PRIVATE MESSAGES AND BOARDERLINE RACIST LANGUAGE

The Study of Racialism
Discussion of U.S. Racialism
Please read The Rules before posting.

FAQ

PRIVATE MESSAGES AND BOARDERLINE RACIST LANGUAGE
Goto page Previous 1, 2

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Site Management

Author

Message

High School Teacher
Mentor
Mentor

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
{Posts: 255 }
Location: California

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 03:58 Post subject:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Quote:

...Whether or not you mean a derogatory statement as a racial slur is beside the point. [b]What really matters is how the person receiving the insult views it...

Incorrect. How a person views an insult depends on their own perception. That is a rediculous measuring stick. For instance, if I view the term Jew in a derogatory sense when applied to me, then it might be, according to your logic, a racist slur, though the person who said it could have intended a different meaning.

How long will we spend arguing over this. You wont win. Although I do say, I like your "in your face" attitude. It makes it more fun. Rolling Eyes

Kid

I noticed you left out the critical part of that quote. How convenient.

It is not a serious argument to assert that in order for a slur to be racial the person making the slur must intend it to have a precise biological significance. To wit, if I call an african american regardless of skin color and phenotype a slur applicable only to that group, it is not a racial slur. The full weight of this absurdity must be too obvious for you recognize. Take a step back.

Perhaps you feel ethnic slurs are somehow qualitatively different and less corrosive to the soul than racial slurs. Rolling Eyes

Last edited by High School Teacher on Sun 20 May 2007 16:09; edited 2 times in total

High School Teacher
Mentor
Mentor

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
{Posts: 255 }
Location: California

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 04:04 Post subject:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Well if the administrator decides that what I said counts as an ad hominem attack Rolling Eyes

then you are just as f*$%d as I am. Smile

Kid

Not necessarily. This is your second violation in three days.

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 05:10 Post subject:

What violation are you talking about?

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 05:14 Post subject:

Quote:

Perhaps you feel ethnic slurs are somehow qualitatively different and less corrosive to the soul than racial slurs.

And obviously, you do not. Which is what this argument is really about. You dont think any kind of ethnic slur is acceptable, and I do. While I almost never use ethnic slurs unless really pissed off ( ony used em a few times ever), I dont object to the principal. Blacks call mexicans beaners, the mexicans call blacks mayates, both call asians chinks. Bla bla bla. Who cares. I think thats a bunch of bleeding heart nonsense.

Kid

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 05:16 Post subject:

Quote:

I noticed you left out the critical part of that quote. How convenient.

By the way, that is an ad hominem attack aswell. You are implying that I am being purposefully deceitful - that is, you are assassinating my character. So this would bring your total up to two in the last day. Good job. Wink

Kid

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 05:20 Post subject:

Its been fun teacher but i've decided this exchange is counterproductive. I dont really want to argue about me, I want to argue about ideas. Continuing this would just be giving you what you want. I dont care if you, teacher, think its racist or not. I allready established my points, there is nothing you can do to tear them down, save for throw your books at me. And nobody ever won a debate that way. See you out there.... Kid

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4587 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 11:43 Post subject:

High School Teacher wrote:

I want to bring to your attention that sagascend issued "TheMulattokid" a first warning for ad hominem a couple of days ago. http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=3341 As you probably noticed from his above post to me, he still hasn't got the message. Do as you see fit.

Maya, could you please opine on this? You issued the original warning and I need the context of your warning to decide whether asking "HighSchoolTeacher" if he/she really is a high school teacher should be considered a second ad hominem.

Reply by PM, if you wish.

Last edited by fwsweet on Sun 20 May 2007 16:19; edited 1 time in total

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4587 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 11:53 Post subject:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Quote:

I noticed you left out the critical part of that quote. How convenient.

By the way, that is an ad hominem attack aswell. You are implying that I am being purposefully deceitful - that is, you are assassinating my character.

I do not consider the accusation to be ad hominem. In debate, accusing someone of partial quoting is a "point of order" alleging a violating the rules of the debate itself. Furthermore, in the case, the allegation is accurate.

FWIW, partial quoting usually backfires because the readers notice a partial quotation, even when it is not not mentioned, and it damages the quoter's own credibility. In general, when restating an opponent's argument in order to demolish it, it is best to state the opponent's argument as strongly as possible. Partial quoting and misquoting are variants of straw man.

I sometimes edit quotations with content that I disagree with, in order to make them even more persuasive, just so that I can demolish them better. For instance if someone says "most A-A's have no Euro admixture," I might re-state the inaccuracy to be more persuasive as "some A-A's" (rather than most) because in fact almost all A-A's have detectable Euro markers.

Last edited by fwsweet on Sun 20 May 2007 16:24; edited 2 times in total

High School Teacher
Mentor
Mentor

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
{Posts: 255 }
Location: California

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 15:58 Post subject:

fwsweet wrote:

High School Teacher wrote:

Frank,

I quoted only part of "TheMulattoKid's" ad hominem remark because it was delivered in two different posts and for brevity. If anything my partial quoting made it appear more innocuous than it actually is. "You're a High School Teacher" appears ambiguous in isolation but if you read it along with his/her following post, exactly a minute later, the ad hominem is obvious.

Here is his/her following remark:

Quote:

I wonder how well your kids are able to critically interpret the meaning of words...Mayate is targeted at black Americans, but it doesnt have to imply racial inferiority, thats the point...really now...SAT anyone?

