chronomitch's Comments
Re: Tim Wise: Use of the N-Word
1)
Yes, you are correct that the word does hold weight, but censoring the word from existence and disallowing the word to be said IN ANY CONTEXT gives it even more weight and power. I'm sorry, but I take a moral stance against censorship and a stance for freedom of speech. I would much rather true racists be able to speak their minds so that we know who they are and can rebuke them as necessary (by using our own freedom of speech), instead of ignoring it. Censorship doesn't get rid of the thing which concerns you. It merely sends it underground where it can fester. The solution to the "problem" of free speech is simply more free speech.
2)
I completely disagree. You are using an extremely dangerous tool (discrimination) to try to socially engineer an end to racism. It's a ridiculous suggestion that this will work, for numerous reasons. Firstly, the people who actually invented the rules of PC aren't poor blacks, they were (and still are) rich, elitist whites with little to no connection with the people they are supposedly helping, so many times the rules of PC don't make sense or are harmful in and of themselves. For example, I know many people who think the term "African-American" is discriminatory in and of itself because white people aren't called "White-American." They actually prefer being called "black." Secondly, discriminating against people who have had absolutely no hand in the problems which faced black people in the past does nothing to foster good race relations. If anything, it makes people feel like they are being unfairly punished for something they aren't responsible for, which only antagonizes them. You're not going to win any allies that way.
Do you know what does work to end racism? It's simple, really, and I've already given you the answer: more speech. Instead of acting like a self-righteous activist who hands down and enforces PC rules to the uneducated masses, simply get someone to talk and explain why the words you find so offensive are so hurtful in the first place. Hell, this is exactly the reason why I toned down the use of "faggot":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-55wC5dEnc
3)
See above.
4)
I have great respect for civil rights leaders who fought for the innate freedoms which every human being is born with but sometimes denied by their governments. That's why I'm so against restricting those same freedoms in some kind of ill-conceived attempt at social engineering or punitive measure against people who have nothing to do with the crimes of the past.
Conclusion)
We're a lot closer to that age of enlightening than you think. Younger generations, including mine, are not trapped by the same ways of thinking that older generations are. At no time in history is the common man more empowered to choose his way of life or remake his life in the way he sees fit, rather than being forced into social roles demanded by the tribalism of the past. While it is true that collectivization is still strong, we are free to choose how and why we associate with other people, instead of simply being bound to simple associations based on race. For example, last night I hung out with about 30 other people of varying races, genders, and ages due to a shared interest and we all had a great time. I work on a daily basis with people of other races, and we all get along fine and work together well. My landlord is a first-generation immigrant from Iran, and he's just about the kindest, hardest working man you could be blessed with meeting. In all of these cases, people come from different cultures and walks of life, yet we are somehow able to live, work, and laugh together without the PC police constantly breathing down our necks, telling us how evil the white man is and charging us with racism is we don't follow the rules they made up. While race may not be completely irrelevant for my generation, it takes a backseat to pretty much anything else. It won't keep me from working with a competent coworker, and it won't keep me from making a friend.
Yes, you are correct that the word does hold weight, but censoring the word from existence and disallowing the word to be said IN ANY CONTEXT gives it even more weight and power. I'm sorry, but I take a moral stance against censorship and a stance for freedom of speech. I would much rather true racists be able to speak their minds so that we know who they are and can rebuke them as necessary (by using our own freedom of speech), instead of ignoring it. Censorship doesn't get rid of the thing which concerns you. It merely sends it underground where it can fester. The solution to the "problem" of free speech is simply more free speech.
2)
I completely disagree. You are using an extremely dangerous tool (discrimination) to try to socially engineer an end to racism. It's a ridiculous suggestion that this will work, for numerous reasons. Firstly, the people who actually invented the rules of PC aren't poor blacks, they were (and still are) rich, elitist whites with little to no connection with the people they are supposedly helping, so many times the rules of PC don't make sense or are harmful in and of themselves. For example, I know many people who think the term "African-American" is discriminatory in and of itself because white people aren't called "White-American." They actually prefer being called "black." Secondly, discriminating against people who have had absolutely no hand in the problems which faced black people in the past does nothing to foster good race relations. If anything, it makes people feel like they are being unfairly punished for something they aren't responsible for, which only antagonizes them. You're not going to win any allies that way.
Do you know what does work to end racism? It's simple, really, and I've already given you the answer: more speech. Instead of acting like a self-righteous activist who hands down and enforces PC rules to the uneducated masses, simply get someone to talk and explain why the words you find so offensive are so hurtful in the first place. Hell, this is exactly the reason why I toned down the use of "faggot":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-55wC5dEnc
3)
See above.
