Discrimination vs insult


#1

I have no specific incident in mind here, just a questioning mind so please don’t make any assumptions.

Why is it not so bad to call a person a “piece of shit” or “fat bitch”, but almost criminal to call one a "useless ‘insert any race here’ "?


#2

[quote=“mossINmyTOES”]
Why is it not so bad to call a person a “piece of shit” or “fat bitch”, but almost criminal to call one a "useless ‘insert any race here’ "?[/quote]

I think it really depends on who is the recipient of your above mentioned statements. My best friend and I regularly trade insults. However, if you were to call a co-worker that you are mildly acquainted with a piece of shit you would likely be in deep trouble. Yes. Racist comments are taboo in most cases.


#3

I guess my question would be more related to someone meaning to insult the other and not necessarily someone they knew.


#4

[quote=“mossINmyTOES”]I have no specific incident in mind here, just a questioning mind so please don’t make any assumptions.

Why is it not so bad to call a person a “piece of shit” or “fat bitch”, but almost criminal to call one a "useless ‘insert any race here’ "?[/quote]

Insightful post #2 by Jesus ever… you’re welcome.

When you are calling someone a piece of shit or a fat bitch you are insulting a person that may very well be a piece of shit or a fat bitch. At least in your opinion they are.

When you call someone a useless “insert race here” you are calling them out based on something they have no control over and frankly has no bearing. Are they useless? maybe, but why generalize based on their race? They have no control over it. So you’re just being a dick trying to stir up an emotional reaction based on racial tension/protectionism, whatever.

IMO it is perfectly legitimate to call someone out based on personality traits they exemplify, but casting large generalizations based upon ones parentage seems… tacky for lack of a better word.

I mean hey at the end of the day if you want to join the KKK go ahead I fully support you… but you are a piece of shit, and from what I’ve seen on the internet also likely a fat bitch, but that’s your right.

Carry on you fat, piece of shit, bitch. I’m in your corner. When it’s all said and done anything you say will probably offend some bleeding heart homo, so just have the balls to stand behind what you say and you have my respect. Even if you’re a racist piece of shit. At least you stand by your convictions even when you’re under pressure.

Keep up the good fight, it’s your right as a Canadian citizen to be the biggest piece of shit you want to be.

Fuck you

Jesus


#5

Jesus - it’s nice to know we have so much in common. I never knew.


#6

[quote=“jesus”]
Keep up the good fight, it’s your right as a Canadian citizen to be the biggest piece of shit you want to be.

Fuck you

Jesus[/quote]

Haha :smile:


#7

[quote=“jesus”]

[quote=“mossINmyTOES”]I have no specific incident in mind here, just a questioning mind so please don’t make any assumptions.

Why is it not so bad to call a person a “piece of shit” or “fat bitch”, but almost criminal to call one a "useless ‘insert any race here’ "?[/quote]

Insightful post #2 by Jesus ever… you’re welcome.

When you are calling someone a piece of shit or a fat bitch you are insulting a person that may very well be a piece of shit or a fat bitch. At least in your opinion they are.

When you call someone a useless “insert race here” you are calling them out based on something they have no control over and frankly has no bearing. Are they useless? maybe, but why generalize based on their race? They have no control over it. So you’re just being a dick trying to stir up an emotional reaction based on racial tension/protectionism, whatever.

IMO it is perfectly legitimate to call someone out based on personality traits they exemplify, but casting large generalizations based upon ones parentage seems… tacky for lack of a better word.

I mean hey at the end of the day if you want to join the KKK go ahead I fully support you… but you are a piece of shit, and from what I’ve seen on the internet also likely a fat bitch, but that’s your right.

Carry on you fat, piece of shit, bitch. I’m in your corner. When it’s all said and done anything you say will probably offend some bleeding heart homo, so just have the balls to stand behind what you say and you have my respect. Even if you’re a racist piece of shit. At least you stand by your convictions even when you’re under pressure.

Keep up the good fight, it’s your right as a Canadian citizen to be the biggest piece of shit you want to be.

Fuck you

Jesus[/quote]

Thumbs Up!lol


#8

You’d be surprised at what we all have in common, that’s why racism is stupid :wink:

I’ve been both racist (be honest, so have you at some point whether you voiced it or not) and the “victim” (what a stupid word) of racism. The key to not being a racist piece of shit is to understand your prejudices and recognize there are people of every “race” that stereotype. I do my best to treat everyone equal but I’m only human, I slip up sometimes. It’s an easy trap to fall into.

Dammit… thats 3 posts. Excuse me while I find someone on the internet to call a cocksucker.


#9

Interesting question and I am never disappointed at a Jesus moment.

However, I am wondering if “fat bitch” which is gender specific should be considered acceptable. How do women, especially abused women, feel when they hear the words “you bitch” even if it is not directed at them personally.

And I think it safe to say that there are certain words that are far more inappropriate, far more emotionally charged than others for a whole slew of reasons.

If I call Mike Tyson a “dumb African-American”, I am probably knocked to the floor. If I call him a “dumb (you know the word”), I probably don’t get back up.

