Jesse Helms Died This Morning [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Radii

07-04-2008, 01:51 PM

Helms blamed gays and lesbians for "the proliferation of AIDS," and stating he disliked using the word "gay" to refer to them since, "...there's nothing gay about them."

Of civil rights protests Helms stated in 1963 that "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[6] (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963) He also wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)

Helms' referred to the University of North Carolina (UNC) as the "University of Negroes and Communists." (Charleston Gazette, 9/15/95)[7]

Helms once deeply offended a black colleague, Democratic Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, by singing part of "Dixie" on a Capitol elevator.

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." He then proceeded to sing the song about "the good life" during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 9/2/93; Time, 8/16/93).[7]

While working on the 1950 Democrat primary campaign of Willis Smith against Frank Porter Graham, Helms helped create an ad that read "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (FAIR 9/1/01, The News and Observer 8/26/01)

When Roberta Achtenberg was appointed Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, Helms attempted to block her confirmation, stating that he refused to vote for her "because she's a damn lesbian."

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker noted in his memoirs that Helms had "the 'humorous habit'" of calling all black people "Fred".

Helms once claimed that "The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian."[11]

I grew up in North Carolina. I turned 18 and registered to vote in 1994. I came to Atlanta for college in 1995. I passed by many "quick registration" stations on campus (that would register me to vote in Georgia) so that I could go back up to North Carolina in November 1996 for the sole purpose of being able to claim that I had cast one vote against Jesse Helms in my lifetime.

CU Tiger

07-04-2008, 02:07 PM

Having grown up in the Carolinas and met Sen. Helms on at least 3 occaisons, he seemed like a decent guy. I obviously disagree completely with many of hiss racial views, although I do excuse him just a bit because of his age and the era he was raised in, but its a shame he never realized the folley in those views.

All that said, Helms did much good for many people, while also causing his share of harm, probably not unlike many of us.

Im not in tears over his death; but would never be heartless enough to say the world is a better place for it.

GrantDawg

07-05-2008, 09:41 AM

The first funeral I ever did was while I was in NC. I had never even been to a funeral that was just a grave-side service, and was extremely nervous. Once I arrived, I was informed there was a good chance that Sen. Helms was going to be there. That did nothing at all to help my nerves. Thankfully, he didn't show.

Subby

07-05-2008, 09:53 AM

He'll be sorely missed...

BY THE KLAN.

M GO BLUE!!!

07-05-2008, 10:13 AM

How long until we find out about his secret black family?

Grammaticus

07-05-2008, 11:40 AM

Wow, I thought for sure we would do a thread like this about Ted Kennedy first. Oh well, all in due time.

Dutch

07-05-2008, 01:07 PM

He'll be sorely missed...

BY THE KLAN.

Whatever. Robert "Exhalted Cyclops" Byrd is who they save their tears for. (Yikes!)

Radii

07-05-2008, 01:33 PM

Whatever. Robert "Exhalted Cyclops" Byrd is who they save their tears for. (Yikes!)

This really isn't a right vs left thing. Racism and such blind hatred is simply wrong and people who have these beliefs are terrible, terrible people to have making the laws in our country and representing our country and its ideals to the rest of the world, no matter how they vote on most issues or what side of the aisle they sit on.

In my younger years I openly wished death on Helms, JiMGA style, because I felt he was such an embarrassment to the state of North Carolina. I regret having that kind of hatred and am not going to celebrate that he is dead.

I guess its inevitable, but I am kinda shocked to see this thread start to go down the path of blind right vs left who is better when that isn't at all what anyone here is talking about. Older democrats who cannot let go of their racial views from their younger days need to be out of government too.

RendeR

07-05-2008, 01:47 PM

I'm not celebrating but I sure as hell won't lose a wink of slep over it. people like helms who try to spread ignorance and hatred are beter off gone from the gene pool.

JonInMiddleGA

07-05-2008, 02:00 PM

I am kinda shocked to see this thread start to go down the path of blind right vs left who is better when that isn't at all what anyone here is talking about.

If you're shocked, then you haven't been paying close attention. It's why I didn't bother to mention Helms' death before this thread popped up.

I see a man who stuck to his principles in admirable fashion and who definitely carried the courage of his convictions who is likely worth any 10 elected officials from either side of the aisle today.

From his NYT obit comes one of the better quotes I've seen this week “I didn’t come to Washington to be a ‘yes man’ for any president, Democrat or Republican,” he said in an interview in 1989. “I didn’t come to Washington to get along and win any popularity contests.”.

Sadly, I don't have much hope that we'll see many of his character again & as a nation we're a lot poorer for that. But considering how little he would have been concerned with the criticism from quarters like FOFC, I'm going to just let those who can't understand that just rant & rave. I suspect he wouldn't mind a bit.

Vegas Vic

07-05-2008, 02:28 PM

I see a man who stuck to his principles in admirable fashion and who definitely carried the courage of his convictions.

