination in the other. The "offense" should be discrimination, not the words themselves.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who actually considered the fact the guy could be just a gay black man, so he presumed he had N-word privileges and just made fun of it? I knew a few people who did such things regularly.

Otherwise, he's just trying to be offensive (or offensively funny) and the best course of action is to ignore him, IMHO.
 
The Flash said:
This makes no difference, because people being offended when they see a word/phrase that's not directed to them is THE thing that I'm getting at here. I'm not ignoring its existence, I'm saying it shouldn't exist. It makes things way easier for those who are looking to offend and gain something (such as pleasure of making people uncomfortable). Which is what that YouTube user was trying to do. Get people to react to his name by offending them.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is that if I see a word that I find offensive on a YouTube comment not directed at me, that I shouldn't find it offensive. I think that's fairly foolish. It's like suggesting to a Muslim, don't be offended if you read something that says Mohammed was an idiot. It's an offensive thing to say, and the fact that our hypothetical Muslim read it makes it his business. Similarly, imagine that I own a building, and someone spraypainted those words on it, and I left it up. Am I now responsible for this thing that was written on my building? I think I am if I don't remove it right away.
 
Last edited:
LooseCannon said:
I own a building, and someone spraypainted "nigger faggot" on it, and I left it up. Am I now responsible for this thing that was written on my building? I think I am if I don't remove it right away.
Click to expand...

You are implying that owner of something has an objective responsibility, that is - if someone spraypainted on your house something rasistic, that makes you a racist. So you should immediately re-paint the house, otherwise...
However should you spend money, time and be stressed just because some d**k used your property to fuel his own stupid propaganda/behaved like a thirteen year old? Doesn't it say more about the spraypainter himself?

I don't blame Youtube because they won't ban him... it's more like that anyone with half a brain won't speak to the guy anyway, so he pretty much banned himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top