Is it unreasonable to censor racial slurs?

I guess to me this was always a given: you can be a foe of diversity without (a) blaming the parties involved or (b) calling them derogatory names.

Similarly, you can be a foe of conservatism without (a) claiming that conservatives are vicious people who simply "don't care about others" or (b) calling them derogatory names like Shrub and Chimpy.

Further, in general, it seems to me that civility is useful because when we violate it, our leaders use that as an excuse for more power and more expensive, arrogant bureaucracies.

I don't write off the idea that at some point we will need to throw out some of the rules wholesale and achieve regime change, but I like the idea of avoiding uncivil manifestations of this like reckless revolutions that hand power to oligarchs.

What do you think?

 

No, it's not unreasonable to censor racial slurs. It's mandatory to censor racial slurs.

Racial slurs have no purpose (unless there is an artistic value) but to insult and marginalize people. People aren't going to just comply with civility - if there aren't any guidelines of civility established. Racist slurs are not acceptable - so I have no idea what your point is.

 

So you believe force and centralization of values systems are necessary?

Very good; I agree.

 

This, racial slurs have no purpose but to bring down an entire group of people just based on ethnicity out of hatred, this is how they become racial slurs. So
Conservationist, what are you, can I call you a wop, or a mick?

 

As an Italian, I wouldn't care if someone called me a wop or a guinea. Why would a mere word bother me so much... it's beneath me and it should be beneath everyone else.

True, racial slurs really have no place anywhere, especially in a political meeting, but I strictly believe that these words only gain influence as long as we give them influence. I also believe in practicing conversational intolerance when the moment calls for it, but placing laws on words is childish imo.

 

If you asked Italians in 1912 if they felt the same way, I bet you'd get a different response. There's not mass waves of Italian immigrants anymore and now it's just a funny thing to us from the past as Italian discrimination stopped on a mass level once immigrants became 1st generation Americans. In fact go find an 80 year old something Italian and call him a wop and see what happens.

 

You're right, it isn't 1912 anymore so it's another reason not to care. But depending on the older Italian, you will get different responses, from dirty looks to perhaps even a chuckle; my grandmother laughs at those jokes and she's in her 90's, so I guess it all comes down to attitude.

 

I've heard more racist slurs pointed at a member of the same race more than anything else.

And besides..I've never heard an Italian singer say "wop" in a song before. I think slurs are popular because we're basically told these words are OK. Stop using them and maybe they'll lose popularity?

 

No, but there was that whole offensive musical genre last century called "Doo Wop". Nasty business. Should be banned. It wouldn't happen today!

 

Wow..who knew something so seemingly innocent was so evil and derogatory?

 

When used in that way it's not offensive though, words are not inherently offensive, it's how they're used that makes them that way.

 

It's a two way street. Stop using them and stop being bothered by them.

 

I believe in an evaluative policy that is flexible and workable at the basic levels with people and at grassroot levels are necessary.

It's not like I think some giant codified list of behaviour codes is the only way to ensure racial slurs are clearly unacceptable.

I never mentioned force. Racial slurs are unacceptable, but I'm not going to go around forcing people's mouths closed. It needs to be known that they're not acceptable in many basic and fundamental levels of society.

 

No, freedom of speech doesn't just apply to the people you agree with.

What people often overlook is the right to kick the crap out of them once they've said it. Social justice. woop.

 

All civility is precisely equal to your relationship to the person standing next to you. The most profound acts of verbal denigration occur among intimates of the same household. Until we learn to be polite in our own homes there is no remedy.

 

While I agree this is a goal, if politeness becomes a goal in itself, we will never be able to resolve conflicts as doing so will conflict with politeness and deference.

 

So the only way to be polite is not to be polite because if we strive to be polite then it will result in us not being polite?

 

Gentlemen! There is to be no fighting in the war room!

 

OH its Conservationist up to his old tricks

It’s very similar to one he pumped out before

Stop Intelligence-Based Discrimination
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=380748&f=36

*

It’s the airing of something he wants aired by claiming he’s against it although reading between the lines you see he isn’t.

The thing he wanted aired was some tosh about black people being inferior to whites.

He is getting it aired by saying he is against the use of derogatory terms used to describe black people.

CRAP

I don’t think he gives a fuck about racial slurs; it’s just a way of pushing that site which seems to be consistently pumping out rubbish Social Darwinist and neo-libertarian views and ideas.

(that he seems unable to defend)

OH yeah you bet they’re ‘cool’ with talking about ‘ethnic differences in intelligence’ and they’re clear how they see it, they are very ‘cool’ in making it clear that “the third world’s ongoing failure as not a byproduct of Western colonialism” something that comes right after the bit about ‘ethnic differences in intelligence’ nudge, nudge wink, wink.

 

Oh and people like Conservationist want to be ‘honest’ about the ‘class war and IQ’ which hints at the same discredited Social Darwinist ideas raised by Conservationist before.

(Oh and It might be interesting to note here that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census, something well know to those Americans that seem to like to talk about IQ and socio-economic status)

I’m not a supporter of right wing views but I don’t think all of them are vicious people who simply don't care about others, but the thing is that there are those on the right who are vicious people who simply don't care about some ‘others’ in their societies.

This is the right - red in tooth and nail – this is the right of “doing nothing for those who do nothing to help themselves”. An old self serving right wing viewpoint of the deserving and the undeserving lower classes, people that had the ‘intelligence’ to ‘get on’ were deserving of help, but of course didn’t need it, and those that didn’t ‘get on’ must be unintelligent and lazy and undeserving of help, and so shouldn’t be given any help because it would only finance their laziness (and help them bread other unintelligent and lazy people).

But nobody can choose into which socio-economic strata they’re born into, so people can inherit advantage. So ‘getting on’ has much more to do with having those wealth connected advantages of a better environment, better education, and better social connections