Quote:
Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam
I get what you're saying (or pick up what you're puttin' down, or smell what you're steppin' in).
|
Yuck?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam
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'm not sure where this is coming from. Are you saying that whites, in general, dish it or is this a hypothetical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam
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!"
|
There isn't a difference between those statements
if they both objectify based on group membership. That would be based on the outcome of the statements and not the (difficult to prove) intent.
As for the bigotry stuff, racism doesn't require bigotry but prejudice does to some extent. So insisting that racism be defined as "Archie Bunkerisms" really does a disservice to an understanding of the construct. It's like believing that stars only exist at night because we can't see them during the day.