I think Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, summed up Helms the best:

"He was the kindest, most infuriating, politest, most aggravating and nicest politician I had to deal with in the United States Senate."

RendeR

07-05-2008, 02:32 PM

It is admirable that he stuck to who he was and held his belief's so dear.

Its just sad that he couldn't have been a decent human being and still hold those convictions.

Radii

07-05-2008, 02:39 PM

It is admirable that he stuck to who he was and held his belief's so dear.

Its just sad that he couldn't have been a decent human being and still hold those convictions.

Thanks. I started to reply about 3 times and ended up erasing everything I wrote. That sums up what I was trying to spit out very nicely.

Karlifornia

07-05-2008, 02:42 PM

Gay people can be pure sleaze..like his granddaughter:

Jesse Helms' Gay Granddaughter Uses Him for Election Advantage
Saturday October 30, 2004
Jesse Helms was one of the nastiest and most vocal anti-gay bigots in the Senate. His granddaughter is campaigning to become a district judge in North Carolina. Helms doesn't know she is gay and state Republican leaders who engage in regular gay-baiting in their own campaign literature fail to mention Jennifer Knox's long-time lesbian partner. Hypocrites? You bet.
According to Blue Lemur:

When Knox announced her Wake County candidacy Apr. 30, she said Helms was the primary factor in driving her to run for elective office. “He’s dedicated 30-plus years of his life to the American people and to the people of North Carolina and that has really made an impact on me,” she said. “That’s the biggest thing in making me want to go into elected office.”
The state’s Republican Party platform is unequivocal about homosexuality. “We believe homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable ‘alternative’ lifestyle either in public education or in public policy,” the platform states. “We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexuality is normal… We commend private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which defend moral decency and freedom.”
Just so that no one gets any mistaken notions about Helms' position on homosexuality, some quotes are included:

Helms wrote [to a mother who lost her son to AIDS]: “As for homosexuality, The Bible judges it, I do not,” Helms replied. “There is no justification for AIDS funding far exceeding that for other killer diseases such as cancer, heart trouble, etc. As for [your son] Mark, I wish he had not played Russian roulette in his sexual activity,” he added. “There is no escaping the reality of what happened.”
The letter became the inspiration for a documentary called “Dear Jesse.” The film, which was reviewed in the New York Times and the Washington Post, enraged the senator, who again lashed out against gays. “Those people are intellectually dishonest in just about everything they do or say. They start by pretending that it is just another form of love,” Helms said. “It’s sickening. The New York Times and The Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves.”
One of the problems with the Republican Party and religious conservatives is their desire to keep homosexuality in the closet. If they acknowledged the existence of gays, even in their ranks and in their families, it would do a lot to help gays become more accepted in society. That is contrary to the goals of the religious conservatives, as Helms makes so clear in the above quotes. That is also why these stories are so important. If Republicans aren't able to acknowledge the truth, others will have to do the job of bringing the truth out.

hxxp://atheism.about.com/b/2004/10/30/jesse-helms-gay-granddaughter-uses-him-for-election-advantage.htm

While working on the primary campaign against Frank Porter Graham, Helms helped create an ad that read, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories?

Helms had close ties to the rightist Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson and was considered a main sponsor of D'Aubuisson's political party, the Nationalist Republican Alliance. When confronted with evidence that D'Aubuisson ran death squads that systematically murdered civilians, he replied that "all I know, is that D'Aubuisson is a free enterprise man and deeply religious."

Jingle Helms! Jingle Helms! Jingle from Jess-e!/Oh what fun it is to ride/On a tobacco subsidy!"

I guess, considering if Jesse had his way, I wouldn't have been born...so there really wasn't any reason for me to be a fan of his. I guess at least half of a whole state disagreed with me for many, many years. It's not really puzzling. It's "Nurth Cuh-lina". If any family misses him, sorry...but...yeah fuck him.

Oilers9911

07-05-2008, 04:41 PM

If being a racist and a bigot is admirable then I guess Helms was very admirable indeed. How is sticking to such hate-filled convictions at all admirable?

Buccaneer

07-05-2008, 05:50 PM

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by helms wikipedia page
While working on the primary campaign against Frank Porter Graham, Helms helped create an ad that read, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

What year was this from?

Groundhog

07-05-2008, 06:46 PM

If being a racist and a bigot is admirable then I guess Helms was very admirable indeed. How is sticking to such hate-filled convictions at all admirable?

That's exactly what I've been trying to figure out while reading through this thread.

RendeR

07-05-2008, 08:04 PM

You have to seperate the two thngs:

A) he was a racist and a bigot and in general a pig.

B) He didn't give a shit what you or anyone else thought of him, he stuck with his beliefs, no mater how foul and pathetic. He didn't cowtow to the politically correct mafia.

Part A he should and rightfully is despised for by, I HOPE, a majority of people

Part B I can at least understand people admiring, because in this day and age of saying the right things to the right people and not pising anyone off for the sake of getting elected, he didn't and even I can see that it took some balls to do that for as long as he did.

