Did someone say that? (serious question, I didn't read these posts)

In case you didn't see it yet:

http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showth...85#post1765485

I don't believe it's been mentioned here from what I've read.

I am not talking about people who only "read about experiences." Your assumptions of what it means to have an expertise are guiding your replies.

This is GC, anyone can participate and that's what everyone's doing. KSig RC and I are making a general point that you keep wanting to only apply to GC.

On that note, this "opinion discussion" is boring as hell. What's worse than opinions-and-assholes is people who want to type long posts about their right to express their opinion.

That is what I took her post to mean. And I have certainly heard that "logic" before in person.

This is really not anyone's main point - indeed, I believe I used the term "accepted" somewhat tongue-in-cheek when pointing out that it's not "acceptable" (which is markedly different than "accepted") but it is indeed different and likely not nearly as "bad."

So you're kind of railing against a straw man of your own design here, I think - what am I missing?

I'm not sure this is actually true in a macro sense - what makes you think this is widely the case?

Nobody has said you should accept such behavior.

Here's the thing: the issue wasn't so much the word "cracker" just like it wasn't the word "jigaboo" or anything with such direct connotation - it was:

None of those are "racist" against white people - they are references to race, yes, but it simply cannot be implicitly racist to refer to race. That's the same cowering you're fighting against just paragraphs before! How this devolved into actual slurs is beyond me.

You know what? It's OK to make references to race. It's actually OK, at least in a certain environment or context, to make race-based jokes. Most people don't know the correct environments/contexts, which is where we run into a problem. If you want, I can actually walk through DrPhil's list of the three forms of racial animus, if you'd like, and give examples, because I think you're really painting with a broad brush here, to the point of getting angry about topics that aren't even central.

Other than Monet (who we have already discussed), I don't think anyone is a proponent of 'getting even' in any way.

However, I will go on record as saying that, in my opinion, the relationship does exist in the reverse: that is, if racial comments/jokes/references were indeed handled equally by both sides, we would be much closer to actual racial equality than if we simply decided to pretend such commentary didn't exist.

Then should you explain what you mean by expertise? I do not believe these posts have been general. Yours maybe, but others were not.

The scamper off. :D

I did not, but I bow to your so very adulty behavior you have demonstrated over the last day. :rolleyes:

So what you're saying is that because I take offense to someone calling me the c-word, I obviously wouldn't take offense to someone calling my boyfriend a sexist pig, or I would even do it myself?

I don't see where you're jumping to the conclusion that just because women have been oppressed so someone who thinks women have been oppressed or believes that there is a gender bias also thinks that your boyfriend's a pig. That's a stretch. In short, I don't think it's a "getting even" attitude, I think it's human nature.

It's human nature to categorize people in to offensive and non-offensive words for their race, gender, religion, etc. I believe that was covered in the first few pages of this thread. If certain white people are going to be offended by being called "white girl," then certain people can do that. It just doesn't make much sense, especially if they turn around and qualify another girl as a black girl (not that I've seen you do that, but I have seen people be highly offended by something and then turn around and do the exact same thing).

My great-grandfather was really upset with my grandmother because she married a "kraut." Food for thought. It happens with every nationality, every race, even within a race (light skinned v. dark skinned comes to mind).

The rationalization, I think, for most of the people that you see as being "completely rude" to you is that you fly off the handle when someone questions your logic. PJ questioned your opinion, you flew off the handle, and started posting like a douchebag. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're new. The only reason I posted about your newness was because your post count is low and it seems like you're getting into flame wars left and right. You should have taken your own advice, and not flown off the handle and called someone rude when they questioned your logic, a.k.a. not engaged.

If you've noticed, your "questioning" of my opinion has been answered in as professional a way as the charged subject allows. If you keep other threads out of the topic at hand, you should do fine. If people are going to be rude to you, let them. Or better yet, put them on ignore.

Therefore, the bullying stops, you go along your way and everything is fine.

ETA: Drop that other thread. Srlsy.

I said that white people shouldn't have been offended by "snowflake" or "barbie" but maybe more charged terms like "whitie" or "cracker" because snowflake and barbie aren't as charged. People white people haven't been oppressed (and I think I meant oppressed by people using that language against them).

