One of the most brilliant episodes of South Park there is, is the episode where Eric Cartman gets sent to juvy for throwing a rock at a black kid. It was "hate crime" not because Eric hates black people, but because he hit someone who wasn't the same race he was. The judge at his hearing even says, "If you want to hurt someone, you better make damn sure they're the same color as you are."

I think this pretty much portrays what's going on these days. Yes, there are people who really hate black people, and there are hate crime organizations, but have you heard a black comedian lately? Chris Rock complains because no one researches the death of Tupac, and constantly uses the phraise "It's all right 'cause it's all white".

The majority of people today who aren't racist, are being blamed as a whole for racism. It's no longer about racism, it's about people who want money any way they can get it. If a white man hits a black man because the black man insulted him, hate crime, go to court. If a black man hits a white man because the white man insulted him, hate crime go to court.

How far will we take this? We've already added many groups as protected groups, and the gov't is looking to add homosexuals as a protected group, making priests unable to teach what the Bible states about it. But what's next? Short people? People with big noses? Protecting a group does not help the country become equal for all, because we are just constantly singling groups out.

Sources: "Never Scared" - Chris Rock, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat2.htm

This is one of the issues where I feel the feds have over stepped jursdiction. It should be a state jurisdiction for those communities affected and hopefully a general standard of acceptance or unacceptance will occur naturally between the states. It shouldn't be forced but a more natural social movement.

I agree. Give help to those who need it, not protection to those who want it.

Blamed by whom? By Chris Rock? He's a comedian, not a sociologist. Even if you feel he blames all white people for racism (which I would disagree with), that doesn't mean that all black people blame everyone for racism.

I would also have to disagree with that statement.
South Park and Chris Rock aren't the best sources for information.
Also, race should be protected but sexual preference protection is absurd.

If you protect homosexuals from "hate crimes" then pedophile sexual preference, necrophilia sexual preference, bestiality sexual preference, and many more will demand the same protection. No, I don’t believe any of these should be protected by law. People believe pedophiles have a disorder, what makes homosexuals any different?

While I agree with the truth of that statement, and with pyscs, I have to point out somthing. More people are going to learn about somthing from Chris Rock and South Park than they are from sociology. In a sense, they are a more listened to authority when you look at the public as a whole.

That might be true, but credibility is more important than popularity.

South Park claims scientology is a fruity little money scam club that brainwashes people. No matter how true the statement is I don't think I would base my entire opinion on something one cartoon said. They got my attention, so I looked for support on those views. Sure enough they're a fruity little money scam club that brainwashes people. Shows like that might make people more aware of the issue, but don't stop there. Get more support and sources that are creditable. You're in trouble if you accept everything you hear on television.

Again, in truth yes. To the masses, no.

That doesn't make what they say true or accurate.

It doesn't matter though. Not to the majority of people.

Well, which is why we're trying to get beyond that rhetoric here. Cain & Abel took Chris Rock's message seemingly to say that all black people blame all white people for racism. Chris Rock may be able to influence the masses, but he doesn't necessarily represent the masses. We shouldn't assume that just because he's a popular figure with influence, that what he's saying reflects what most black people think.

And the only thing that I pointed out was, while it is true that he doesn't speak in sociological truths (I am agreeing on this) he does hold more sway. It was a simple statement of fact, pysc. I'm not asigning any "Good" or "Bad" to it.

No, I don't listen to everything I hear on television. I'm just bugged. Sure, if it had been true that people more often listen to what sociologists say, I probably would've mentioned it. But the masses would rather listen to exciting people who are wrong then boring people who are right. If I believed everything I watched, I don't think I'd be able to make up my own mind. The reason I point out Chris Rock is because he's a popular person that we recognize, but I could name plenty of people I know who always blame every little thing on Racism. I'm not saying that everyone does it, but in schools and popular culture it's getting to be the majority. The idea I'm trying to get at is that Racism is no longer a form of abuse, but more of a word to just throw around.

As for the arguement of sexual preference protection, it's somewhat difficult to listen to. Gays and lesbians had a choice whether to be gay or not, while blacks didn't have a choice what skin color they were going to be, which is one reason it's hard to read about their past abuse. Key word past, they aren't slaves anymore, they are free, and they can do what they will. Whether they complain about Racism or not.

That is up for debate. I'd say no, that it isn't.