Maple Leafs

07-05-2008, 08:10 PM

You have to seperate the two thngs:

A) he was a racist and a bigot and in general a pig.

B) He didn't give a shit what you or anyone else thought of him, he stuck with his beliefs
If his beliefs are accurately described in A), then no, I really don't have to seperate them.

RendeR

07-05-2008, 08:44 PM

Neither do I personally, but I was trying to help people understand JIMG's PoV.

He admires the fact that Helms, or I suppose anyone could stick to their beliefs in the face of recrimination as helms did throughout his career.

Vegas Vic

07-05-2008, 09:18 PM

He admires the fact that Helms, or I suppose anyone could stick to their beliefs in the face of recrimination as helms did throughout his career.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Adolf Hitler?

Axxon

07-05-2008, 09:59 PM

Couldn't the same thing be said about Adolf Hitler?

Who said he didn't admire him too? ;)

RendeR

07-05-2008, 11:03 PM

Who said he didn't admire him too? ;)

We are talking about JIMG here...

Young Drachma

07-05-2008, 11:55 PM

He probably didn't want to live with the possibility of a President Obama.

molson

07-06-2008, 01:51 AM

I'm not going to judge someone who was raised in a different time, who's life I didn't lead, etc, but this guy being in office so long sure does say something about North Carolina.

"Sticking to your convictions" isn't really a compliment, if that's the best anyone can say about the guy, then that's pretty telling. It's not like he stood up for unpopular opinions - he was from North Carolina, where his opinions were widespread enough to keep him in office as long as he wanted. That didn't exactly take courage.

At best, Helms is like your drunken great-uncle at Thankgiving, he says embarassing things, you try to keep him away from the kids and your girlfriend, but at least he's polite when he's not talking about "the blacks".

Dutch

07-06-2008, 02:54 AM

What year was this from?

1950, while working for the Democrats.

Zelig

07-06-2008, 09:35 AM

out before lock

Kodos

07-06-2008, 12:30 PM

Bye-bye to another guy who won't be missed.

Honolulu_Blue

07-06-2008, 12:54 PM

It is admirable that he stuck to who he was and held his belief's so dear.

Its just sad that he couldn't have been a decent human being and still hold those convictions.

No, it's not. There's nothing admirable about sticking to bigotted, unexamined beliefs. Nothing at all.

I understand he comes from a different time and a different place, but he lived a long, long time. Things changed considerably over the span of his lifetime. What would have been truly admirable is for him to admit that he was flat-wrong and apologize for all the harm he did.

Really examining or re-examining one's beliefs and admitting that what you originally thought is very, very hard. Too many people are too proud, too pig-headed, or too arrogant to do so. It takes a special kind of courage to really look at things and, if you determine your beliefs were wrong, fess up to it.

It's easy to sit back and say "I believe what I believe because that's how it always was and that's how it always will be. Aint nohin' gonna change that."

Glengoyne

07-06-2008, 02:46 PM

I don't believe the racist element of his beliefs was prominent in his last several years in the Senate. He certainly didn't bow to Political Correctness, and for that I cannot fault him. Even that said, I wasn't a fan. I was glad to see him retire.

He did hold his ground and stick to his guns though. I think my favorite example of his single mindedness was when he defeated the nomination of William Weld(sp?) as Ambassador to Mexico, and did so with little to no support from his fellow Republicans. Weld was a sound nominee, but had held a position opposed to Helms on some issue.

Helms refused to bring the vote to committee. When more moderate Republicans , led by Dick Lugar, attempted to call Helms on it, Helms outmaneuvered them with procedural rules. Not something that I found particularly admirable, but he wasn't going to let reasonable minds prevail. Not when he had made up his mind.

Vegas Vic

07-06-2008, 04:55 PM

I don't believe the racist element of his beliefs was prominent in his last several years in the Senate.

That's probably a fair statement. In his latter years, Helms did a lot of work with U2's Bono (who considered him a friend) on AIDS relief to Africa.

http://members.cox.net/sauvignon/bono-helms.gif

KWhit

07-06-2008, 07:15 PM

What I can't believe about this thread is that "not being a racist fuck" is being referred to as "political correctness."

RendeR

07-06-2008, 07:57 PM

What I can't believe about this thread is that "not being a racist fuck" is being referred to as "political correctness."

No, its not, not directly at least. I know I'm not condoning his position on things in any way.

All I said and others, is that Helms never gave in to those who said "OOOHHH you can't say THAT" and never towed the line for the sake of popularity.

He was a racist fuck, no argument from me. But the whole issue developed because someone admired the fact that he DIDN'T cave in to the popular sentiment to hide what he really felt.

larrymcg421

07-06-2008, 08:09 PM

No, its not, not directly at least. I know I'm not condoning his position on things in any way.

All I said and others, is that Helms never gave in to those who said "OOOHHH you can't say THAT" and never towed the line for the sake of popularity.

