[Open Discussions] "Negro" and "Oriental" removed from (US) Federal Laws

Jamie Stick wrote: [
Secondly, the First Amendment is not a "say whatever you want and get away with it"-card. That's foolishness. If you call me a tranny to my face, I will break your nose and then some. The First Amendment is there to protect the people, press, and other institutions from being censored by the government. It's meant to allow criticism and dialogue about the government happen without fear of reprisal from the government.

Yes you are right the first amendment protects from government intervention only. However simply because someone says something you find offensive does not give you the right to enact violence. To do so shows a lack of emotional control and is criminal. Too many people wish to criminalize language or respond to things they do not like with violence to allow such a statement to stand uncontested.

OB1Shinobi wrote: to be perfectly honest i dont think it matters in the least if someone gets the fraction wrong in this sort of conversation; what i am pointing out is that the american govt never took the postion that slaves only count as "such and such" percentage of a human - as if to say they were not fully developed human beings

the govt never did that
each state is allowed to send x number of people to congress

the exact number depends on the states population: the more people who live in the state, the more people that the state can send to congress

the more people a state has in congress, the more congressional influence that particular state will have

the idea is that the people of the state elect the state representatives, and these representatives then go to congress and represent the will of the people who elected them

southern slave owners wanted their slaves to count so that their states could have more congressmen, and therefore more political influence, but northern states argued that slaves dont elect their masters, nor do the masters represent the slaves interest - the accountability isnt there

this "such and such percentage" compromise was enacted to keep slave owners from havingmore congressional power as a consequence of having more slaves

im not saying that you, Senan, dont understand all this btw, i just want to be sure and spell it out very clearly because this is one of those history moments that people often misunderstand and misrepresent (and it is actually a little weird) to mean something more nefarious than what the real motivations behind it actually were

anyway, i still consider this new bill to be a token gesture, because no one in america says says "negro" or "oriental" anymore so its not changing anything, really

all the bill does is officially acknowledge a change that has already happened

and those terms were not offensive in their time, anyway

now, i do agree with the sentiment behind the gesture- i hope no one misunderstands me about that- so i am supportive of this.
but i would much rather see better funding for schools in low income neighborhoods or a resolution to build organic community gardens in districts living below the poverty line

those are things that would actually help to improve peoples lives

This is an accurate description of what happened and I agree that I made it sound like it was intended to be uber-racist when at the time it probably had more to do with economics and politics. I will be more careful when trying to use thios example in the future.

Looking back on it from my perspective now though, there is something to be learned from it about how we can be racist without intending to be. I feel like these men were overlooking a very important dynamic of that conversation. It took place in a room full of rich white men who were considering human beings as things to be counted. The things being counted were not represented in the room, nor would they have any representation in Congress. If slaves were to be considered less valuable than a white person and have no right to vote anyway, why count them at all? They needed to be because it would impact the power balance between the states. They had to decide who would get to send the most rich white people to Congress. This was a necessary part of the debate at the time, but the entire debate was framed by the obvious systemic racism that allowed slavery to even exist in the first place.

I don't think those delegates would have any reason to think the way I do considering their time and circumstances, but I hope we can learn the lessons from it.

Thank you, OB1, for making me clarify the point I've been failing to make

MadHatter wrote: However simply because someone says something you find offensive does not give you the right to enact violence. To do so shows a lack of emotional control

Nah, it just means I will not tolerate bullshit. I could not break a person's nose, but they deserve it. Just because you're accustomed to people not hitting you for the stupid things you say doesn't mean that when a person does they've lost control. Maybe they are in control and their choice to smack you into last week was a calculated response to foolishness coming out of your mouth. That's my approach: calculated response to foolishness.

MadHatter wrote: and is criminal.

What is legal is rarely a good standard for what is right.

MadHatter wrote: Too many people wish to criminalize language or respond to things they do not like with violence to allow such a statement to stand uncontested.

I have no desire to legislate the word tranny. I want you to know that if you say it to my face, I will break your nose and then some. Furthermore, I'd like to get a point where people fight for my rights as ardently as they do for their right to treat me like shit with the words they use.