True, but the fact that they have to work a hell of alot harder than a white person to do it. Is that fair? No. Is racism a viable claim for many (though not all) of the problems that minorities face? It certainly is.

I think I showed you blizzard's list of facts concerning racism. On the main IF forum. Or maybe not. It still applies here.

I don't think we're debating American's susceptibility to mass media.

---

We as Americans love to believe that everyone is accepted without discrimination, but it's not true. If you study sociology you realize that parts of our identity (race, culture, social group) affect how others act and react to us. People are more aware of race when they are around someone of a different race than themselves. Simply being aware of that makes people more prone to noticing subtly differences while interacting.

I would like to hear some examples. Not that I doubt that it happens.

Extremely easy debate target...

The tone you're using, it just seems likes you have a personal grudge with someone specific. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds angery. Black people retain their culture, hispanics retain their culture, asians retain their culture, indians retain their culture, white people don't have much to look for in a unified cultural history. White people are more accepting of the melting pot idea than other races or cultures. What defines white culture? What defines black culture?

You act like it doesn't happen, like it's all in the past.

Well my experience has been there are people whom I find most annoying in any category of humanity (age, nationality, race, sexuality, religion, education level, gender, life style). I have found I can tolerate most except for a few or under extreme conditions.

I'd say comedians, of all races usually point out the quirks of the voice or of certain skin colors. But racism as a word to just throw around, I can give great examples. Take my friends cousin Alex, who is part phillipino:

Me: Hey.
Alex: Stop trying to act black!
Me: I'm not.
Alex: What, they aren't good enough for you? RACIST!!

And then there's all his little pissant friends who do the exact same thing, God that's annoying....

Yea, so I've read. People believe that people are just drawn to their own gender. But you have the choice whether or not to be openly gay, and if you're paranoid of gay abuse you probably wouldn't admit to being gay. Yea, it's an easy debate target, but had I said they didn't have a choice whether to be gay or not, that could also be a very easy debate target.

I don't try to seem angry, or hold a grudge, and I don't. Blacks are a free people is what my point is trying to be. Black people have been in the country since the slave market starting shipping them to America, and the ones in the country today probably don't know African culture as well as their ancestors do. Black culture is no long from Africa, black culture is hip-hop, chicks and wearing as much gold as you can, if you'd like me to stereotype what the media calls "black culture".

Not at all, acts of REAL racism happen, what I mean by complain is those who talk about racism but have never really experienced it for themselves. It happens, KKK immediately pops into mind, but those who are out complaining because a white cop gave them a speeding ticket when they were ONLY going 5 miles over or some stupid crap like that, and blaming it on racism, that's complaining.

I would not doubt that many people throw it around, and that many people use it more to complain than to call to light legitimate claims. However, I would question that it is MORE of a word just to throw around, and I would certainly disagree that it is no longer a form of abuse.

Interesting that you bring up hip-hop. A large source of influence in hip-hop is the racist and anti-black establishments that people grow up in. Black culture is no longer from Africa, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that black culture no longer deals with racism.

Sometimes that's complaining, but most of the time it's not. Black drivers very consistently get pulled over more than whites. Is this "racism" in the sense of cops simply hating black people? Probably not. It's more complex than that.

Let me give an example from my hometown of Baltimore. The city is predominantly black, the suburbs predominantly white. The city is predominantly poor, the suburbs predominantly middle to upper class. If a fancy car is being driven in the suburbs by a black person, this is something that goes against the sociological trend. An unthinking cop might say "well most blacks are in the city, and most fancy cars are in the suburbs--I better check it out." In terms of pure statistical chance--he's got good reason to do so.

But let's look at from the side of the middle class black person, who has fought against racism in order to find a good job and buy a car that he deserves. EVERYWHERE he goes he gets pulled over. The cop can't say "well I pulled you over because you were black," so instead says things like, "well you were going a little fast there." But who is the cop kidding? The driver knows it's because he's black.

This in my mind is an example of racism, but not in the traditional sense. It is what some sociologists call institutional racism--a type of racism that descriminates against people who do not DESERVE descrimination, and yet at the same time might occur not because the perpetrator is actively and consciously racist, but because of broader institutional and cultural factors.