4)
I have great respect for civil rights leaders who fought for the innate freedoms which every human being is born with but sometimes denied by their governments. That's why I'm so against restricting those same freedoms in some kind of ill-conceived attempt at social engineering or punitive measure against people who have nothing to do with the crimes of the past.
Conclusion)
We're a lot closer to that age of enlightening than you think. Younger generations, including mine, are not trapped by the same ways of thinking that older generations are. At no time in history is the common man more empowered to choose his way of life or remake his life in the way he sees fit, rather than being forced into social roles demanded by the tribalism of the past. While it is true that collectivization is still strong, we are free to choose how and why we associate with other people, instead of simply being bound to simple associations based on race. For example, last night I hung out with about 30 other people of varying races, genders, and ages due to a shared interest and we all had a great time. I work on a daily basis with people of other races, and we all get along fine and work together well. My landlord is a first-generation immigrant from Iran, and he's just about the kindest, hardest working man you could be blessed with meeting. In all of these cases, people come from different cultures and walks of life, yet we are somehow able to live, work, and laugh together without the PC police constantly breathing down our necks, telling us how evil the white man is and charging us with racism is we don't follow the rules they made up. While race may not be completely irrelevant for my generation, it takes a backseat to pretty much anything else. It won't keep me from working with a competent coworker, and it won't keep me from making a friend.
By: chronomitch
Re: Tim Wise: Use of the N-Word
No, you are missing the point.
Let me begin by saying that I rarely say nigger/nigga/etc. About the only time I use the word is when I am performing a rendition of various rap/hip-hop songs (usually stuff from the late 80s or early 90s). Aside from that, I pretty much never use the word, unless I'm around people who know me and understand why and how I'm using the word. In other words, people who understand the context of using that word.
And that's the important point here: context. Context is everything. Are there instances where "nigger" is used in a hateful, discriminatory manner? Absolutely, and people who use the word in that manner should be called out and publicly shamed. Are there other ways to use the word without spreading hate and ignorance? Of course. However, instead of exerting the minimal amount of critical thinking required to examine the context of a word's use, people like yourself and Tim Wise have instead decided to childishly censor a word from existence. In doing so, you have given this word power over yourselves, cowering sheepishly in the same way wizards and witches in Harry Potter books are afraid to say the name "Voldemort" as if merely uttering the word, regardless of context, can cause suffering. This is silly.
Moreover, the claim that non-blacks should not be able to use the word is not only discriminatory on its face, but it is indicative of even worse prejudices and attitudes upon deeper inspection. Tim Wise makes the point that this blatant act of discrimination (blacks can use a word but whites cannot) is justified due to its history of use of by white people as a means to denigrate black people. Such reasoning is only acceptable if one also believes that individuals should be responsible for the sins of their ancestors (so-called "sins of the father") or the sins of their race. The former is a way of moral thinking that most modern societies have outright rejected (and rightly so), and the latter way of thinking is discriminatory and racist. So no, you have no right or moral imperative to prevent me from using a word based on my skin color. If you think you do, then you are a racist. Congratulations.
This discussion leads to a bigger issue: individualism versus communal identity. Though my skin is white, I have never thought of myself as belonging to a "white" community, nor have I ever wanted to. I value my individualism, and I don't want anyone else making decisions for me or speaking for me. I want to be judged for my own actions and words, not those of other people who share my skin color. Though I am sure the concept of a "white community" exists in some places in the US (perhaps in the South), I still find it to be a rare and strange occurrence. I can understand how certain economic or social factors might cause people to band together based on race, such as people who live in poverty or first-generation immigrants who cannot speak the common language. However, I find the fact that many middle-class blacks still talk about a "black community" disturbing. Not only is such a concept out-of-place in a modern society, but it leads to prejudicial attitudes based on one's skin color, such as preventing white people from saying a word, as shown in this video, while preventing any judgement on its use by black people, regardless of context. It also prevents any honest and open discussion about social problems ("you're not a member of the community, so it's none of your business").
I cannot help but think that black people who promote the "black community" have completely missed the point of the civil rights movement. People were not fighting for the right of their racial group to live in seclusion with equal rights, but to live, work, and go to school with people of other colors and backgrounds and to be judged individually by their character, rather than communally by the color of their skin. Dr. King said it better than I can:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
....
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
....
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
...
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Instead, many people are still stuck on the idea of "separate but equal", but history has shown that this maxim is false.
Let me begin by saying that I rarely say nigger/nigga/etc. About the only time I use the word is when I am performing a rendition of various rap/hip-hop songs (usually stuff from the late 80s or early 90s). Aside from that, I pretty much never use the word, unless I'm around people who know me and understand why and how I'm using the word. In other words, people who understand the context of using that word.