Jamie Stick wrote: Again advocates violence over words

So should Christians start to be violent against LGBT people and atheists when they insult their religion? Should they " not tolerate our BS?" Violence over words unless they are a threat of violence is a sign of weakness. Its a sign that someone gives some much of their power over to other peoples words that they cant defeat them with words or just walk off. So all that is left is the posturing and territorial attacks of a challenged animal. Its criminal and for good reasons. Words are not a threat to you. Words have the power you willingly give them. I have been short my entire life and bullied for it. And you know what I have found? I am happier then my bullies because they cannot hurt me with their words so the hurt and hate just poisons them from the inside out.

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Again advocates violence over words

Shut up, Cracker.

See, I'm using my words!

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Again advocates violence over words

Shut up, Cracker.

See, I'm using my words!

No that is just a bigoted insult that hold no merit other then the last gasp of a poor argument. Its not using words any more then a child going " yea well ummm your mom" is. Its a sign that you can't refute what is said with logic so insult and attack is all that is left. Frankly I would think you better then this. Because from what I have seen any other time you could at least manage logic and facts to back you up even if I dont agree with the logic or the validity of the facts they at least existed.

The truth is that words don't work.

They didn't work against the guy who slapped my ass.

They didn't work against the guy who yelled at me, "WHAT ARE YOU?" on the subway on my way home.

They didn't work against the guy who followed me yelling, "Are you some kind of faggot?" on my way to the grocery store.

They didn't work against the pair of guys who yelled at me on my way to pick up some cleaning supplies.

Words work with the willing, but with others it requires a more calculated response. Which are you?

I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Jamie Stick wrote: The truth is that words don't work.

They didn't work against the guy who slapped my ass.

They didn't work against the guy who yelled at me, "WHAT ARE YOU?" on the subway on my way home.

They didn't work against the guy who followed me yelling, "Are you some kind of faggot?" on my way to the grocery store.

They didn't work against the pair of guys who yelled at me on my way to pick up some cleaning supplies.

Words work with the willing, but with others it requires a more calculated response. Which are you?

Someone laying hands on you is not words. Someone laying hands on you is assault and is worthy of the exact same response. That is self defense. Using violence against mean words however is criminal and unethical. You can cite all the examples of mean things you have heard in your life, trust me I have heard similar myself and guess what? It still does not warrant a response of violence. Who is more foolish the bigoted fool that spouts insults? Or the fool that allows the insult to impact their day, never mind the fool that allows it to move them to violence. Giving peoples words that much power over you is foolish. Its that simple. I mean really if you have been on the internet as long as most of us here have there is nothing that has not been said to you before. And so what? They are braying donkeys venting their own inner ignorance, pain, hate, or any other number of personal "illnesses" on others to feel better. Why again would you let them move you at all, let alone move you to violence. At best they are pitiable, at worst laughable. In short I use words when words are thrown at me IF I am even bothered enough to respond. Most of the time I laugh as it says more about the person tossing insults then me.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

MadHatter, I'm going to have to bow out. I can't with you tonight. I don't feel as though you've heard a word I said much less that you care that I've lived through this stuff. You say you've had similar experiences, but your lack of a heart speaks to the contrary.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter, I'm going to have to bow out. I can't with you tonight. I don't feel as though you've heard a word I said much less that you care that I've lived through this stuff. You say you've had similar experiences, but your lack of a heart speaks to the contrary.

Lack of a heart? Jamie you do not know me to even come close to making such a claim. Simply because I do not allow people to turn me into a violent bigot when they stoop to petty insults does not mean I lack heart. It means I do not let others dictate my self worth or happiness. All I hear is your call to violence over mere words, and yes they are just words. I have experienced almost any kind of abuse you can care to mention and one thing I have learned is that you can let others dictate your happiness and be a victim all your life or you can take control and not let others determine your world view or actions. To let others do so means you are always REACTING and never acting on your own. It means you are a passenger in your own life story and its a sad and unhappy way to live.

Leah Starspectre wrote: Language evolves, and we need to evolve with it. Especially when it comes to terms that involve demeaning another group.