He was a racist fuck, no argument from me. But the whole issue developed because someone admired the fact that he DIDN'T cave in to the popular sentiment to hide what he really felt.

This is all kind of a silly argument, because it's not like his positions ever put him in danger of losing re-election. The only popular sentiment that he needed to worry about was in North Carolina, and he was right in line with it.

molson

07-06-2008, 08:17 PM

All I said and others, is that Helms never gave in to those who said "OOOHHH you can't say THAT" and never towed the line for the sake of popularity.

He was a racist fuck, no argument from me. But the whole issue developed because someone admired the fact that he DIDN'T cave in to the popular sentiment to hide what he really felt.

He was elected to the Senate for 30 years - how much popularity do you really think he sacrificed? His re-elections show that his views WERE the popular sentiment in North Carolina.

RendeR

07-06-2008, 09:26 PM

He was elected to the Senate for 30 years

not to sound trite or anything, but umm, WHERE is the Senate? Did they somehow move it to Charlotte or Raleigh for those 30 years? No, it was right there in DC as always.

The vitriol and venom of the general populace were on him for most all of his career. Sure he was popular in North Carolina, but thats relly irrelevant to the situation we're talking about. He faced the continued attacks of the general media. He also didn't give a shit. how many other politicians can we say that about? Not too damned many, and fewer yet that had 30 year careers.

yes he was a schmuck and a piss poor excuse for a human being, but if you, like JIMG, are really trying to find some positive trait about the man, then you can certainly look at his steadfastness and unwavering belief in the things he held to be true.

Yes, those things were dispicable, sad and pretty much entirely wrong, but no matter his image in the country, he stuck to them.

Thats all I'm saying. You act like I'm trying tod efend the man. I'm not, but I will defend JIMG's PoV because its valid. (holy shit someone shoot me now, I can't believe I just said that...)

RendeR

07-06-2008, 09:32 PM

the man may have been ignorant, but i'll be a monkeys uncle if he didn't cling to that ignorance like a baby to his binky. what a noble man.

EXACTLY!!!!!

Groundhog

07-06-2008, 09:38 PM

There is nothing admirable about sticking with outdated ideas, especially hateful ones like racism. It's just sad, really. I honestly don't care what the rest of this guy's "legacy" was. Racism, especially from someone in this guy's position, is not a character fault that can be so easily brushed aside.

JonInMiddleGA

07-06-2008, 09:40 PM

it's not like his positions ever put him in danger of losing re-election.

I hate to let facts get in the way of utter horsecrap but ...

Although Helms is generally credited with being the most successful Republican politician in North Carolina history, his largest proportion of the vote in any of his five elections was 54.5 percent.

larrymcg421

07-06-2008, 10:06 PM

I hate to let facts get in the way of utter horsecrap but ...

Well I'd hate for reading comprehension to get in the way of "utter horsecrap", but I never claimed he didn't have a close race. I claimed that his positions didn't put him in danger of losing. What I mean is that the same positions that guaranteed 45% of the state to vote against him, also guaranteed him more than 50%. I don't think he ever felt pressured to change his positions, because they helped him more than they hurt him.

Grammaticus

07-06-2008, 10:29 PM

Well I'd hate for reading comprehension to get in the way of "utter horsecrap", but I never claimed he didn't have a close race. I claimed that his positions didn't put him in danger of losing. What I mean is that the same positions that guaranteed 45% of the state to vote against him, also guaranteed him more than 50%. I don't think he ever felt pressured to change his positions, because they helped him more than they hurt him.

I'm certainly not from North Carolina, but I have to say that you are very arrogant and short sighted to state that his "positions" (clarified as racist views throughout the thread) are what guaranteed him more than 50% of the vote.

The fact that you can claim everyone who voted for him is a racists is a very poor thing. Are you ready to state everyone who supports / votes for Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, etc. are racists? Jesse, Cynthia and Al all have positions of extreme racism from which they do not budge. So does that mean all voters who support them are also racists? Or do they just make compromises to try and share a little good ol' power? Or is it something else?

larrymcg421

07-06-2008, 10:46 PM

I'm certainly not from North Carolina, but I have to say that you are very arrogant and short sighted to state that his "positions" (clarified as racist views throughout the thread) are what guaranteed him more than 50% of the vote.

Okay, it's not that hard to follow. Jesse Helms is a racist. His racism influences his political views. Those views appeal to people in North Carolina. That doesn't make all of them racist. For example, the ad at the top of the thread is definitely influenced by Helms bigotry. However, that ad is certainly effective for people who aren't bigots, but still opposed to affirmative action.

The fact that you can claim everyone who voted for him is a racists is a very poor thing. Are you ready to state everyone who supports / votes for Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, etc. are racists?
Well since I never said that people voting for Helms were racist, I would certainly not say the same here.

