Did Mike Brown deserve to die?

Post Reply New Topic

To be fair though, Negroid is better than "black". African-American is better if scientific terms ruffle your feathers. Which is pretty much the only reason why it's contended in regards to what it's pointing out, which is also funny, as people who don't like that are actually putting worth into the distinct groups. There's no worth here, just features that define where a person came from.

Of course, ethnic and cultural distinctions work better when you're looking at behavior, but I'm using the forensic terms for visual identification.

neither is really. black isn't very good but it's worlds better than negroid(too close to n****r) as for african-american....well, not every black american came from africa so this is a lame descriptor overall.

Well, white sounds like "wh***y", so should Caucasians of fair skin be offended?

Ok, you have a group of people with dark skin ("black") living in the USA that are of African descent and display the physiological identifiers of that descent. "Black" isn't fair, as you have many Caucasoid and Mongoloid people that have skin just as dark.

So, what do you have? Negroid.

But no, that word is too scary and offensive. Please.

Ah, I see you have never been to Oslo! Norway is far from a monocultural society (save the rural areas), but you seem to not know what you are talking about. Why don't you take a plane over here to Norway and I'll guide you through east-Oslo.

He didn't just punch a police officer, he went for his gun. What do you think he would have done had he gotten ahold of that gun?

And once again, "thug" has nothing to do with racism. It's just you attributing political meaning to words that are racially neutral, because it fits your agenda (which to me seems like is apologizing for a violent thug). Are you saying that the Oxford English dictionary, and the Merriam Webster dictionary are both wrong in their definiton of "thug"? Because they both define it as something along the lines of "violent criminal" or a "ruffian", which is exactly what Mike Brown was. Feel free to deny facts, I can't stop you from being stupid.

Over 93% of the population is white, compared to 87% in the UK or 72% in the US. Even Oslo is only average for the US. Your countries' news media, and even mine, does not spend nearly as much time discussing racial issues as the American press.

Even people with very different political views to me have confirmed that the word "thug" is often used as a "dogwhistle" in American conversation.

Firstly: it wouldn't be the first time. Look up "religion" in a dictionary, or "siphon".

Secondly, not so much "wrong" as "lacking in cultural context".

Thirdly, you are forgetting the context of this conversation i.e. you not understanding why everyone thought your posts were racist. I pointed out that you were using the same tropes and phrases that racists use. I did not say "you are racist because you called a black man a thug", I said "thug is often used as "code" for a black man and rarely refers to white people". The issue is how you were perceived and why, not whether your use of language was technically correct.

In all fairness, whites will never feel offended or hurt by the word "wh***y" the same way blacks are by the N word, for the simple reason that whites have never been dehumanized by "wh***y" as blacks have been with that ugly word. There is power in words, and wh***y just doesn't pack a punch, simply because there's no historical context for it.

he wasn't near the officer when he was shot(12 times), the cop had plenty of time to go for a non-lethal option but chose to shoot an UNARMED man instead.the political meaning is there, even if you choose to ignore it.
http://www.salon.com/topic/southern_strategy/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us/baltim ... ug-n-word/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

"Kill wh***y" is pretty much the cry of African-American racists from the 80s and 90s, with "wh***y" being used as a racist slur. I'm pretty sure there's been "lynchings" of Caucasians with that term used too as the chant of choice. It's similar to "cracker" in severity.

Yeah, there's power in words, but only if you let them have power.

Giving a word power and letting it have the same over you, means the nefarious intent has beaten you. Banning them means you're afraid of them and that people can't overcome them by themselves (we can).

I'd rather not let words have power over me.

Sure, "kill wh***y" has power, as it implies the threat of mortal danger accompanying it, but otherwise, it doesn't have the history of dehumanization behind it like the N word. And in all seriousness, I never understood how cracker was a racial slur, as it's used to describe purposely ignorant, usually rural (albeit white) persons, but it cant be applied to all whites just for being white. I use the word cracker to describe peckerwoods, white bigots, and slack jawed yokels.

I am never going to ignore facts because fools with an agenda (apologizing for violent criminals and thugs) chose to attribute a political meaning to certain words. And regarding that CNN article, he's just trying to justify people going around and looting stores. God knows why. Maybe he has a point? Maybe it's OK that we call these people every ugly word in the book. They certainly aren't acting like respectable upstanding citizens, why should we be so nice when we talk about them? These are looters and rioters, not protesters.

Also, is it OK for Kraichgauer to call white people who are bigoted and racist "crackers"? If that's OK, then I guess it should also be OK for me to call black people "thugs", even though thug actually can apply to anyone, as long as they are violent criminals and ruffians.

The word "cracker" means "slave driver" (one who cracks a whip). That's quite obviously different to "thug" - one is shooting up, the other is shooting down.

If you want to use the word "thug" then nobody is going to stop you, just be aware that, rightly or wrongly, you run the risk of being perceived as a racist if you use the language of racists.

Last time I looked in the mirror, I saw a white guy looking back, so my use of "cracker" isn't racist.

For once, you are right.
Definition of racism in English:
noun
[mass noun]
1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defi ... ish/racism

The direction of which force is initiated, does not change the fact that initiation force (in this case, violence) is bad. A rich guy killing a poor guy, is just as bad as a poor guy killing a rich guy.

Last time I checked, calling somebody a cracker or a thug didn't kill them in most circumstances.

No, but a black guy beating someone is just as bad as a white guy beating someone. Be it a thug, or a cracker, beating is equally bad.