What I'm saying, Cain & Abel, is that it may be true that the numbers of overt racist people are on the decline, and yet it may also be true that simultaneously, the effects of institutional racism are still clear and present.

"Alex" is obviously joking around with you. If you came back with something equally stupid like "It's because I'm white, isn't it?!" then Alex would probably just laugh.

If a black male/female called you a cracker, would you get offended?

Would anyone care (would it be the equal reaction as the use of the "N-word")?
The answer is no, no one cares.

Not all races have the same race-related experiences.

Yea, that's true, I wouldn't be offended, but what makes the "n-word" the n-word? Generally a word is deemed "Bad" when it is used in a horrible sense, as in saying "What the hell" it is considered "Bad" but in speaking of the actual place, it is fine to say it. In a same sort of situation, we can't call black people the n-word, but a black man can call another black man the afore-mentioned word. But the only thing that really makes the word derogatory is the way we've used it in the past we are just plain used to how it's established. In the same way, if someone got super-offended at "cracker" then to that person it is derogatory. In short, the only thing that makes the word "bad" is the person's grasp of the word.

Psycholopher, I certainly know what kind of racism your talking about, but I have never heard it broken down in such a way. When I said "no longer" I didn't mean not at all, I meant it's a more rare occurance.

Sort of an aside, but why do we say "n-word." Why not just say "nigger." I remember in school when that came up, me being the only on not having a problem saying it. Its a word, there isn't a bad thing to them. So, its "nigger."

I don't know if you use it there but what about the word 'paki' thats considered racist but i don't really know if many people are sure why

the word paki (or pakki I've heard it as) is somewhat different, because its generally used as an insult and I don't think there is a social context where it wouldn't be derogatory or as a reference to it being used in such a way. And I've never heard a pakistani call another a paki.

As to nigger, I don't understand why its offensive to a black person for a white person to call him/her a nigger but not another black person to call him/her a nigger. :S

Its pretty simple, its the context it is used in. The word nigger reflects the social value put on the word during the Jim Crow era and before that. Calling a black person a nigger diminishes the person's status.

That, however, is only tru in dominant and subordinate group relationships. When used by someone of the same "level" as you, such as a friend who is also black, it doesn't having the demeaning nature that it does when used by someone of a dominate group, like white people.

Because it's offensive? Don't you sometimes replace the f-word with "the f-word"? Maybe the "b-word" or the "s-word"?
People know what you're talking about, and they know you didn't actually say the word.


If you go around saying the n-word in a discussion or to tell what someone else said, then someone might assume you were using that word to talk about someone in a derogatory way.

"He said (the f-word)!"
Well, now you just did too.
It must not have been too offensive.

Its just a word, how is a word offensive? Nigger is just a word like anything else. So is fuck. Actually, that is in the word filter be default. Anyways, its the context its used in.

And no, if I'm going to say fuck, shit, or bitch, I say it. Because I don't oft say it in a manner that is meant to be offensive. If you're too blind to see word as a word, and not in the manner it is meant, then you've got a problem.

So I ask, how is the word nigger offensive as a word, and not in context?

Well I do believe there is a double standard. I believe this is largely because whites are the majority but it still is nevertheless a double standard.

There will always be a double-standard somewhere. Especially for labels that people use. It's so much easier to try to paint a picture with a few, simple words and call it accurate.

We all have our biases. As much as I am unprejudiced, I get so very irritated at people that have high expectations of others and don't try to meet any themselves. It is without doubt a despicable irony that many of the do-gooders claim people have to emulate them to be "good" folks as well. Most of mine are against religion, politicians, wealth and beauty. There's a good and bad aspect to it all. Just because a church teaches and preaches good things and keeps all the congregation givings doesn't make it a "good" church. It's good for what it's good at doing. Sorry for the Yogi Berra-rism.

I'd talked to many that found specific words offensive and help them to see how they are only words. The usage and inflection often determines if it's derogatory in nature. I can call someone "Sir" or "Madam" with such dripping sarcasm that they'd be quite offended by it.

And of course, there is reverse discrimintation as well as reverse prejudices. Listening to someone tonight at free poker tourneys, they were talking about generalities of how "tight" a white neighbourhood was in regards to buying some charity tickets. It was stated that the child being black was the reason. People in this little ol' small town are just friggin' stingy! So I don't think the race of the seller even came into play as much as it was emphasized in the relating of that episode.