And that's the important point here: context. Context is everything. Are there instances where "nigger" is used in a hateful, discriminatory manner? Absolutely, and people who use the word in that manner should be called out and publicly shamed. Are there other ways to use the word without spreading hate and ignorance? Of course. However, instead of exerting the minimal amount of critical thinking required to examine the context of a word's use, people like yourself and Tim Wise have instead decided to childishly censor a word from existence. In doing so, you have given this word power over yourselves, cowering sheepishly in the same way wizards and witches in Harry Potter books are afraid to say the name "Voldemort" as if merely uttering the word, regardless of context, can cause suffering. This is silly.
Moreover, the claim that non-blacks should not be able to use the word is not only discriminatory on its face, but it is indicative of even worse prejudices and attitudes upon deeper inspection. Tim Wise makes the point that this blatant act of discrimination (blacks can use a word but whites cannot) is justified due to its history of use of by white people as a means to denigrate black people. Such reasoning is only acceptable if one also believes that individuals should be responsible for the sins of their ancestors (so-called "sins of the father") or the sins of their race. The former is a way of moral thinking that most modern societies have outright rejected (and rightly so), and the latter way of thinking is discriminatory and racist. So no, you have no right or moral imperative to prevent me from using a word based on my skin color. If you think you do, then you are a racist. Congratulations.
This discussion leads to a bigger issue: individualism versus communal identity. Though my skin is white, I have never thought of myself as belonging to a "white" community, nor have I ever wanted to. I value my individualism, and I don't want anyone else making decisions for me or speaking for me. I want to be judged for my own actions and words, not those of other people who share my skin color. Though I am sure the concept of a "white community" exists in some places in the US (perhaps in the South), I still find it to be a rare and strange occurrence. I can understand how certain economic or social factors might cause people to band together based on race, such as people who live in poverty or first-generation immigrants who cannot speak the common language. However, I find the fact that many middle-class blacks still talk about a "black community" disturbing. Not only is such a concept out-of-place in a modern society, but it leads to prejudicial attitudes based on one's skin color, such as preventing white people from saying a word, as shown in this video, while preventing any judgement on its use by black people, regardless of context. It also prevents any honest and open discussion about social problems ("you're not a member of the community, so it's none of your business").
I cannot help but think that black people who promote the "black community" have completely missed the point of the civil rights movement. People were not fighting for the right of their racial group to live in seclusion with equal rights, but to live, work, and go to school with people of other colors and backgrounds and to be judged individually by their character, rather than communally by the color of their skin. Dr. King said it better than I can:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
....
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
....
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
...
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Instead, many people are still stuck on the idea of "separate but equal", but history has shown that this maxim is false.
By: chronomitch
Re: RetroBites: Arthur Conan Doyle - Afterlife
So, what was this proof that he supposedly found?
By: chronomitch
Re: Japanese Girl Falls In The Mud
Is this some kind of new fetish or something?
I just don't understand kids these days. *get off my lawn*
I just don't understand kids these days. *get off my lawn*
By: chronomitch
Re: Rage Comic: Socks with Sandals
This is nothing. I've seen an idiot wearing a full suit with socks and sandals.
By: chronomitch
Re: Amy Winehouse: Fuck Me Pumps
After a hard day's work, I like to lay back and crack open a cold one - beer that is.
By: chronomitch
Re: Robert Reich: Why Taxes Have to Be Raised
@Voidwar
Serious question: Would you support letting the Bush tax cuts expire? As a result, taxes would effectively be raised on both the middle class and upper class.
Serious question: Would you support letting the Bush tax cuts expire? As a result, taxes would effectively be raised on both the middle class and upper class.
By: chronomitch
Re: Amnesty International: Behnoud
Ignore the above, I messed up with my keyboard.
-curb psychopathic behavior
Removing violent psychopaths from society (permanently) seems to be a good way to curb psychopathic behavior.
-bring "closure" to a victim's family
No one can bring back the dead, but I am sure that plenty of victims get some relief from seeing criminals brought to justice - permanently. At least they will know that such people can never harm people again.
-costs less than jailing a person for life
Not if the death penalty laws are amended. The major cost in current death penalty cases are the endless series of appeals. If a murderous psychopath like Breivik openly confesses to committing the crimes, shows no signs of remorse, and cannot be reformed or reintroduced into society safely, then why should we allow an endless series of appeals? Kill the guy and be done with it. That's a heck of a lot cheaper than paying $50000 per year for the rest of the criminal's natural life.
-in any way makes us more civilized
Says you, but that's just your opinion, dude. /big_lebowski
I see nothing civilized in keeping alive vicious psychopaths, such as Breivik, who have committed atrocious crimes and cannot be reformed.
-curb psychopathic behavior
Removing violent psychopaths from society (permanently) seems to be a good way to curb psychopathic behavior.