Exactly my point.
Language has evolved, and it has evolved in such a way that any discriminating term -- let's use "black" and "gay" as examples -- becomes an offensive term over time. If, right now, you were to refer to someone as "black", someone out there would get offended and say "ACTUALLY, the preferred term is Person Of Color! Calling someone black is racist!" Once upon a time, this was not the case. This really seems to be true when it comes to ANY term which makes any kind of discrimination between human beings. I have seen "straight", "cis", "white", and "male" all used as insults or considered to be offensive terms. This really is an idiotic linguistic trend that English speakers go through over and over again. "Negro" was not meant to demean anyone. But that's what it has become.
There is nothing inherently offensive about any word, when what is socially acceptable today is almost guaranteed to be considered racist, sexist, (x)phobic, etc. etc. in a short amount of time (I'm talking about 15-30 years, not centuries of linguistic development).
Which means that this change is literally pointless. Yes, the legislative language has evolved to fit in with what is currently socially acceptable. It just sets up a system where the language has to constantly be updated for no real reason other than the fact that certain terms go out of style more quickly than others. So ultimately what has been improved? It just creates a future problem identical to the one it was supposed to solve. When Dr. King used the term "negro", it was much in the same way people say "people of color" today. Yes, times change and language changes. But that doesn't mean that all of the changes in language are necessarily good, or that they necessarily make any rational sense. What is the purpose at all of creating new terms if they're just going to be in the same situation as the previous terms in a short amount of time? Why did someone suddenly decide that "negro" is demeaning or offensive? What makes you think the terms that you use even with the best intentions today won't be seen in exactly the same way within your lifetime? It seems trivial at best and absurd at worst.

MadHatter wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

Neither is using terms that are insulting to marginalized groups. So why not avoid the whole kerfuffle and simply respect people? Including names/terms that describe how they want to be collectively known.

And to both Jamie and MadHatter: This is NOT a "who's more tragic" contest. Although you may have had similar experiences, neither has walked in the other's possibly horrific shoes.

Why not let those experiences unite you in solidarity?

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

Neither is using terms that are insulting to marginalized groups. So why not avoid the whole kerfuffle and simply respect people? Including names/terms that describe how they want to be collectively known.

And to both Jamie and MadHatter: This is NOT a "who's more tragic" contest. Although you may have had similar experiences, neither has walked in the other's possibly horrific shoes.

Why not let those experiences unite you in solidarity?

Oh I agree to not using those terms. I just dont think violence is a proper response to them. As far as who is more tragic I just wanted to point out I have seen similar issues and have a different outlook. The reason being is often an argument that crops ups is if you had experienced it you would feel differently. Though that argument was never made, my statement was meant to preempt that. As far as uniting, I dont think so. Violence outside of protecting one self from physical harm is just a way to add to the misery that floats around. I cant agree to that. Which is what the whole debate is about. I respect Jamie as a person but do not respect the concept of violence over words. I have seen too often how bad that can get.

You're right, violence isn't an ideal solution, but as you said, tolerable in instances of physical harm.

Verbal attacks can lead to physical ones. And I would hope that your recognise the high risk for violent confrontation against marginalized groups - especially LGBT. It's it unreasonable then, to fault someone for having a fight or flight reaction to verbal attacks? Certainly it's not the best scenario, but pain and trauma often lead to poor choices.

So instead of condemning outright, you can recognize, understand, emphasize. Try to come to a point of commonality. Pardon the assumption, but it sounded to me like Jamie was speaking out of pain and frustration, a reaction to trauma. Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing?

Leah Starspectre wrote: You're right, violence isn't an ideal solution, but as you said, tolerable in instances of physical harm.

Verbal attacks can lead to physical ones. And I would hope that your recognise the high risk for violent confrontation against marginalized groups - especially LGBT. It's it unreasonable then, to fault someone for having a fight or flight reaction to verbal attacks? Certainly it's not the best scenario, but pain and trauma often lead to poor choices.

So instead of condemning outright, you can recognize, understand, emphasize. Try to come to a point of commonality. Pardon the assumption, but it sounded to me like Jamie was speaking out of pain and frustration, a reaction to trauma. Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing?

But poor judgement is not something to advocate. I can get the anger and hurt, been there done that, which is why I say that such responses come from lack of discipline over the self and lack of control of your emotions. I am bisexual myself and have experienced ill treatment even in the LGBT community because of it. So yea I get it. But just because I get it, does not mean I wont firmly stand and say its a terrible idea and a bad thing to advocate. I mean I get why my nephew throws a tantrum over not getting a toy but it doesnt mean I should let it continue. In that same line of thought I get why it could move someone to that level of anger but it doesnt change what a bad idea it is. It doesnt change that one should point out how risky, criminal, and lacking in control such behavior is. Which is my point. Where I grew up people have been shot and killed as an innocent bystander because two people got violent over insults. Its almost a yearly event. So I hope that put some perspective on why I say that violence over words is foolish. Because you never know to what level the other person is going to take it. Finally yes mean words can be the precursor to violence and yes I can get thinking an attack may be likely but that would be on a case by case basis and not something I can judge. I mean there is too much going on in such an interaction for me to judge that right away. But the way I was looking at it, is foolish school yard insults not aggressive posturing etc which can tip you to signs of attack.