And context is important. If someone calls me a “stupid faggot”, it says a great deal about that person’s ignorance and homophobia. If he directs the comment at a homosexual, it does the same of course, but there is far more danger and threat attached to it.

What I also find interesting is the response of the NHL to the use of inappropriate language. In a hockey game, in the heat of the moment, you can call out a guy about his sex habits with his mom, cross check him in the head, and proceed to punch his lights out and the penalty is five minutes and a standing ovation from the home crowd. In the same heat of the moment if you call him anything that can be construed as racist, it’s a suspension and/or sensitivity training.

ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu … 49497.html
canoe.ca/HockeyOttawaArchive/jan6_pro.html


#10

You bring up another interesting point - I so want to write it here but won’t - but I do see the difference between actually saying IT and saying the “n-word” on one hand, yet, we all hear THE word in our heads.


#11

[quote=“DWhite”]

Interesting question and I am never disappointed at a Jesus moment.

However, I am wondering if “fat bitch” which is gender specific should be considered acceptable. How do women, especially abused women, feel when they hear the words “you bitch” even if it is not directed at them personally.

And I think it safe to say that there are certain words that are far more inappropriate, far more emotionally charged than others for a whole slew of reasons.

If I call Mike Tyson a “dumb African-American”, I am probably knocked to the floor. If I call him a “dumb (you know the word”), I probably don’t get back up.

And context is important. If someone calls me a “stupid faggot”, it says a great deal about that person’s ignorance and homophobia. If he directs the comment at a homosexual, it does the same of course, but there is far more danger and threat attached to it.

What I also find interesting is the response of the NHL to the use of inappropriate language. In a hockey game, in the heat of the moment, you can call out a guy about his sex habits with his mom, cross check him in the head, and proceed to punch his lights out and the penalty is five minutes and a standing ovation from the home crowd. In the same heat of the moment if you call him anything that can be construed as racist, it’s a suspension and/or sensitivity training.

ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu … 49497.html
canoe.ca/HockeyOttawaArchive/jan6_pro.html[/quote]

Why you doing this to me? we’re on the verge of having a serious conversation. Let’s be real about what we’re talking about here. Words only have power to hurt because you give them that power. Threats of violence are obviously an exception and even then it is not the words that are a threat but the potential actions behind the words.

When you threaten to kill that “stupid faggot” that’s a whole different ball game than calling them a “stupid faggot”, gay or not. One just makes you an asshole the other makes you a potentially violent combatant.

I’ll be the first to admit the word “nigger” is a hateful and racially charged word that stirs a lot of emotion and for good reason. The fact you wouldn’t even type it on a forum on the internet shows just how much power that word has been given. I don’t like that word and have never actually said it even when talking about the word itself that I can recall, but it is just a word.

There will always be “Trigger words” and they will be different for every person. Should we really be spending this much time trying to be sensitive to everyone’s feelings? No matter how sensitive you are you will always offend someone when you express an opinion. Don’t believe me? look at tumblr.

Political correctness has gone way to far and people are seriously infringing on free speech with their ridiculous demands. It is my firm belief that hate speech laws are complete bullshit. People should be able to say whatever the hell they want without legal consequence so long as they are not inciting violence.

You want a perfect example of this bullshit gone too far look at the link below. Some fucking carpet cleaning cunts heckle a comedian, throw water on him when he retaliates and then get all butt hurt over his insults. Then HE has to pay those two clam digging, twat vampires 15k for hurting their feelings after they tried to ruin his show, his JOB. FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for words, fuck human rights tribunals and fuck those two dick hating dictators.

news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/23 … n-heckler/

Does that mean words should be without consequence? absolutely not, you call some guy a “dumb nigger”, Mike Tyson or not and just see what happens. At the very minimum you will have everyone within earshot yelling at you, and treating you with disdain for life.

The right to free speech is tied intrinsically with the right to be an asshole. Personally I’d rather live in a world where you have the right to be an asshole over a world where you’re too afraid to have an opinion for fear of offending some poor hairy feminist, menstrual blood painting, rug muncher.

PS. Fat bitch is not gender specific. I know quite a few males who are fat and also bitches.


#12

nigger - there - I said it!!


#13

You wrote it :wink: but hey look nobody was insulted. It still seems offensive but if we’re doing it right eventually it won’t be anymore. It takes time but eventually hopefully everyone will move on from the past and we can all be happy pieces of shit together.


#14

[quote=“jesus”]

You wrote it :wink: but hey look nobody was insulted. It still seems offensive but if we’re doing it right eventually it won’t be anymore. It takes time but eventually hopefully everyone will move on from the past and we can all be happy pieces of shit together.[/quote]

Lenny Bruce voiced the same thought over 50 years ago but his effort effected no change…and I doubt it ever will.


#15

Not even sure what you think it was I was doing to you or why you think I took the discussion from the verge of seriousness. And with all due respect and trepidation, I have a question.

Let me begin by stating that Human Rights Tribunals have lost a lot of my respect when they delve into the arena of hurt feelings. I also don’t like the fact that they can issue punishments that may not actually stand up in a real court of law. The case you cite is interesting for sure and when I first read about it, my reaction was don’t heckle a comedian. You won’t win. But I think it goes deeper than that.

