And the "offensive" stuff wasn't added to those definitions until people started bitching about it (something else you'd know if you'd read the links you claim to have read). Granted, it was like the 70s, so it's been a while, but the point is it was never considered offensive until people started whining about it. So stop with the dictionary stuff and stick to the history of the word through the years.
You can spare me the claims of I haven't read your links, when you obviously feel little to no need to read any provided for you.
The links are a simple answer to the claim I "asserted" that a slur and a profession aren't comparable, as I grow bored with your continued need to argue over a subject I'm certainly NOT invested in.
Maybe, you should be funneling your angst and concern over the PC nature of this society, at those advocating, advancing or encouraging its growth, and avoid attempting to insult, belittle and anger those that AREN'T part of that group. Just an idea.
Understanding a word, isn't the same as fighting to remove it.
Yes, but your "understanding" of the word is completely one-sided, so your arguments mean you're marching with the goose-stepping PC morons ("WOULD YOU CALL THEM THE WASHINGTON N*GGERS?!?").
And I'm sorry that your ability to grasp that not agreeing with you makes me by default on the other "side". I stopped caring what "group" I fit in in JR. high, I can certainly accept your delusional belief that I "belong" to another group simply because I don't "belong" to yours.
Ah, maybe you should get on that research behind that word as well
I'm sorry that I didn't succinctly express myself in a way you desired
HumanCockroach wrote:I wanted to bow out around page 2 of this thread. I honestly do not care one way or the other, despite your belief otherwise Burton.
burrrton wrote:So you (Roach) wanted to bow out, but you couldn't- who victimized you this time?
Can't you both just be thankful that you could peg me as someone who cared about the subject to begin with?
HumanCockroach wrote:Ultimately, the word Redskins doesn't offend me ( which puts me in the "majority" right?) But understand that not being offended isn't the same as not recognizing others are offended and that the word IS a slur. Being able to do so, doesn't make me a PC warrior, or some evil person, it makes me aware, nothing more.
HumanCockroach wrote:Whatever. Grow up.
c_hawkbob wrote:I'm no more a PC warrior than you are a bigot Dog, knock it off with the labels.
Honestly, I don't understand the issue with calling a word what it is
The term honkey or Gringo more than likely offends even less of a percentage of whites, yet it's a slur none the less, not to mention numerous other slurs that don't offend the races they are directed at. It doesn't change what they are though.
HumanCockroach wrote:Horsesh#t.
c_hawkbob wrote:I'm no more a PC warrior than you are a bigot Dog, knock it off with the labels.
But whether you like it or not, your position aligns perfectly with that of the politically correct crowd that, among other things, advises parents not to dress their little girls up as witches for Halloween because it's offensive to women
burrrton wrote:
For heaven's sake, Bob- RD isn't arguing a bigoted position, you *are* arguing the PC warrior's position, and if you're going to argue that, don't blame somebody for noticing.
RiverDog wrote: I really think that a subconscious guilt complex is one of the things that's at the root of this politically correct movement and affects the judgment of otherwise objective thinking individuals.
True only if you assume yourself to be correct that the term is not a racial epithet.
c_hawkbob wrote:Also BS, arguing so hard that you are not really being offensive is greater evidence of a guilty conscience than just adopting a less offensive position.
c_hawkbob wrote:Also BS, arguing so hard that you are not really being offensive is greater evidence of a guilty conscience than just adopting a less offensive position.
I'll say it again, the poll was poorly designed.
People can find something offensive, but not really bothered by it.
These are huge roadblocks to achieving valid results and puts the 90% number in serious doubt.
NorthHawk wrote:I'll say it again, the poll was poorly designed.
Here are the problems:
People can find something offensive, but not really bothered by it.
There should have been 2 questions: Do you find it offensive? and Does it bother you?
Self identifying as Native Americans:
Only 44% claimed to be tribal citizens.
Who are the others? Statistical studies and even the US Census shows that there are non native individuals who claim to be Native Americans, but only because of personal belief and no verifiable lineage.
Since only 44% claim to be tribal citizens, 56% of respondents are now in doubt.
Demographics:
More than half were over the age of 50. The median age of Native Americans is 26 and only 15% of those polled were under 29.
Geographic distribution of the poll:
Only 12% of those polled were from the mountain regions where 18 of the 20 most populated reservation communities are.
36% of the respondents were from the South, where according to Census, only 13% of the total estimated population of Native Americans live.
These are huge roadblocks to achieving valid results and puts the 90% number in serious doubt.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests