TRIPPY SPEAKS OUT
Wow, I wasn't expecting to be responding so quickly. However, someone has touched upon an issue upon which I have a vested interest: free speech. Specifically...
Tallulah notes:
"1) Sorry, but I wasn't totally sure about the point about 'n__ger' (if everyone else is blanking it out, I will too). There's a fine line between politically correct and just being considerate and I personally think the above word crosses that line (if you follow me.) Sorry, but as long as there's racism in the world, people are gonna be using harmful words...and using them yourself mightn't dilute them, it might just hurt some people and encourage others."
This is precisely the attitude I wish to abolish. You have been conditioned by society in a Pavlovian fashion to elicit a particular response to that word. Simply put, racist attitudes are thorougly depicted in conjunction with the use of that word by the mainstream media, both for the purposes of entertainment and education (read: brainwashing) by society's PC thugs.
The advocates of PC seek to subvert negative connotations by keeping semantics fluid. If it takes you a great deal of time to even comprehend what a particular term means, and furthermore if you must ask what a word or phrase means and receive several sentences of explanation, chances are the negative connotations of a particular stereotype will not immediately surface.
Contrarily, PC advocates seek to worsen the perception of negative stereotypes associated with particular words. PC propaganda will often depict scenarios in which a person of a particular subgroup of whatever sort for which there exists some sort of derogatory term becomes deeply offended when someone else uses that term in respect to the original person. The original person then proudly asserts that he/she is not a , he/she is a .
Repeated conditioning to this effect often leaves those outside a particular group overly conscious of the semantics they use when referring to a particular subgroup. The effect of the PC rationalle is damaging in that it narrows the perceptions of the subgroups to the point where the individual is ignored and all that is seen is the label associated with the subgroup.
Personally, I treat gay people different from your run-of-the-mill straight white male. I likewise treat black people and the handicapped differently. This is because society has conditioned me to see these sorts of people as being exceptions to the norm.
Now, the following is something you can't very well take my word on, but it's something you've probably heard before. These sorts of people don't like being seen as a label. They wish to be seen as individuals and treated without reference to their subgroup. Obviously the only way to verify this is to confront someone who belongs to a particular subgroup. A question like "What should I call you? A negro? An African-American? Black?" will result in an answer along the lines of "Call me Steve."
At any rate, back to the infamous n-word. This word does indeed have quite a past. As it slowly began to lose its negative connotations and enter mainstream acceptance the PC thugs were quick to attempt to reenforce the fading negative connotations by repeated displays of its use in an offensive manner.
It is amazing to observe how societal conditioning causes such altered perspectives of a work which uses such a word. Take for example "Tokyo Breakfast," a 6 minute show which repeatedly uses the n-word. (Tokyo Breakfast may be viewed at http://www.mysterymeatgrinder.com/tokyo_breakfast.asx. If you have been brainwashed by PC thugs, you may wish to refrain from watching.)
One reviewer had this to say:
"that piece of crap isn't funny or surprising. the truth is so many of asians attitude and views of black people is no different from many white people views and attitude of black people. asians are some of the most racist people i have come across. they're no different from racist white people. the only difference is white people have more power than them overall."
While another had the following perspective:
"the sitcom is actually a parody that portrays america in an awkward, outlandish manner. the actors use the term n----- simply to poke fun at the fact that everywhere in america people call each other n----- even if they're not black. in this way, african americans are not made the subject of ridicule, but all of us. and they're right, that term has been rendered meaningless. and you gotta admit, that's pretty d funny."
Two radically different perspectives, one from a person clinging to the negative connotations of the word, another from someone who realizes people are abandoning the negative connotations as the word slowly gains mainstream acceptance.
Tokyo Breakfast ends with a black deliveryman entering the apartment. He shouts "Did somebody order a case of Fortys?" Now, two things may happen at this point. The first would be that the characters could exhibit the PC-style reaction, which is that they would instantly think of the negative connotations of the word, and thus refrain from using it in his presence. The next would be a malicious, racist attitude in which they intentionally use their common knowledge of the negative connotations to defame the deliveryman due to some sort of racist agenda. The third, the reaction I believe is being exhibited, is that they don't consider the negative connotations at all, and with smiling faces and about as much regard as when they repeatedly called each other the n-word, respond to the "Did somebody order a case of Fortys?" question with "WE DID, N----!"