So I guess it's not a straight up question of whether or not they've been oppressed.

The moral of that point was that there's not a history of racial abuse to go from for white people, so terms aren't as charged as they are for minorities, be it black, hispanic, asian, purple, etc.

Yes, I understand the difference. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

It is the case in the environment in which I grew up and in the one in which I work. If I implied that was the case for every person in said category, I did not mean to.

Not in those words, no, but it's been said more than once that, basically, "white people should keep their mouths shut" because as they have not been oppressed as a people they can't take these insults in the same way as can a minority. While I agree that that is actually true, I do not agree that should be accepted.

I realize the difference between those terms and stronger ones but as I have said, it applies to stronger ones as well. Had the term "cracker" been used I feel confident that it would still have caused no real reaction. The poster did say that maybe that wasn't the perfect example for what she was saying, but that she was making the point that, in general, even more charged racial slurs used against white people are not met with resistance, or at least not much.

I am talking in broads terms, but to a point. And it is not the topics that cause anger, it's the behavior of other posters.

I agree with your last paragraph.

I did not say that at all, nor even imply it. And that is not the conclusion to which I have "jumped" at all. It's been too long of a day to repeat my posts, again. Just re-read it.

Your fourth paragraph is a sentiment I have repeated several times in posts in this thread.

I did not fly off the handle for any questioning of logic, but rather for extremely rude treatment. Reading back will prove this, but if you don't want to take the time, understandably, that's exactly what the problem is. It has nothing to do with questioning logic but about people being a complete bitch in doing so. I give it back. I think because you haven't read the whole exchange you are missing what I find so offensive. You are not the only person to refer to "newness", and what I found most offensive was the repeated condescending attitude accompanied with the inevitable "ur such a child omg" and then a completely juvenile approach to the situation by that person. I make it a policy to never take advice from people who cannot take their own.

Thanks, but I have no need for anyone to tell me what to do. Try giving that same advice to the other poster who cannot let it die. Both of us have behaved like juveniles. You'll notice who is acknowledging that.

Should I? No.

Will I? In my own way.

As KSig RC stated, you pick up on the less substantive points and nitpick to create a strawman argument for yourself. Now you've become sidetracked by "layperson," "experience," and "expertise."

Personal experience is not the end-all and be-all for most things. Would you go to a doctor whose only knowledge of, and experience with, sickness is that she had a cold or was diagnosed with cancer before? Doctors not only have personal experiences but they have worked with others who have personal experiences. This hands-on knowledge is matched with reading and research that allow them to engage on theoretical and substantive levels with other doctors and reach out to laypersons.

The End. Seriously.

Maybe instead of saying "go re-read my post" (then go on to tell me not to tell you what to do, LOL), or instead of posting the exact same thing twice, you should flesh out the idea.

Because, obviously, I did read it, and missed your point.

Who was it that said "the definition of insanity is doing the same exact thing and expecting a different result."?

I'm not in the business of telling anyone what they can be offended by. The whites who are offended by such references have every right to be offended. This isn't an instance of "karma is a bitch" or "get over it."

The discussion was about whether such comments constitute "racism." The point is that "offense" does not imply "racism" and "racism" does not require "offense." That also applies to some instances where minorities claim racism. It applies in this discussion because of the power dynamic that makes racism a structure that changes in form but does not go away.

This is why I don't call people and individual-level experiences "racist." That individual-level application leads to "racism" being used too loosely.

I get what you're saying (or pick up what you're puttin' down, or smell what you're steppin' in).

Love and I are on different sides of the same coin, really. She's saying she's offended by people referring to the color of her skin, even in less charged terms like "frosted flake" or whatever, and I'm saying a white person has no right to be offended by someone using non-charged words to describe them if they're going to turn around and use non-charged words to describe another group. Or, simply, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I guess it all boils down to the connotation of the word, positive v. non-vulgar but still negative v. negative and vulgar v. downright bigoted. Not to mention the context of the word. "I don't like black people" is certainly different than "that black lady ran out in front of a car!"

And I suppose that was kindof shown in the study - where the person said "you can't trust black people" to some, or "you can't trust n-words" to others, then willingness to work with them.