Whats the deal!

[KJUN]

The worst part about that image is that his wings have been clipped so he can't fly. Shrug?

 

[medusacoils]

Don't forget "Popcorn." That, I've been told, is an elderly cracker.

I wrote that because people are attaching their own meanings to words. Are the words "Cracker" or "Popcorn" racial, by meaning? NO! It all depends on the context that they are used in. Just like the word "Lynch" or it's plural "Lynching". Yes, that word drives up memories of the KKK and the civil rights movement, but blacks were not the only ones lynched, during that period. The KKK focused on many groups, like Jews and Catholics.

Actually, if you look at the history of the this country, people of all different colors and nationalities were lynched for varying reasons. All you needed was a mass of people, acting in a mob mentality and taking the law(sometimes) in their own hands.

Wayne

 

[vetusvates]

You can panda and naked-rooster Janine and me all you want, but you will not be swaying us off our path until we are done.
So there.

 

[KJUN]

I wrote that because people are attaching their own meanings to words. Are the words "Cracker" or "Popcorn" racial, by meaning? NO! It all depends on the context that they are used in. Just like the word "Lynch" or it's plural "Lynching". Yes, that word drives up memories of the KKK and the civil rights movement, but blacks were not the only ones lynched, during that period. The KKK focused on many groups, like Jews and Catholics.

I understood you. I was supporting your point, because I felt that you made a VERY important statement. Compare that to "coonass" (select group of cajuns) that is NOT an insult unless you mean it. That's the key - the MEANING is what matters. Not the word. I can call you "Sir," and I can make it an insult if I wanted. It's how it is meant that matters.

Actually, if you look at the history of the this country, people of all different colors and nationalities were lynched for varying reasons. All you needed was a mass of people, acting in a mob mentality and taking the law(sometimes) in their own hands.

Obviously you are mistaken becase SOME people think it has racial insinuations, so of course is MUST always have said insinuations. Stop making stuff up, Wayne.

 

[KJUN]

You can panda and naked-rooster Janine and me all you want, but you will not be swaying us off our path until we are done.
So there.

Are you saying we are all just hung up on the use of the word "lynch?" :grin01::grin01::grin01:

 

[Michael823]

Well, it's nice to see this has been a Michael and Ricky being offended thread, or is it deeper than that after all?
Apparently it is only a problem if Michael and/or Ricky choose to respond, and although I don't wish that ridiculousness be placed on others, I am left wondering why there was specifics in drawing out mine and my brothers names, and suddenly forgotten as more people responded.
I am truly thankful seeing the intellectuals step out for an opinion, as most of them can articulate the principles of this debate much better than I can. I tried leaving a fair post initially, I wouldn't say overblown or an emotional rant based on me being offended, but fair and reasonable. I took my time to explain my feelings as best as I could, and then it is up to whomever to take whatever they decide to from it.
It's too bad when Ricky and I would become singled out as some political volleyball (not so much in the recent pages, but previously in the thread), which is now swept under the rug when the other side gains notice.
Not to take this brilliant discussion off topic, and I don't want to make this about myself or Ricky, but where is the backbone for standing by this being another "Michael and Ricky take offense" thread. Had my brother and I been the only one finding the lynching comment, and reference thereafter offensive, which direction would this discussion have taken.
I can see the pink elephant in the room too, but when it's just my brother and I seeing it, the other side would try to destroy our credibility, and dismiss our feelings, by saying that we're disillusioned to see a pink elephant that doesn't exist.
To me, the word "lynching" has only one connotation, and I would sincerely hope that people wouldn't play some child's game of it being in the eye of the beholder. It's condescending and not as cute as being blissfully unaware like some might pretend. Then to leave Susan's comment in response up to interpretation, well that is just plain ridiculous. "Oh me oh my, I just haven't a clue what Susan meant in her comment, we shouldn't rush to assumptions". There's no political correctness in sugar coating racism, and I won't be hopscotching past the subject with a bonnet on my head, and lolly pop in my mouth.
This is the type of racism that exists today, it's completely under the covers, and is excused more easily due to some people pretending to be unaware. If you're even a little racist, then you're racist, it's not very diplomatic. Don't think you (figurative) have higher ground because you aren't in the KKK, or because you're more sneaky about your true feelings.