I think it is obvious from this that I possess disdain for advocates of PC, and I prefer to express myself openly, unencumbered by societal restrictions. But for those of you with closed minds who still believe the PC rationalle is indeed beneficial to stereotypes rather than hindering and would rather I not use the word at all, we shall examine the connotations and see precisely what effect each word creates in context.
I have used the n-word two different ways. The first is as a casual address between characters. In one such case the two characters were lovers. None of these exhibit any sort of connotation. In these the word is completely devoid of meaning. The word serves an expletive in the grammatical sense, that if omitted it would not alter the meaning of the sentence. This is precisely the effect I think all words should have, and as society is currently progressing will eventually have sometime in the near future as generation by generation negative connotations fade and words gain greater popular acceptance.
The other usage was to satirically re-enforce a given stereotype, the racist southern United States resident who attests his Christianity but does very much the opposite in deed. In this case stereotypes are utilized as a comedic device, and for some reason when the word was used in such a way that it carries a negative connotation, people were not offended.
This matter confuses me greatly. When "foul" language is used intentionally to reflect back negatively on a particular character, people seem to have fewer problems than when it is used in such a way that it is completely devoid of meaning. I would say people who feel this way are listening to the little PC thug inside their head, who says "It's okay to say bad words if they're used to illustrate that a given character is bad, because we want to enforce negative connotations of words so that they are less likely to be openly used, and in this respect no one will be offended because everyone will be afraid of openly using a word with negative connotations."
This reasoning is flawed in that slowly these words are losing their negative connotations. By reenforcing negative connotations PC thugs are only prolonging the duration for which particular words will be offensive, or are doing even worse things such as reenforcing nearly nonexistant negative connotations such as with the terms "secretary" versus "administrative assistant."
At any rate, I will continue in my quest to eliminate negative connotations by pushing for mainstream acceptance of various words, a path which seeks an open perspective rather than a more close-minded Orwellian one.
(My apologies to everyone for posting something like this in the Bible forum)
Wow, I wasn't expecting to be responding so quickly. However, someone has touched upon an issue upon which I have a vested interest: free speech. Specifically...
Tallulah notes:
"1) Sorry, but I wasn't totally sure about the point about 'n__ger' (if everyone else is blanking it out, I will too). There's a fine line between politically correct and just being considerate and I personally think the above word crosses that line (if you follow me.) Sorry, but as long as there's racism in the world, people are gonna be using harmful words...and using them yourself mightn't dilute them, it might just hurt some people and encourage others."
This is precisely the attitude I wish to abolish. You have been conditioned by society in a Pavlovian fashion to elicit a particular response to that word. Simply put, racist attitudes are thorougly depicted in conjunction with the use of that word by the mainstream media, both for the purposes of entertainment and education (read: brainwashing) by society's PC thugs.
The advocates of PC seek to subvert negative connotations by keeping semantics fluid. If it takes you a great deal of time to even comprehend what a particular term means, and furthermore if you must ask what a word or phrase means and receive several sentences of explanation, chances are the negative connotations of a particular stereotype will not immediately surface.
Contrarily, PC advocates seek to worsen the perception of negative stereotypes associated with particular words. PC propaganda will often depict scenarios in which a person of a particular subgroup of whatever sort for which there exists some sort of derogatory term becomes deeply offended when someone else uses that term in respect to the original person. The original person then proudly asserts that he/she is not a , he/she is a .
Repeated conditioning to this effect often leaves those outside a particular group overly conscious of the semantics they use when referring to a particular subgroup. The effect of the PC rationalle is damaging in that it narrows the perceptions of the subgroups to the point where the individual is ignored and all that is seen is the label associated with the subgroup.
Personally, I treat gay people different from your run-of-the-mill straight white male. I likewise treat black people and the handicapped differently. This is because society has conditioned me to see these sorts of people as being exceptions to the norm.
Now, the following is something you can't very well take my word on, but it's something you've probably heard before. These sorts of people don't like being seen as a label. They wish to be seen as individuals and treated without reference to their subgroup. Obviously the only way to verify this is to confront someone who belongs to a particular subgroup. A question like "What should I call you? A negro? An African-American? Black?" will result in an answer along the lines of "Call me Steve."
