Hulk Hogan uses the N-word, gets fires by WWE
#31
Ramses Wrote:
djdj123 Wrote:Who gives a fuck? everyone is a little bit racist

That is the new excuse to defend racism these days. The other one is: if black people can use the N word, then everybody should be able to use it and it shouldn't be a big deal. :? :? Hulk himself used this one by throwing Obama's name in the mix. :? :?

Thing is...

I have them days too. Sometimes I wake up and I'm like "fuck all these cracka ass crackas". Maybe it's something someone did or said, maybe it's just me being sick of seeing a particular news story for the billionth time.

But I also know that when I am being racist I'm wrong to be racist, and I try to correct myself. I've been on this board for 10 years now (including the old one). Some of y'all is some of the most racist people I've ever seen. So it ain't just me.

I think. So long as you acknowledge that thinking, saying and doing racist things is wrong, you're still a decent person. We all lie, or say mean things, or get pissed and say shit we don't mean. It don't make you a bad person in and of itself.
White Girl Connoisseur
Reply
#32
Hogan is weird
Reply
#33
No, not everyone's a little bit racist.

and no, racism these days doesn't have the same meaning as it did in the past.

Racism these days = privilege plus power, something we don't have. Fuck the "official" definition.

Racism = White supremacy.
[Image: 2hrq340.jpg]

"I was told by a producer that I wouldn't go anywhere "being fat sucking Black dick". So I set out to stay fat and keep sucking Black dick" - Angelina Castro on why she ONLY does IR scenes
Reply
#34
heehoo Wrote:No, not everyone's a little bit racist.

and no, racism these days doesn't have the same meaning as it did in the past.

Racism these days = privilege plus power, something we don't have. Fuck the "official" definition.

Racism = White supremacy.

Here's the problem with making up your own definitions of words: you open the door for them to do it too.

Dodgers love to say that dodging isn't racist because they're only doing it for "business reasons".

If words have no definitions, they have no meaning. If we want to affect change, we have to define terms that are universal and not subjective. Your definition of "racism" is, itself, racist. It doesn't account for the biases that non-Blacks face or offenses that non-whites commit.
White Girl Connoisseur
Reply
#35
Shotgun Styles Wrote:
heehoo Wrote:No, not everyone's a little bit racist.

and no, racism these days doesn't have the same meaning as it did in the past.

Racism these days = privilege plus power, something we don't have. Fuck the "official" definition.

Racism = White supremacy.

Here's the problem with making up your own definitions of words: you open the door for them to do it too.

Dodgers love to say that dodging isn't racist because they're only doing it for "business reasons".

If words have no definitions, they have no meaning. If we want to affect change, we have to define terms that are universal and not subjective. Your definition of "racism" is, itself, racist. It doesn't account for the biases that non-Blacks face or offenses that non-whites commit.
Language evolves. The new definition is more accurate, because it expressly defines the problem of racism. The "power through privilege" definition is better than "I hate X race" because it puts to a lie the myth of "reverse racism". There is no such thing as "reverse racism"; racism is the elevation of one part of society over another. Racists hate the definition exactly because they can't subvert it. It explicitly states what racism is, and why it is a problem. It closes the door on mealy mouth bullshit like "everybody's a little racist so mild racism doesn't matter" or "black people are racist too, somebody stole my confederate flag and spraypainted 'cracker' on my doublewide!"
NIGHT NIGHT
[Image: XqL1ob4.gif]
ALT RIGHT
Reply
#36
fletchlives Wrote:Language evolves.

I agree.

fletchlives Wrote:The new definition is more accurate, because it expressly defines the problem of racism. The "power through privilege" definition is better than "I hate X race" because it puts to a lie the myth of "reverse racism". There is no such thing as "reverse racism"; racism is the elevation of one part of society over another.

While I agree that white racism against Blacks is not equivalent to Black racism against whites, that does not make it ethically or logically sound to say that Black prejudice against whites is not "racism". It may be a lesser brand of racism because Blacks do not have the same societal power as whites, but that does not mean whites are not injured by Black racism.

fletchlives Wrote:Racists hate the definition exactly because they can't subvert it. It explicitly states what racism is, and why it is a problem. It closes the door on mealy mouth bullshit like "everybody's a little racist so mild racism doesn't matter" or "black people are racist too, somebody stole my confederate flag and spraypainted 'cracker' on my doublewide!"

The problem with that definition is not whether or not racists like it. The problem is that it absolves Blacks of any responsibility for their own prejudices. When you argue that Blacks have no ethical responsibility to be accountable for their own bigotry, you lose the moral high ground. You become a Moral Relativist like George W. Bush. The Bush doctrine of preemption held, in part, that it's morally right if the United States engages in aggressive violent action against other nations, but wrong if other nations engage in such actions against the United States.