Verbal attacks cannot lead to physical harm if you get out of the way

Or maybe I am wrong

But there is this:

"Listen Ender, commanders have just as much authority as you let them have. The more you obey them, the more power they have over you."

-Dink Meeker to Ender in Ender's Game

Now before the quote is misconstrued, let me shed some light on my thinking.

Commander can be replaced with "authority figure" but authority figure doesn't necessarily mean person with a title or a uniform. It means whoever you allow to have power over you. Once you strike a blow, you lose whatever advantage you might have had (as I believe has already been stated.)

And I have another quote

"But he is by no means of such importance that it should be in his power to give you any disturbance." -Epictetus

Here he are talking about a servant, but really it could be anyone. That is, no one is so damn important that it should be within their power to cause you a disturbance. The only way that it could be in their power is if you gave your power over to them

I want to say that Jamie PM"d me to applozie over the "cracker" insult and thank her for it. Its a big move for someone to apologzie to another that they have butted heads with. I took no insult from it and do not hold any malice or ill will towards Jamie despite our butting heads.

Further I wish to add that I think I know where I came off as knowing about others experiences. It was when I said: " I have learned is that you can let others dictate your happiness and be a victim all your life or you can take control and not let others determine your world view or actions. To let others do so means you are always REACTING and never acting on your own. It means you are a passenger in your own life story and its a sad and unhappy way to live."

That was not directed at anyone but explaining my OWN experience. I have lived that life. I have been defensive, angry, ready to fight at any petty insult because I was bullied for so long. And all it lead to was pain, sadness, and emptiness. It was warning against behavior that I in the past have exhibited and learned the lessons from. Its a crappy road to walk with nothing good on it. I dont want others to be as miserable as I was for so long. Because it took a long time to get better from it and a lot of that work was done here. Basically I am saying dont make my mistakes because the result SUCK.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

Neither is using terms that are insulting to marginalized groups. So why not avoid the whole kerfuffle and simply respect people? Including names/terms that describe how they want to be collectively known.

And to both Jamie and MadHatter: This is NOT a "who's more tragic" contest. Although you may have had similar experiences, neither has walked in the other's possibly horrific shoes.

Why not let those experiences unite you in solidarity?

what has been explained is that it is impossible to avoid the terms which people find offensive, because even neutral, unoffensive terms eventually offend someone

take intelligence for instance; there is a scale
there are people at the extremes of both ends
its not insulting to call someone brilliant, but think of any word that is used for those at the low end and that word is insulting

but such people exist, and it is sometimes useful to have words which distinguish them from others

"retarded" was not originally an insult
neither was "moron"
but they became insults because people used them as insults and because people felt insulted by them

the reason these words are insulting is because it stings to think that what the word describes is true of the self, and also because we sense that someone else uses the word with the intent to insult

i could call you a pretty butterfly and it can be insulting if i say it as an insult

-history of stigmatizing names for mental disabilities-
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/history-of-stigmatizing-names-for-intellectual-disabilities-continued/

Jamie Stick wrote: The truth is that words don't work.

They didn't work against the guy who slapped my ass.

They didn't work against the guy who yelled at me, "WHAT ARE YOU?" on the subway on my way home.

They didn't work against the guy who followed me yelling, "Are you some kind of faggot?" on my way to the grocery store.

They didn't work against the pair of guys who yelled at me on my way to pick up some cleaning supplies.

Words work with the willing, but with others it requires a more calculated response. Which are you?

right, i understand
words didnt work against the people who robbed me, or the ones who stomped me unconscious, or the ones who beat my ass on the back of the church bus on the way home from church lol, or the one who dropped a chunk of cinder-block on my little sisters head from a second story balcony, or the several different groups who surrounded me and attacked me with kicks and chase me home with thrown rocks

it never worked on the ones who stole my bikes or the ones who would bang on our doors late at night, or some of the other situations that were worse than these

i understand that words dont always work, and i support your choice to use whatever force is necessary when it is necessary

but we arent all your enemy, and we arent all out to hurt you
i hope you can come to see that