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4587 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 16:16 Post subject:

fwsweet wrote:

High School Teacher wrote:

In reply, High School Teacher wrote:

I quoted only part of "TheMulattoKid's" ad hominem remark because it was delivered in two different posts and for brevity. If anything my partial quoting made it appear more innocuous than it actually is. "You're a High School Teacher" appears ambiguous in isolation but if you read it along with his/her following post, exactly a minute later, the ad hominem is obvious. Here is his/her following remark:

Quote:

Thank you. That helps.

High School Teacher
Mentor
Mentor

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
{Posts: 255 }
Location: California

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 17:03 Post subject:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Its been fun teacher but i've decided this exchange is counterproductive. I dont really want to argue about me, I want to argue about ideas. Continuing this would just be giving you what you want. I dont care if you, teacher, think its racist or not. I allready established my points, there is nothing you can do to tear them down, save for throw your books at me. And nobody ever won a debate that way. See you out there.... Laughing

Kid

Quitting so soon? Crying or Very sad

Well, I agree it is beginning to be counterproductive because you have yet answer my initial question satisfactorily. Remember I asked you if "mayate" is not a racial slur then what is. You answered "Nigger".

Yet, by your own criteria, "Nigger" is not a racial slur either because it is used against african americans regardless of skin tone and phenotype. Hence, biology, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with who is called "Nigger". Or so you'd have us believe.

Yes, now is a good time to pull the plug on your sophistry.

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4587 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Sun 20 May 2007 17:54 Post subject:

I am closing this thread temporarily to avoid further escalation until Maya can opine on the question above.

sagascend
Moderator

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2112 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 13:09 Post subject:

fwsweet wrote:

High School Teacher wrote:

Sorry for the delay, all, I was away from my computer this weekend.

The context of my warning to TMK and Sankofa was about their "discussion" of multiracialism in the Issues for Biracial Americans forum. Both posters received a warning, with the next infraction resulting in a suspension.

As in TMK's original infraction (I believe I said he was "skirting" an ad hominem attack), there is, in my opinion, no clear ad hominem attack. I will say, that, however, contextually it is difficult for me to surmise that the question is anything other than disingenous. TMK's subsequent statement about the HST's students solidified it in my mind. TMK is skating on extremely thin ice, but it hasn't cracked yet IMO.

Although the stated rule is to refrain from antagonizing other posters, no matter the actual intent, I am reluctant to suspend in this case because future posters would be able to "cry wolf" once another had stated his/her actual intent. A suspension here would set a precedent for denying posting privileges when a poster's intent has been stated and there is no clear ad hominem attack.

My recommedation is that TMK apologize to HST. TMK should refrain from resorting to these antics to needle another poster, if only for the reason that he retain his posting privileges - the line will be crossed eventually and I do not believe TMK's debate partners would be inclined to let it go. Besides, not only is HST unlikely to bite (I mean, dealing with high school kids alone probably makes him immune to it), he is quite adept at pointing out a flaw in TMK's logic in this thread. I would like the debate to continue if both parties are so inclined.

G-Man
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 13:19 Post subject:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Mayate is thrown by racist Chicanos and Mexicans at anyone who is black to them, i.e., perceived to be of significant African ancestry. BTW, I know a Dominican and a Honduran who live in Southern California who speak fluent Spanish and are often called mayate by Mexicans and Mexican Americans, even after it is revealed that these two people speak Spanish. It is a racial slur period.

mixedmom
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 776 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 13:32 Post subject:

G-Man wrote:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

Is this slur (I've NEVER heard this word before) based on appearance? I ask because I believe that my appearance shows obvious African ancestry but I've been told by Hispanic people from Central and South American that I don't look black to them. Is this mainly a Mexican thing?

sagascend
Moderator

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2112 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 13:44 Post subject:

mixedmom wrote:

G-Man wrote:

TheMulattoKid wrote:

If it is I have never heard it either. I am also in agreement with G-Man and HST that if it is used, the sense is racial rather than ethnic. "Huero/a" is an ethnic slur for White American or northern European persons. I have never heard a white Mexican or Mexican American referred to as a huero or huera.

The line between racial slur and ethnic slur is extremely blurry in the U.S. But doesn't that make sense given the binary color line and racialized classification system based on ancestry?

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 20:11 Post subject:

Quote:

he is quite adept at pointing out a flaw in TMK's logic in this thread.

What flaw in my logic has he pointed out? Could someone point this out?

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 20:20 Post subject:

Quote:

I have never heard a white Mexican or Mexican American referred to as a huero or huera.

Huero is a phenotypic slur for anyone with a "white" appearance. It is colloquially applied to many latin Americans and Chicanos. The meaning of the word is akin to the US English terms "darky" or "whitey". By G-Man's logic the term huero could be seen as racist.

Last edited by ImBack on Mon 21 May 2007 22:43; edited 1 time in total

ImBack
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 28 Jun 2006
{Posts: 587 }

Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 23:07 Post subject:

HST -

Quote:

It is not a serious argument to assert that in order for a slur to be racial the person making the slur must intend it to have a precise biological significance.

You are mistaken because the interpretation of the audience does not automatically negate the intention of the speaker.

GMAn -

Quote:

You are mistaken because many Chicanos and Mexicans who are not racists use the word mayate only against African Americans.

Display posts from previous:

	The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Site Management	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2