Jesse, Cynthia and Al all have positions of extreme racism from which they do not budge.
Well then that means that they deserve the same respect that some people in this thread want to give to Helms, right? Still, your analysis isn't really true. Jackson's "Hymietown" remarks certainly hurt his political career (and Jerry Brown's presidential bid in 1992), and because of that he has certainly backed away from such anti-semitism.

So does that mean all voters who support them are also racists? Or do they just make compromises to try and share a little good ol' power? Or is it something else?
Sorry dude, but you're reading something into my post that just isn't there. This is one of my big pet peeves here and it happens quite a bit. People get their idea of what they want to argue against, and then run with it, no matter what the other side is actually saying. If you can't respond to what I'm actually saying, then why bother responding at all?

Grammaticus

07-06-2008, 11:32 PM

Actually you did and supported it in your response post. You are saying that racist views appeal to people in North Carolina. Right?

I'm just saying that is a very arrogant and short sighted thing to imply.

It is also fair to say that Helm's had many arrogant and short sighted beliefs and views.

Maybe the two of you share more in common than you would care to admit.

larrymcg421

07-06-2008, 11:44 PM

Actually you did and supported it in your response post. You are saying that racist views appeal to people in North Carolina. Right?

Nope.

Jesse Helms (racist) is against affirmative action.

North Carolina voter (not racist) is also against affirmative action.

Thus, Jesse Helms (racist) anti-affirmative action ad will appeal to North Carolina voter (not racist).

You seem to want to argue agaisnt someone who is claiming that half of North Carolina voters are racist. You're wasting your time here, because that's not what I said, it's not what I'm saying, and it's not what I'm gonna say.

Radii

07-06-2008, 11:49 PM

Actually you did and supported it in your response post. You are saying that racist views appeal to people in North Carolina. Right?

I'm just saying that is a very arrogant and short sighted thing to imply.

Without trying to get into what Larry was attempting to say in his post... I don't think its unreasonable at all to say that Helms racist views were appealing to many voters in North Carolina. I grew up here and into the early 1990s racism was a major part of life here. I know its all relative and I'm not talking about oppression and civil rights stuff, but there were racial undercurrents everywhere, all the time. I grew up in a rural area but went to a school in downtown Raleigh that was mostly black. My best friend in elementary and middle school was black, and many people in my neighborhood were angry that my parents would allow him to spend the night on occasion. My own grandmother who I thought when I was a kid was a perfect lady, would say he was "nice for a black kid" and there were people in my town who would drive 30 minutes to the closest grocery store in Raleigh because the grocery store in town was on the other side of the tracks, "where the blacks stay"

There were constant, almost daily reminders of the racial views of a large number of people around me, and while that's all anecdotal, I would expect many others here who grew up in the south could list 10, 20, maybe 30+ people they knew who shared similar views, maybe not overtly hateful and racist, but people who said enough and whose actions more than gave away how they were raised and how they still tended to think.

Glengoyne

07-07-2008, 02:56 AM

What I can't believe about this thread is that "not being a racist fuck" is being referred to as "political correctness."

Just in case this was a reference to my comments.

I really was referring to his stance on political correctness, and not racism. I actually love the example of his interaction with Carol Mosely Braun in this thread. Here a fellow senator played the race card and attempted to shame him. His reaction? He let her know he wasn't going to play her games. If she can't handle him singing a little song, then he darn well isn't going to back down and stop. He threw it right back at her, and belittled her for trying to screw with him.

For the record I believe that dixie is a song, the confederate flag is the flag of a defeated nation, and that neither should be defacto banned eventhough they have become symbols of a hated belief simply because some people are "offended". Grow a thicker skin. If something bothers you, speak out about it, but don't go the victim route and seek to censor someone else simply because you are offended by something they say or a symbol they display. Make it clear that those who would sing Dixie or fly a confederate flag are supporting old tired and hated ideas. Just don't play on public's sensitivity to prevent someone from expressing those old tired beliefs.

Also for the record, his interaction with Braun demonstrates that the guy was a first rate prick. I do respect him for refusing to crawl into a cave when she portrayed him as an insensitive racist in the media(or to whomever she complained).

Karlifornia

07-07-2008, 03:47 AM

Grammaticus...racist views may or may not appeal to people in North Carolina. It's certainly not black and white. What is black and white is that this guy got re-elected many, many times by the state of North Carolina. You think this guy would stand a chance in, say, Michigan? New Hampshire? Arizona? Washington?

