Robert Byrd is a horrible human being, version III

[Jaguar]

Here is a summary of the opposition's arguments.

1. I take the "white ******" remark out of context. Even though I quoted the question and the entire response, that isn't enough.
2. I should not be allowed to use any information on Byrd's past in my arguments. Because putting things in context is bad.
3. "******", an offensive word which "specifically means a black person," can be used in a nonoffensive way that has nothing to do with black people.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I care not for your convoluted rationalizations. If you use the word "******" as an insult, you are demeaning Black people. There is no other way around it.

And lay off the personal attacks. I have the maturity to limit mine to public figures who aren't on this site.

The very fact he said "white ******" shows why you are wrong. Its very simple.

As for "personal attacks", yes, the horrors of the word "thick". Its not an attack, its simple observation, because the point is not particularly difficult. That you are unwilling to accept the direct connection in context being used by Chris Rock and Byrd is based purely on either a far to literal mind, or simple bias (asgainst, Byrd, of Comedy, or both).

The same would apply to Redneck. Had Byrd made a comment about black rednecks, would that have been an anti-black slur, or an anti-white slur??

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Here is a summary of the opposition's arguments.

1. I take the "white ******" remark out of context. Even though I quoted the question and the entire response, that isn't enough.

You didn't quote the question Tony Snow asked in the OP. As for the answer, what Byrd was saying is that he thought most racism had died out and people spoke too much about race. While I disagree with the premise, it is a common conservative position bandied about in this very forum commonly (specially given the fact there are very few blacks who post here). But the "white ******" comment is very obviously stating there are whites who behave in a way for which a black person would be callled ******. Hence, white ******.

2. I should not be allowed to use any information on Byrd's past in my arguments. Because putting things in context is bad.

No, the statement is that you fail to contextualize things when you assume just because someone said X 40 years ago, they must still believe it. That is obviously logically wrong.

3. "******", an offensive word which "specifically means a black person," can be used in a nonoffensive way that has nothing to do with black people.

****** is an insult to blacks in one of its meanings. But given its resurgence and use within the black community itself (you don;t see other groups appropriating words like spick, dago, pollack, or gook), obviously it has come to have another meaning beyond simply just a way to denigrate everyone from that race.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


The very fact he said "white ******" shows why you are wrong. Its very simple.

As for "personal attacks", yes, the horrors of the word "thick". Its not an attack, its simple observation, because the point is not particularly difficult. That you are unwilling to accept the direct connection in context being used by Chris Rock and Byrd is based purely on either a far to literal mind, or simple bias (asgainst, Byrd, of Comedy, or both).

The same would apply to Redneck. Had Byrd made a comment about black rednecks, would that have been an anti-black slur, or an anti-white slur??

GePap, your analogies, quite frankly, are as abysmal as your spelling.

Chris Rock and Robert Byrd have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Chris Rock is a young Black comic who uses edgy material about race in a comedy routine.

Robert Byrd is an old White guy who is too senile to remember to surpress racist language he picked up back when it was fashionable.


And you're comparing "redneck" to "******"? The two words aren't even in the same league when it comes to offensiveness.

[Winston]

Reading through this thread provides a perfect illustration of mindless partisanship. Some of you guys would defend just about anyone if only they were Democrat.

An interesting thought is how this debate would have unfolded if Byrd had been a Republican instead.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Winston
Reading through this thread provides a perfect illustration of mindless partisanship. Some of you guys would defend just about anyone if only they were Democrat.

An interesting thought is how this debate would have unfolded if Byrd had been a Republican instead.

There is no doubt in my mind that most of the posters are defending Byrd only because of the parenthetical D beside his name. With the exception of Boris, who is just strange.

[mrmitchell]

Reading through this thread provides a perfect illustration of mindless partisanship. Some of you guys would defend just about anyone if only they were Democrat.

I would be defending Byrd if he was a Republican. You are ridiculous.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Jaguar


GePap, your analogies, quite frankly, are as abysmal as your spelling.[QUOTE]

Frankly, your inablity to understand is matched only by your inability to know what an analogy is, or when one is being made.

Chris Rock and Robert Byrd have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Chris Rock is a young Black comic who uses edgy material about race in a comedy routine.

Robert Byrd is an old White guy who is too senile to remember to surpress racist language he picked up back when it was fashionable.

I have to laugh at the depths of your misunderstanding (as opposed to Winston's tired and predicatble politically hackery).

The issue is not whether Chris Rock as a person and Robert Byrd as a person have anything to do in common. It is based on an attempt to make you understand a context in which the word ******, specially if he applied it to whites, does not mean simply a pejorative term for black, but a type of person, and this can be best illustrated to the likes of yourself by pointing to the Chris Rock routine, because the understanding of the world in both instances is similar. That you are unwilling or incapable of seing this oh so simple point is rather sad.

In this context, ****** applies to a person who is actively ignorant, shallow, violent, rude, so forth.

And you're comparing "redneck" to "******"? The two words aren't even in the same league when it comes to offensiveness.

