Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
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.
|
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.