DrAFTjunkie

07-07-2008, 03:57 AM

Motherf*ck a Jesse Helms. IMHO, there's aboslolutely nothing noble about sticking to your guns if your guns are pointed at other people because of the color for their f*cking skin, their religion (or lack thereof), and who they "choose" to love. Ohhhh, he stuck to his guns, esta loco. He was opposed to affirmative action, ok...that's fine. I waver on that issue myself (for non-racist reasons, mind you), but he was opposed to civil rights as a whole. For those who don't know (and it pains me to feel the need to explain this, as I feel a lot of you are in the dark as to the actual definition) civil rights are the rights by birth to life liberty and the ownership of property for all humans. "Some people are just born bums," Jesse Helms once said...on national television, mind you. Do the Helms admirers posting in this thread agree with that? Are babies born bums, or not bums based on the color of thier skin? I know that a lot of babies never have a fighting chance to end upas anything but "bums" because of the color of their skin. You may think it's not true, but I do a lot of volunteer work including work with inner-city youth and most of these kids never had/don't have a chance. This one kid I work with volunteers for Special Olympics with me, and he is a spectacular kid. He's bright, kind, humble and a natural-born leader. I dropped him off after practice Saturday and I wanted to cry. His house was falling apart, there were prostitutes less than 100 yards from his front door (in broad daylight) and bling-laden kids who were clearly drug dealers closer to his house than that. The worst part is that his family is proud as punch that he got himself a job at KFC and can now be a man and help support the household. He's only 17 and already (lets be honest) headed for a dead end because they need every cent they can get and college is not going to be an option for him. He's already talking about dropping out to work full time because he, from what I gather, wants them to be prouder of him and wants to contribute more. His ceiling is like...district manager, if he's lucky. My son will have opportunities coming out of his ass because of his big blue eyes. It's not fair and I hate it. The truth hurts

Blacks have been (figuratvely and literally) beaten down their entire tenure in this country, never afforded the same (what should be "god-given") opportunities as whites and henceforth most don't have the "rise above" mentality that you might think they should have. Why would they? They've never known anything but poor; they're parents have never known anything but poor, and so on.Consequentually, "they're" not raising their children with the notion that they can "make it out alive." Why fill their kids' heads with what will probably turn out to be false hopes? But the fact is: that if a young black man/woman doesn't ever know that he can rise above, why would white people assume that they should be overcoming their adversities? The schools suck. The teachers suck. The neighborhoods suck. The only role models offered to them by the media are morally corrupt rappers, athletes, bleached black people like Oprah, Condie and Colin and assassinated icons from another era. The military tries to entice them with the GI bill, but how can you utilize that benefit if you can't support yourself while going to school? You need a support system and unfortunately, most of these kids don't have one. They get used up and spit out. It pisses me off to no end.

Ever notice that McDonalds commercials are full of white families until the product they're hawking is chicken?

I pray that Obama wins and maybe a whole generation sees that there is more to the world for a black individual than brick buildings, dilapidated neighborhoods, gangs and crack rocks. I hate that Barack had to distnace himself from his pastor because of the "racisim" he was preaching. Most of that shit he was saying about white America is true. I so badly want to see Obama pound fists with Michelle on inauguration day.

It also pisses me off that the white guilt PC machine would have me calling them not black, but "African Americans" rather than just plain old Americans.

I grew up in the inner-city. I made it out because I had people telling me I could. My parents and family let me know that the sky was the limit because it is true...for a white kid. My friend Larry (a black kid and a far better person than me) is still there. They saw it was possible because we were white and they saw all the power and money was in white hands. Chances are, there is a ceiling for me because I'm Irish-Catholic, but that's an entirely different arguement.

I'm digressing even further, but let me ask you Helms lovers this: Are you the type of people that will root for your sports teams knowing full well that you wouldn't want a Strahan living next to you? Or is it ok because he's one of the "good ones?" Did you say "yay 'we' won" when your Giants, Cowboys, Bulldogs, or Tarheels win? Sure, It's ok if a predominantley black team wins "you" games, but if they want to date your daughter, or live in your well-to-do neighborhoods, whoh... Are you the type of people who will follow up the precurser "I'm not racist, but..." with a racist statement?

Helms raillied against MLK Jr. and the other "negro hoodlums" of the 60's and opposed the national holiday until he died. Some have said that MLK was a racist himself because he opposed and spoke out against a system that was designed for and by white males. Was MLK a hoodlum for speaking the truth? Despite all that was stacked against him by a racist white system, he loved his white brothers and welcomed them into his fold with love and open arms. Watch some of the footage from some of his marches and protests. White faces dotted the crowds. The only black faces you ever saw at Klan rallies were swinging from branches.

It sickens me that people will spout off the names of black racists to somehow try to validate white racism. It's wrong all around. Jesse Jackson is a d-bag for his hymietown comments and it ruined his political career. Yet Helms thrived for decades in the senate, despite being a bigger and certainly more vocal racist. He never garnered more than like...55% of any vote despite frequently outnumbering his opponents' campaign funds by a 10 to 1 margin. A lot of these funds were raised very illegally by his "National Conservative Club," which IMHO were nothing more than Klan members in suits.

Jesse Helms was opposed to rights for homosexuals, and women, though he supported murderous South American dictators if they shared his religion and hatreds, yet said he was opposed to foreign aid in any capacity. "Some things are more important that human life," he once said. Do you agree, and if so, what is more important?