 

[vetusvates]

I understood you. I was supporting your point, because I felt that you made a VERY important statement. Compare that to "coonass" (select group of cajuns) that is NOT an insult unless you mean it. That's the key - the MEANING is what matters. Not the word. I can call you "Sir," and I can make it an insult if I wanted. It's how it is meant that matters.

This part gets rep.

Obviously you are mistaken becase SOME people think it has racial insinuations, so of course is MUST always have said insinuations. Stop making stuff up, Wayne.

And to this part, KJ, I say kiss my behind. Affectionately.

In fact, that's what I like about some of your posts.....you have me wanting to call you an @$$ one minute, and wanting to slap you on the back and buy you a beer the next.

 

[Drizzt80]

well how else do you make Coon hounds?

Interesting choice of picture and animal considering the discussion of racial terms. Was that on purpose? I can't tell sometimes. :shrugs:

Someone should start a poll, and soon. Haven't been enough polls around here lately. Of course there's a faction of peoples here in my area that may be offended by the use of the word poll . . .

D80

 

[vetusvates]

well how else do you make Coon hounds?

Interesting choice of picture and animal considering the discussion of racial terms. Was that on purpose? I can't tell sometimes. :shrugs:

Someone should start a poll, and soon. Haven't been enough polls around here lately. Of course there's a faction of peoples here in my area that may be offended by the use of the word poll . . .

D80

It depends on how you use the shortening for 'raccoon' in a sentence. (Can't find just the right smiley, but I don't really like smileys, anyway.)

 

[glenhead]

In support of the central points of the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

 

[vetusvates]

And wouldn't that be lovely to a new member? Brent and/or Eric's thread on "One Hundred Words : Rank Each 1 to 10 on Racial Slur Value".....

 

[KJUN]

In fact, that's what I like about some of your posts.....you have me wanting to call you an @$$ one minute, and wanting to slap you on the back and buy you a beer the next.

Make it a sweet tea. I never got he taste for beer...believe it or not. .....and don't let me fool you. I'm always an a$$.

If I'm allowed to get serious for a second, what about the "spade" word? You and I are both fimilar with that particular statement and what it means in south Louisiana. Did you not take it as racially oriented because of who the user was? ...or was that just as wrong as just using the word lynch? Honestly, I find that statement to be MUCH more "inappropriate" than the word lynch. What is the difference? Is there a difference? Why is there a difference if one exists. If there is no difference, should we just never use any word that might have once had racial, religious, or sexual connotations?


Is it becaise the president is calling himself black and lynch was used towards him? Is that why lynch is inappropriate here and now? Does that mean the word isn't racially oriented when I used it towards a black-killing white sherriff and his posse? If the word is used different ways towards different races, isn't THAT idea real prejudice? I would think so. I'm not picking a fight or tring to be a jerk (although I may come across like this), but I don't see the work as having a special meaning towards blacks, whites, jews, gypsies, or anything. ..and i did find the spade comment to be inappropriate (humorously so) because of how I interpret that statement...just like how you interpret lynch. What makes one wrong and the other OK?

 

[Drizzt80]

And wouldn't that be lovely to a new member? Brent and/or Eric's thread on "One Hundred Words : Rank Each 1 to 10 on Racial Slur Value".....

Hey, no way!! I ain't the one starting a poll. I was just throwing the recommendation out there. Can't have too many polls ya know. Ya, you betcha'.