-bring "closure" to a victim's family
No one can bring back the dead, but I am sure that plenty of victims get some relief from seeing criminals brought to justice - permanently. At least they will know that such people can never harm people again.
-costs less than jailing a person for life
Not if the death penalty laws are amended. The major cost in current death penalty cases are the endless series of appeals. If a murderous psychopath like Breivik openly confesses to committing the crimes, shows no signs of remorse, and cannot be reformed or reintroduced into society safely, then why should we allow an endless series of appeals? Kill the guy and be done with it. That's a heck of a lot cheaper than paying $50000 per year for the rest of the criminal's natural life.
-in any way makes us more civilized
Says you, but that's just your opinion, dude. /big_lebowski
I see nothing civilized in keeping alive vicious psychopaths, such as Breivik, who have committed atrocious crimes and cannot be reformed.
By: chronomitch
Re: Amnesty International: Behnoud
-curb psychopathic behavior
Except that if the death penalty laws were amended, it could result in situations that cost considerably less money.
Let's take Breivik's case, for instance. He has openly admitted to the crime, both in public and in court. Is there any reason for the continuous and unending repeals in such cases? Wouldn't simply killing him be far cheaper in the long run?
He shows no remorse, nor is there any reason to think he will change his ways. If (and when) he is released from prison, he simply commit similar acts of atrocity.
And I don't know about you, but it would bring "closure" to me to know that there is one less psychopathic killer running around.
Except that if the death penalty laws were amended, it could result in situations that cost considerably less money.
Let's take Breivik's case, for instance. He has openly admitted to the crime, both in public and in court. Is there any reason for the continuous and unending repeals in such cases? Wouldn't simply killing him be far cheaper in the long run?
He shows no remorse, nor is there any reason to think he will change his ways. If (and when) he is released from prison, he simply commit similar acts of atrocity.
And I don't know about you, but it would bring "closure" to me to know that there is one less psychopathic killer running around.
By: chronomitch
Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
Well, I suppose if you subscribe to certain methods of thought and are intellectually honest, it would be near impossible to "choose" whether or not you believe in a god. That choice is simply a result of the cold, hard logic.
By: chronomitch
Re: Amnesty International: Behnoud
And when we set aside the emotional porn, is Amnesty International willing to defend people like this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
Or how about that Breivik guy who went on a shooting spree in Norway? Given Norway's legal system, Breivik will eventually be freed and, if he remains as remorseless as he is now, I see no reason why he wouldn't go on another rampage.
It's one thing to defend a young person who grew up in bad conditions and made some bad choices. It's another to defend known psychopaths who have absolutely no chance of ever being able to function in civil society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
Or how about that Breivik guy who went on a shooting spree in Norway? Given Norway's legal system, Breivik will eventually be freed and, if he remains as remorseless as he is now, I see no reason why he wouldn't go on another rampage.
It's one thing to defend a young person who grew up in bad conditions and made some bad choices. It's another to defend known psychopaths who have absolutely no chance of ever being able to function in civil society.
By: chronomitch
Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
What a letdown. Tyson is an agnostic atheist.
Let's get this straight. You either believe in god(s) or you don't. It's a choice. If you believe, you're a theist (perhaps a polytheist if it's many gods). If not, you're an atheist. Gnosticism refers to the reason why you either believe or you don't.
Agnostic atheists do not believe enough evidence exists to prove or disprove a god, but they choose not to believe.
Gnostic atheists believe there is significant evidence to disprove the existence of a god, and they choose not to believe due to this.
Agnostic theists do not believe enough evidence exists to prove or disprove a god, but choose to believe.
Gnostic theists believe considerable evidence exists to prove the existence of a god, so they choose to believe.
In general, most theists are gnostic theists. As for atheists, many are gnostic with respect to the known religions, but some are agnostic with respect to the general possibility of some higher power existing. Of course, there are always exceptions.
Let's get this straight. You either believe in god(s) or you don't. It's a choice. If you believe, you're a theist (perhaps a polytheist if it's many gods). If not, you're an atheist. Gnosticism refers to the reason why you either believe or you don't.
Agnostic atheists do not believe enough evidence exists to prove or disprove a god, but they choose not to believe.
Gnostic atheists believe there is significant evidence to disprove the existence of a god, and they choose not to believe due to this.
Agnostic theists do not believe enough evidence exists to prove or disprove a god, but choose to believe.
Gnostic theists believe considerable evidence exists to prove the existence of a god, so they choose to believe.
In general, most theists are gnostic theists. As for atheists, many are gnostic with respect to the known religions, but some are agnostic with respect to the general possibility of some higher power existing. Of course, there are always exceptions.
By: chronomitch
I don't disagree with the goals that your proposed censorship and other forms of PC seek to achieve. I merely think that they are ineffective at best and will give opposite results at worst.