It's been said that Jesse Helms was a proponant of the "little man" which, to me, translates into the racist white minority. His budget cuts and proposed budget cuts affected the poor, the elderly, the arts, etc., etc. He was nothing more than an elitist southern white cracker who, regardless of what he said only wanted the rich to get richer (as long as they were white) and the poor to get poorer. And he was a f*cking slumlord to boot.

President Bush has said that God is lovingly welcoming Jesse Helms into heaven. If that's true, I'd rather go to hell. Actually, for once in my life, I hope their is no heaven, because I'd rather rot in the ground than think that his soul lives on somewhere.

Subby

07-07-2008, 07:48 AM

Ever notice that McDonalds commercials are full of white families until the product they're hawking is chicken?
OR SWEET TEA!!!!1

chesapeake

07-07-2008, 08:57 AM

Just in case this was a reference to my comments.

I really was referring to his stance on political correctness, and not racism. I actually love the example of his interaction with Carol Mosely Braun in this thread. Here a fellow senator played the race card and attempted to shame him. His reaction? He let her know he wasn't going to play her games. If she can't handle him singing a little song, then he darn well isn't going to back down and stop. He threw it right back at her, and belittled her for trying to screw with him.

He taunted her in the elevator and elsewhere well before any vote on the Confederate flag. He was always deeply offended that there was, not only a black person in his Senate, but a black woman! The audacity.

So for those that honor Helms for clinging to his bigotry in the face of criticism, do you find Byrd to be an unprincipled flip-flopper because he recanted his?

illinifan999

07-07-2008, 09:36 AM

It sickens me that people will spout off the names of black racists to somehow try to validate white racism.

It's wrong all around.

He was nothing more than an elitist southern white cracker

:banghead:

molson

07-07-2008, 09:41 AM

Couldn't the same thing be said about Adolf Hitler?

This was posted much earlier in the thread, but I think it deserves a re-posting after the way this thread has gone.

Hitler's another guy that stuck to his viewpoints in the face of pressure to be PC.

molson

07-07-2008, 09:43 AM

So for those that honor Helms for clinging to his bigotry in the face of criticism, do you find Byrd to be an unprincipled flip-flopper because he recanted his?

That's a good point. If one has bigoted views they can either A: Change, or B: Stubbornly stay the same in changing times. Only one of those is remotely admirable.

DrAFTjunkie

07-07-2008, 01:25 PM

:banghead:

All of that text and thats what you chose to comment on?

:banghead:

(in Stewie Griffin voice)

"Yutz"

I'll tell you what, calling a person, let alone an entire race of people "bums" despite not knowing them personally is racist. The word racist, to me, implies that the offending person thinks that their race is superior.

*digression alert*

There is a big difference between racism and predjudice. If I see a black youth walking down the street listening to an IPod and assume that he's listening to hip-hop, that's prejudice. If I see an Indian person at a restaruant and assume he's not eating beef, that's prejudice. But I have statistical numbers to back up those pre-judgements. Most black kids listen to mostly hip-hop; most (Hindu) Indians don't eat beef. If I think I'm better than them, or my race is better than them for any reason, that's racism. I have no statistical proof that me, or my race are better people, or entitled to better treatment than anyone else, or any other race.

The term cracker is short for whip-cracker, a term that originated in reference to white slave owners. The fact that Jesse Helms was whistling Dixie to a black lady in an elevator, the fact that he was anti-civil rights and pro segregation is proof enough for me to assume that if it were legal, he would be a slave owner, and therefore allows me the right to call him a cracker.

But you're allowed to think what you want to think, hear what you want to hear and ignore what you want to ignore. After all, it's America.

RendeR

07-07-2008, 01:36 PM

I think many of you are missing the point and I know draft is just blazingly missing it altogether.

Let me try to put this another way:

A man (Bob) holds beliefs that people find despicable, he makes a racial slur or takes a stance publicly against gay rights or somethng. The public and media ostricize the guy, shred him openly and regularly for weeks. Seeing this, Bob recants his comments and apologizes publicly for what he said. Bob does not CHANGE mind you, he's simply bowing to public pressure.

This man is a patheic worthless douchebag.

Helms on the other hand, while still being a douchebag, does so by standing up for himself and holding true to himself. no matter how patheitc shitty and worthless WE think that self was, the fact that he didn't just fall in line publicly while holding on to those beliefs makes a BIG difference.

Helms was pathetic, indeed, worthless as a member of the US Legislature when it came to anything resembling human rights. but if I had to look at (Bob) and Helms side by side, I'd have more respect for helms.

Does that make more sense to anyone?

Oh and Draft: The Cracker line? that just destroyed any possible merit your entire post might have held. Totally blew your position by tossing that out there. You're no better than Helms.

molson

07-07-2008, 01:50 PM

Helms on the other hand, while still being a douchebag, does so by standing up for himself and holding true to himself. no matter how patheitc shitty and worthless WE think that self was, the fact that he didn't just fall in line publicly while holding on to those beliefs makes a BIG difference.

You don't think he was holding back his true racial beliefs some? I think it's a fair bet that he toned things down quite a bit in public.

