General

[Listessa]

Originally Posted by HurtCow

Just yell 'Turn that shiat down, you cracka-*** honkeys!' and see what they say.

And should I start hitting my head to itch it so I don't loosen the hair extentions too? That would be pretty entertaining.

Originally Posted by secretweaponevan

You don't count. You play paintball and appreciate nickle-plated brass. Velcor created you and saw that you were good, said that you were good, and you are good.

Awww... thanks! No worries, it's not you guys who get on the girl thing.

[secretweaponevan]

Originally Posted by Listessa

And should I start hitting my head to itch it so I don't loosen the hair extentions too? That would be pretty entertaining.


Awww... thanks! No worries, it's not you guys who get on the girl thing.

Someone's been watching "Flava of Love."

(I was just channel surfing trying to choose between COPS and Most Shocking. That's how I know that. Honest injun!)

[Listessa]

Originally Posted by secretweaponevan

Someone's been watching "Flava of Love."

(I was just channel surfing trying to choose between COPS and Most Shocking. That's how I know that. Honest injun!)

I can't help it. It's like a trainwreck or a really bad highway pileup- I can't take my eyes from it. Especially since I realized Flav looks remarkably like the Crypt Keeper. That one is more amusing than most of the other shows on TV.

[Al Ray]

Liss, good? dont you mean evil?

An odd thing about the media, and yes the internet is a form of media, is that things get taken out of context quite often. With the written word in particular, the tone in which a statment is conveyed can be dramaticly different than how its recived(read) To some extent I belive this is happening here.

I said it before but the context of race in general is part of the problem. If we(races) are truley are equal (well duh of course we are) then I dont belive any comment made thus far to be racist in the true sense of the word. I like the description of accents in language. As any linguest and he/she will plainly tell you that accents vary by location. Stating that a person from area X is likely to have accent X isnt racism, its a general observation. IS that a "steriotype", by deffinition a steriotype at its core is just a broad generalsation, I belive the term that most used is "overgeneralized observation". So with that in mind stating that a broad generalsation is a steritype is in fact a seriotype in itself. So for the mathmatical people if 70% of a population in aread X have accent X, the statment that "most people in area x have accent X" is true. The statement that "ALL(100%) people in area X have accent X" is false, and is an oversimplification of the fact (in this example 70%) and thus a steriotype.


Make sense?

[drg]

Originally Posted by Meph

You're right. Telling somebody what they can and can not do due to the color of their skin is not racist and is completely different from being a double standard.

You CAN say it if you like, just like you can believe anything you like. But you deal with the consequences of your choices of actions.

However it indeed is not a double standard when a race appropriates an epithet as a form of linguistic empowerment, and it is considered "okay" socially, while it is not "okay" for members of another race to appropriate the term. No double standard involved because the epithet concerns race by definition. By its nature it pertains to one race and not another, so it means something different to that race than it does to others. Thus there is no double standard, there are two different situations.

[Walking_Target]

Sorry, saying that one group can say something because of the color of their skin, and another cannot *is* racism.

[drg]

Originally Posted by Al Ray

I said it before but the context of race in general is part of the problem. If we(races) are truley are equal (well duh of course we are) then I dont belive any comment made thus far to be racist in the true sense of the word. I like the description of accents in language. As any linguest and he/she will plainly tell you that accents vary by location. Stating that a person from area X is likely to have accent X isnt racism, its a general observation. IS that a "steriotype", by deffinition a steriotype at its core is just a broad generalsation, I belive the term that most used is "overgeneralized observation". So with that in mind stating that a broad generalsation is a steritype is in fact a seriotype in itself. So for the mathmatical people if 70% of a population in aread X have accent X, the statment that "most people in area x have accent X" is true. The statement that "ALL(100%) people in area X have accent X" is false, and is an oversimplification of the fact (in this example 70%) and thus a steriotype.

Yes context is important, which is actually the point (which is being missed by many in this thread). You need to be properly educated on context if you are to make fair judgments on the question of race in language. That is what the discipline of sociolinguistics is all about.

You are right regarding regional dialects and accents -- for example Southern American English is not a very closely race-related dialect, being mostly a geographic construct and also being one of many dialects spoken by the caucasian race. However a Korean or Chinese accent IS a closely race-related dialect, because of the racial homogeniety of the speakers of Korean or Chinese languages, which affect such native speakers' English pronunciation.

That's why, when being cognizant of racial propriety, it's "okay" to mock a Southern accent or dialect, but not "okay" to mock a Korean accent. It's not a double standard because contexts are different.

But it's still not polite to mock any dialect or accent when someone who uses that dialect or accent is around, in general, and you're best off avoiding it in general conversation with people you don't know. Forums are public; especially in popular ones, you can assume that you don't know everyone and that just about every race, color or creed is represented.

[drg]

Originally Posted by Walking_Target

Sorry, saying that one group can say something because of the color of their skin, and another cannot *is* racism.

There is a difference between racism and race consciousness. One is rooted in ignorance, while the other is rooted in knowledge.

[Al Ray]

That's why, when being cognizant of racial propriety, it's "okay" to mock a Southern accent or dialect, but not "okay" to mock a Korean accent. It's not a double standard because contexts are different.

I dissagree. If we(races) are all the same(equal) then what you have stated is indeed a double standard, as if we are all equal then we are all in the same context.

[drg]

Originally Posted by Al Ray

I dissagree. If we(races) are all the same(equal) then what you have stated is indeed a double standard, as if we are all equal then we are all in the same context.

Racio-linguistic relationships are not all equal. Read the example and explanation again.

In one instance, you are essentially mocking a race. In the other you are not. Even if races are considered equal (a topic of its own that we actually need not get into for this discussion), the two situations are different.