Would people be defending Guy Earle if his comments had been directed at African Americans like Michael Richards did in a similar response to hecklers.

theguardian.com/world/2006/n … anglaister

For the most part, I enjoy your bluntness, but sometimes I am not sure if you are being provocative just for the sake of being provocative. The women you are angry about could be described as whiners, overly sensitive, moral dictators (all depending on your point of view) who happen to be lesbians.

Is bringing up their sexual orientation, is reducing them to a single body part any less “tacky” than commenting on a person’s race or skin colour?


#16

[quote=“DWhite”]

Not even sure what you think it was I was doing to you or why you think I took the discussion from the verge of seriousness. And with all due respect and trepidation, I have a question.

Let me begin by stating that Human Rights Tribunals have lost a lot of my respect when they delve into the arena of hurt feelings. I also don’t like the fact that they can issue punishments that may not actually stand up in a real court of law. The case you cite is interesting for sure and when I first read about it, my reaction was don’t heckle a comedian. You won’t win. But I think it goes deeper than that.

Would people be defending Guy Earle if his comments had been directed at African Americans like Michael Richards did in a similar response to hecklers.

theguardian.com/world/2006/n … anglaister

For the most part, I enjoy your bluntness, but sometimes I am not sure if you are being provocative just for the sake of being provocative. The women you are angry about could be described as whiners, overly sensitive, moral dictators (all depending on your point of view) who happen to be lesbians.

Is bringing up their sexual orientation, is reducing them to a single body part any less “tacky” than commenting on a person’s race or skin colour?[/quote]

Well first let me clear this up right away. I’m an ass on here purely for the sake of being an ass. Every once in a while I might take something half seriously but thats a very rare occurrence.

Honestly the Michael Richards thing is offensive but thats sort of the point. You want to be an offensive asshole to someone who is just doing their job you better expect a retaliation, especially if its a comic that is what they do. Was it good for his career? absolutely not, but that’s mostly I think because of his role on Seinfeld pigeonholed him into a “nice comedian”. Had it been someone like I don’t know louis ck? or someone known as an offensive comic I don’t think there would have been as much outrage.

Also let me be clear I am not angry at these women they found a way to punish a man and get a pretty decent payday and took it. I find them to be morally reprehensible people but I am far from angry at them. I am angry at the human rights tribunals and find them to be disgusting abuses of power that should be dismantled immediately.

In my opinion people who abuse these tribunals to punish those who hurt their feelings are less than scum. They are infringing on my rights and a direct threat to our freedom for the sole reason that they feel they have the right to never have their feelings hurt. The world would be a far better place if these people were exposed to real human rights issues instead of these hurt feeling tribunals we have here. Were my comments “tacky” absolutely but I’m mostly a novelty on here and by definition that makes me pretty much tacky. Hope that answers your question.


#17

[quote=“jesus”]

Well first let me clear this up right away. I’m an ass on here purely for the sake of being an ass. Every once in a while I might take something half seriously but thats a very rare occurrence.

Were my comments “tacky” absolutely but I’m mostly a novelty on here and by definition that makes me pretty much tacky. Hope that answers your question.[/quote]

Thanks for the response. I have often felt that your persona is partly novelty, kind of an anti-Jesus, but if you scrape away the shock value of your posts, there is far more seriousness to your comments (whether we agree or disagree) than you seem to imply. But I’ll keep that a secret.

I am not sure if I would call the women in the article scum for taking their complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal. They felt they had been wronged and they made their case. Like you, however, I am not sure if the Human Rights Tribunal is the most appropriate place to assess damages. If somebody harms me, if I feel I have been wronged, don’t I sue through civil courts that use the actual law and precedent and stuff like that to make a decision. If I feel threatened by somebody’s remarks, don’t I go to the police. (Maybe someone with legal knowledge can help here)

I thought the Human Rights Commission was set up to ensure that people were not discriminated against by landlords who refuse to rent or companies that refuse to hire or by businesses that refuse to serve people based on race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion.

When they are used to discuss whether or not somebody has been insulted or whether or not somebody is offended by someone’s opinion, we are losing sight of the good they were originally set up to do.

Not to say that people like Earl Guy, or Michael Richards or Mel Gibson (Jews) or Alex Baldwin (gays) or any ordinary citizen shouldn’t be called out for offensive, derogatory slurs that generalize any group.

theguardian.com/commentisfre … n-gay-slur

Can Alex Baldwin be angry at a gay journalist? Of course.
Can he use threatening language? Well no, but it could be excused as just Alex being Alex.
Can he use threatening language that includes specifically gay slurs. Here, he has definitely crossed a line.

When I call someone a piece of shit, we know the person isn’t a piece of shit; they are just as bad as a piece of shit and shit has a bad rep to start with.

When someone is called (derogatory term) , (marginalized group), the implication is that the group is bad not just the individual member of that group. And that, if not challenged, gives other members of society the excuse they need to continue their hatred, their marginalization and their desire to harm others solely on their membership in that particular group.

Anyway,interesting question mossINmyTOES.


#18