It can't only be wrong when "they" do it, and ok if "we" do it. As such, it's fair to say that racism disproportionately impacts Blacks, but unfair to say that it does not impact whites at all.
White Girl Connoisseur
Reply
#37
Shotgun Styles Wrote:
fletchlives Wrote:Language evolves.

I agree.

fletchlives Wrote:The new definition is more accurate, because it expressly defines the problem of racism. The "power through privilege" definition is better than "I hate X race" because it puts to a lie the myth of "reverse racism". There is no such thing as "reverse racism"; racism is the elevation of one part of society over another.

While I agree that white racism against Blacks is not equivalent to Black racism against whites, that does not make it ethically or logically sound to say that Black prejudice against whites is not "racism". It may be a lesser brand of racism because Blacks do not have the same societal power as whites, but that does not mean whites are not injured by Black racism.

fletchlives Wrote:Racists hate the definition exactly because they can't subvert it. It explicitly states what racism is, and why it is a problem. It closes the door on mealy mouth bullshit like "everybody's a little racist so mild racism doesn't matter" or "black people are racist too, somebody stole my confederate flag and spraypainted 'cracker' on my doublewide!"

The problem with that definition is not whether or not racists like it. The problem is that it absolves Blacks of any responsibility for their own prejudices. When you argue that Blacks have no ethical responsibility to be accountable for their own bigotry, you lose the moral high ground. You become a Moral Relativist like George W. Bush. The Bush doctrine of preemption held, in part, that it's morally right if the United States engages in aggressive violent action against other nations, but wrong if other nations engage in such actions against the United States.

It can't only be wrong when "they" do it, and ok if "we" do it. As such, it's fair to say that racism disproportionately impacts Blacks, but unfair to say that it does not impact whites at all.
Prejudice is not racism. It is prejudice. They are separate words for a reason. White prejudice against blacks is the systemic oppression of an entire race by society. Claiming black prejudice against whites is equivalent to that is ridiculous, which is why reverse racism doesn't exist.

And this shit right here:

Quote:When you argue that Blacks have no ethical responsibility to be accountable for their own bigotry, you lose the moral high ground.

Is grade-a respectability argument, bullshit.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/stop_poisoning_the_race_debate_how_respectability_politics_rears_its_ugly_head_again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/stop_po ... ead_again/</a><!-- m -->
NIGHT NIGHT
[Image: XqL1ob4.gif]
ALT RIGHT
Reply
#38
fletchlives Wrote:Prejudice is not racism. It is prejudice. They are separate words for a reason. White prejudice against blacks is the systemic oppression of an entire race by society. Claiming black prejudice against whites is equivalent to that is ridiculous, which is why reverse racism doesn't exist.

Yes, they are separate words. Because "prejudice" in this context can mean discrimination about anything, not just race. "Racism" in this context means a very specific kind of discrimination, specifically by race.

The rest of you definition is college professor babble. And this goes to my earlier point: if you on the far left want to redefine words to suit your agenda, you open the door for those on the far right to do the same. If you cannot define neutral terms, no rational discussion of any issue is even possible. You become a bunch of Michael Savages, sitting alone in your little corners screaming at each other through a wall of obfuscations.

Words have definitions, and you don't get to change them just because it suits your agenda.

fletchlives Wrote:And this shit right here:

Quote:When you argue that Blacks have no ethical responsibility to be accountable for their own bigotry, you lose the moral high ground.

Is grade-a respectability argument, bullshit.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/stop_poisoning_the_race_debate_how_respectability_politics_rears_its_ugly_head_again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/stop_po ... ead_again/</a><!-- m -->

This article has way more things wrong with it than I care to discuss in the course of this conversation. Suffice it to say, this lady has no fucking clue what in the fuck she's talking about. She can't understand why cops shoot to kill. That's because she knows nothing about shooting or firearms. You aim for center mass because that's the biggest target, and the one least likely to send rounds into the background. Shooting the gun out of a guy's hand is Hollywood. You're more likely to miss, and unlike on TV where missed rounds magically disappear, real bullets keep on going until they hit someone. Possibly you.

That's just a taste of her misguided thinking, I could do an entire thread on how fucked and ridiculous this article is. But I'll address the point you're trying to make with it:

Yes. I am reasonable. Guess what? Most critical thinkers are. The come to issues with objective reasoning, and not full of personal emotional biases. This is what separates the critical thinkers from the reactionaries. It is more important to us that we are right on the facts than it is for us to claim emotional righteousness.

Your militancy for Black people is admirable, Fletch. But it's unpragmatic. Rather than digging in your heels it would behoove you to be more solution oriented. Denying whites the same basic human rights you are demanding for yourself will not bring about any meaningful change.
White Girl Connoisseur
Reply
#39
they're talking about bringing him back already. only took three and a half months.
Reply
#40
shot_in_tha_dark Wrote:they're talking about bringing him back already. only took three and a half months.


It's not like most WWE fans have an issue with what he said.

They did themselves more damage by punishing him that they would have if they hadn't addressed it all.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)