The offensiveness of each of those terms is based on the context with wchih you use them, and the perceptions of the audience. There is no set scale of offensivenes. Go to some small bar in the south and start calling everyone there rednecks and compare the reaction you get to that of going to a hip hop club and calling people there today "my ******". I would wager that while neither would lead to pleasant consequences, the southern attempt would be much worse for your health.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jaguar

There is no doubt in my mind that most of the posters are defending Byrd only because of the parenthetical D beside his name. With the exception of Boris, who is just strange.

I will be happy to defend Hillary, which I expect to become a more central defense in the next 3 years. I would like to Byrd gone, as he is an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Much as Tom Delay is to the GOP (though without the offsetting fundraising skills).

Those who are defending Byrd are more interested in the particular kind of D that Byrd has been in the years since Bush was elected - in particular his positions on Israel and Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

****** is an insult to blacks in one of its meanings. But given its resurgence and use within the black community itself (you don;t see other groups appropriating words like spick, dago, pollack, or gook), obviously it has come to have another meaning beyond simply just a way to denigrate everyone from that race.

Pollack, IIUC, is simply the Polish word for a Pole. Which is why in Hamlet its not an insulting use.

Yid is simply the Yiddish word for Jew. When used by a Jew, particularly one with a Yiddish background, its not derogatory. When used by a gentile, it IS derogatory.

IIUC it has come to be used within the black community in large part precisely because the NON-RACIST white community, and integrationast black community, has made it such a taboo, and so it has gained considerable shock value. Those elements in the black community that dont want to be "nice" but want to shock adopted it. I hardly think this was intended to make it an acceptable word in the white community again.

A good analogy would be the use of the word "queer" by radical elements in the gay community, though there it is more overtly political.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Pollack, IIUC, is simply the Polish word for a Pole. Which is why in Hamlet its not an insulting use.

Yid is simply the Yiddish word for Jew. When used by a Jew, particularly one with a Yiddish background, its not derogatory. When used by a gentile, it IS derogatory.

IIUC it has come to be used within the black community in large part precisely because the NON-RACIST white community, and integrationast black community, has made it such a taboo, and so it has gained considerable shock value. Those elements in the black community that dont want to be "nice" but want to shock adopted it. I hardly think this was intended to make it an acceptable word in the white community again.

A good analogy would be the use of the word "queer" by radical elements in the gay community, though there it is more overtly political.

In Israel a few years back, some Jews of Afro-aisian origin adopted the word "schvartza" (black, in Yiddish) implicitly throwing back in the faces of the Ashkenazim the fact that many of them used a derogatory term for the dark jews.

Adoption of a derogatory name by a minority can be a an attempt to remind the majority of its racism, and to deny a purported reconciliation.

The same strategy can be used by a majority group, to point out the racism/bigotry of a minority. A little googling will show that antisemites love words like 'goy' "shegitz" , etc since they can be used to document alleged anti-gentile bigotry by Jews, which is a matter some of these folks are obsessed with. It is for this reason that i always refer to a certain Poly Commie from Florida as "Guev" (though he has explained that his nick derives from a personal story that is unrelated to the antisemitic agenda outlined above)

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIUC it has come to be used within the black community in large part precisely because the NON-RACIST white community, and integrationast black community, has made it such a taboo, and so it has gained considerable shock value. Those elements in the black community that dont want to be "nice" but want to shock adopted it. I hardly think this was intended to make it an acceptable word in the white community again.

This is hardly a debate on intentions- this is a debate on trying to statt aht Robert Byrd continues to be a racists, and using his statement of white ****** as proof. If he were a racist, how could he possibly even come up with that construct? Does an anti-semite speak of gentile yids?

The construct "white ******" only makes sense if the word ****** in this context is being used in a way that refers to a way of behaving (again, just as in the Chris Rock routine)

A good analogy would be the use of the word "queer" by radical elements in the gay community, though there it is more overtly political.

Not so radical, if you see it used on corporate sponsored TV shows. (like in Queer Eye)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

This is hardly a debate on intentions- this is a debate on trying to statt aht Robert Byrd continues to be a racists, and using his statement of white ****** as proof. If he were a racist, how could he possibly even come up with that construct? Does an anti-semite speak of gentile yids?

I have no idea. I cant look at those sites too long, they make me too angry. I wouldnt be surprised though, theyre pretty twisted.

Not so radical, if you see it used on corporate sponsored TV shows. (like in Queer Eye)

IIUC correctly the word was used by groups like Queer Nation, which was definitely radical, years before it became more acceptable among non-radical gays.

[Ned]

Jag, Democrat racists are not racists if one uses their definition of racism: a racist is anyone other than a Democrat, as only Democrats are not racist, even if they were the party of slavery, Indian killers, Jim Crow and the party that continues to do everything possible to maintain separate white (private) schools in the cities.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Jag, Democrat racists are not racists if one uses their definition of racism: a racist is anyone other than a Democrat, as only Democrats are not racist, even if they were the party of slavery, Indian killers, Jim Crow and the party that continues to do everything possible to maintain separate white (private) schools in the cities.

You're oversimplifying the history of the Democratic Party. In the antebellum years, the Democratic Party became divided by party members from Northern states and party members from Southern states -- espcially with Stephen Douglas's controversial attempt to implement his concept of popular sovreignty.

Both regional divisions of the Democratic Party were overwhelmingly racist but the way you just explained it, was a gross oversimplification of how the issue of slavery and western territories affected the Democratic Party.