At any rate, back to the infamous n-word. This word does indeed have quite a past. As it slowly began to lose its negative connotations and enter mainstream acceptance the PC thugs were quick to attempt to reenforce the fading negative connotations by repeated displays of its use in an offensive manner.
It is amazing to observe how societal conditioning causes such altered perspectives of a work which uses such a word. Take for example "Tokyo Breakfast," a 6 minute show which repeatedly uses the n-word. (Tokyo Breakfast may be viewed at http://www.mysterymeatgrinder.com/tokyo_breakfast.asx. If you have been brainwashed by PC thugs, you may wish to refrain from watching.)
One reviewer had this to say:
"that piece of crap isn't funny or surprising. the truth is so many of asians attitude and views of black people is no different from many white people views and attitude of black people. asians are some of the most racist people i have come across. they're no different from racist white people. the only difference is white people have more power than them overall."
While another had the following perspective:
"the sitcom is actually a parody that portrays america in an awkward, outlandish manner. the actors use the term n----- simply to poke fun at the fact that everywhere in america people call each other n----- even if they're not black. in this way, african americans are not made the subject of ridicule, but all of us. and they're right, that term has been rendered meaningless. and you gotta admit, that's pretty d funny."
Two radically different perspectives, one from a person clinging to the negative connotations of the word, another from someone who realizes people are abandoning the negative connotations as the word slowly gains mainstream acceptance.
Tokyo Breakfast ends with a black deliveryman entering the apartment. He shouts "Did somebody order a case of Fortys?" Now, two things may happen at this point. The first would be that the characters could exhibit the PC-style reaction, which is that they would instantly think of the negative connotations of the word, and thus refrain from using it in his presence. The next would be a malicious, racist attitude in which they intentionally use their common knowledge of the negative connotations to defame the deliveryman due to some sort of racist agenda. The third, the reaction I believe is being exhibited, is that they don't consider the negative connotations at all, and with smiling faces and about as much regard as when they repeatedly called each other the n-word, respond to the "Did somebody order a case of Fortys?" question with "WE DID, N----!"
I think it is obvious from this that I possess disdain for advocates of PC, and I prefer to express myself openly, unencumbered by societal restrictions. But for those of you with closed minds who still believe the PC rationalle is indeed beneficial to stereotypes rather than hindering and would rather I not use the word at all, we shall examine the connotations and see precisely what effect each word creates in context.
I have used the n-word two different ways. The first is as a casual address between characters. In one such case the two characters were lovers. None of these exhibit any sort of connotation. In these the word is completely devoid of meaning. The word serves an expletive in the grammatical sense, that if omitted it would not alter the meaning of the sentence. This is precisely the effect I think all words should have, and as society is currently progressing will eventually have sometime in the near future as generation by generation negative connotations fade and words gain greater popular acceptance.
The other usage was to satirically re-enforce a given stereotype, the racist southern United States resident who attests his Christianity but does very much the opposite in deed. In this case stereotypes are utilized as a comedic device, and for some reason when the word was used in such a way that it carries a negative connotation, people were not offended.
This matter confuses me greatly. When "foul" language is used intentionally to reflect back negatively on a particular character, people seem to have fewer problems than when it is used in such a way that it is completely devoid of meaning. I would say people who feel this way are listening to the little PC thug inside their head, who says "It's okay to say bad words if they're used to illustrate that a given character is bad, because we want to enforce negative connotations of words so that they are less likely to be openly used, and in this respect no one will be offended because everyone will be afraid of openly using a word with negative connotations."
This reasoning is flawed in that slowly these words are losing their negative connotations. By reenforcing negative connotations PC thugs are only prolonging the duration for which particular words will be offensive, or are doing even worse things such as reenforcing nearly nonexistant negative connotations such as with the terms "secretary" versus "administrative assistant."
At any rate, I will continue in my quest to eliminate negative connotations by pushing for mainstream acceptance of various words, a path which seeks an open perspective rather than a more close-minded Orwellian one.
(My apologies to everyone for posting something like this in the Bible forum)