D80

 

[KJUN]

For the record, coonass doesn't reference a raccoon or a person of African descent. It is the mispronunciation of a french term meaning (I cleaned it up some) "cheap prositutes." English speakers heard it as coonass and thought we smelled bad, so the name stuck. We, as a culture, didn't empower the word. We took it as our own. PLUS, it wasn't completely inaccurate. Maybe they just considered it free word-of-mouth advertising. LOL.

 

[KJUN]

Hey, no way!! I ain't the one starting a poll. I was just throwing the recommendation out there. Can't have too many polls ya know. Ya, you betcha'.

D80

Let's start a poll on if Brent should start a poll!

 

[wade]

Make it a sweet tea. I never got he taste for beer...believe it or not. .....and don't let me fool you. I'm always an a$$.

I thought you were a prick.?

 

[vetusvates]

Make it a sweet tea. I never got he taste for beer...believe it or not. .....and don't let me fool you. I'm always an a$$.

If I'm allowed to get serious for a second, what about the "spade" word? You and I are both fimilar with that particular statement and what it means in south Louisiana. Did you not take it as racially oriented because of who the user was? ...or was that just as wrong as just using the word lynch? Honestly, I find that statement to be MUCH more "inappropriate" than the word lynch. What is the difference? Is there a difference? Why is there a difference if one exists. If there is no difference, should we just never use any word that might have once had racial, religious, or sexual connotations?


Is it becaise the president is calling himself black and lynch was used towards him? Is that why lynch is inappropriate here and now? Does that mean the word isn't racially oriented when I used it towards a black-killing white sherriff and his posse? If the word is used different ways towards different races, isn't THAT idea real prejudice? I would think so. I'm not picking a fight or tring to be a jerk (although I may come across like this), but I don't see the work as having a special meaning towards blacks, whites, jews, gypsies, or anything. ..and i did find the spade comment to be inappropriate (humorously so) because of how I interpret that statement...just like how you interpret lynch. What makes one wrong and the other OK?

Well,...if the word spade was used earlier in this thread....I missed it. I let Susan's use of lynching go unremarked upon the first time around, and shortly stopped reading the thread. Until this morning.
For me, "calling a spade a spade" means calling a thing what it is. Usually gay, foolish, idiotic, bad idea, liar, or some other true thing people are afraid to say. But I also know the other meaning of "spade" and would take my position based on how it's used in a sentence. Some words I (by my non-racist mother and grandparents) was just passiviely taught to never use.

I've got to mosey on to work, but will see y'all from there. I have my own theory on how words become linguistically "charged" or not. I am alluding to Wayne, in that I don't find honky or cracker offensive. In that they have not historically been "charged" with the metaphorical gunpowder or nitro that other "charged" words have.

 

[KJUN]

I thought you were a prick.?

I was going to say, "Can't I be both?" but that brings up the WRONG mental image....lol.

 

[jazzgeek]

It is still highly composed of unsubstantiated and unsupported statements.

Not in this instance. Do you see those lil' red circles I made on this screen shot?




Those are "reference links", and clicking the clicker on them will take you to another section or two of the article. Or, thanks to our friend the "scroll bar", one can "scroll down" and find them as well.....





Additionally, if you ever want to see the "behind the scenes" action for any article, you can. Just click on the "Discussion" and/or "History" sections of the page, and you can even track revisions and see what a page USED to look like.

It's not perfect; no information system is. But it's been shown to be a reliable "initial source". As others in this thread have stated, it shouldn't be used as the sole source.

That said, I encourage you to cite YOUR source for the "John Lynch" origin that you've claimed.

:cheers:

Dale

 

[wade]

Regardless of any 'rules' governing colour, Susan stated the president being black was a bonus for wanting him to be lynched.

I don’t want to spoil the frivolity now that we are down to pandas, coonhounds, and pink elephant. But, J9 made a very good point several times. I don’t think it should just be left in the dust and forgotten. Susan made some very out of line statements that she or someone should address. Regardless of your beliefs or political orientation I don’t think we should let these discussions get that far out of hand.