Otherwise, I get what you're saying, but I can't get past the part where his public persona and views were very popular in North Carolina, and that speaking his mind (or at least a watered-down version of his mind) was to his political advantage. He could have done what Bob did, but he then he might not get elected.

RendeR

07-07-2008, 03:38 PM

With the way today's media eats people alive for the slightest HINT of an off color remark I'd say he was still way out there. Anyway, I've gone from not shedding a tear to defending some rather obtuse point on this whole thread.

Helms was a maggot and won't be missed by many. nuff said.

Glengoyne

07-07-2008, 03:56 PM

He taunted her in the elevator and elsewhere well before any vote on the Confederate flag. He was always deeply offended that there was, not only a black person in his Senate, but a black woman! The audacity.

So for those that honor Helms for clinging to his bigotry in the face of criticism, do you find Byrd to be an unprincipled flip-flopper because he recanted his?

I may be missing something where Helms publicly clung to his racist ideology even in the last days of his tenure in the Senate. I would paint he and Byrd with essentially the same brush with respect to their positions on race and racism.

I'm also reading your account of the Mosely Braun incident above as your extrapolation of the events rather than Helms' actual position. If he was really incensed that a black woman's presence in the Senate, then he deserves even less credit than I give him. I'm reading those events as if he was incensed that a peer of his chose to play victim of racism card rather than deal with the issue through directly confronting him.

illinifan999

07-07-2008, 04:34 PM

All of that text and thats what you chose to comment on?

:banghead:

(in Stewie Griffin voice)

"Yutz"

I'll tell you what, calling a person, let alone an entire race of people "bums" despite not knowing them personally is racist. The word racist, to me, implies that the offending person thinks that their race is superior.

*digression alert*

There is a big difference between racism and predjudice. If I see a black youth walking down the street listening to an IPod and assume that he's listening to hip-hop, that's prejudice. If I see an Indian person at a restaruant and assume he's not eating beef, that's prejudice. But I have statistical numbers to back up those pre-judgements. Most black kids listen to mostly hip-hop; most (Hindu) Indians don't eat beef. If I think I'm better than them, or my race is better than them for any reason, that's racism. I have no statistical proof that me, or my race are better people, or entitled to better treatment than anyone else, or any other race.

The term cracker is short for whip-cracker, a term that originated in reference to white slave owners. The fact that Jesse Helms was whistling Dixie to a black lady in an elevator, the fact that he was anti-civil rights and pro segregation is proof enough for me to assume that if it were legal, he would be a slave owner, and therefore allows me the right to call him a cracker.

But you're allowed to think what you want to think, hear what you want to hear and ignore what you want to ignore. After all, it's America.

Read this:

Oh and Draft: The Cracker line? that just destroyed any possible merit your entire post might have held. Totally blew your position by tossing that out there. You're no better than Helms.

Draft, you are no different than someone who would walk around calling someone a nigger. Maybe you should get off of your soapbox and take a long hard look in the mirror if you think calling anyone a racist term is right, regardless of who they are.

Axxon

07-07-2008, 05:09 PM

Read this:

Draft, you are no different than someone who would walk around calling someone a nigger. Maybe you should get off of your soapbox and take a long hard look in the mirror if you think calling anyone a racist is right, regardless of who they are.

Bullshit. If someone is a racist it's not wrong to call them on it. Racist is a choice, not a protected class pal and if someone makes that choice I'll be damned if I'm going to think it's wrong to call them on it. Your point is insane.

Glengoyne

07-07-2008, 05:13 PM

Bullshit. If someone is a racist it's not wrong to call them on it. Racist is a choice, not a protected class pal and if someone makes that choice I'll be damned if I'm going to think it's wrong to call them on it. Your point is insane.

I don't think he called him a racist. He called him a Cracker. I see the difference in those two as well as the irony in the assignation.

Axxon

07-07-2008, 05:21 PM

I don't think he called him a racist. He called him a Cracker. I see the difference in those two as well as the irony in the assignation.

Oh I agree with that and calling someone a cracker is racist but the post I quoted clearly addressed calling someone a racist, not a cracker and until this is cleared up I'll stand by my statement that the post as written was insane.

illinifan999

07-07-2008, 05:35 PM

Bullshit. If someone is a racist it's not wrong to call them on it. Racist is a choice, not a protected class pal and if someone makes that choice I'll be damned if I'm going to think it's wrong to call them on it. Your point is insane.

Ok it took me awhile to figure out where you were coming from. I forgot to put the word term after racist so my statement should read:

Draft, you are no different than someone who would walk around calling someone a nigger. Maybe you should get off of your soapbox and take a long hard look in the mirror if you think calling anyone a racist term is right, regardless of who they are.

Sorry for that confusion.

molson

07-07-2008, 05:39 PM

This isn't how I would have predicted this thread to go.

Axxon

07-07-2008, 05:55 PM

RendeR

07-07-2008, 06:39 PM

This isn't how I would have predicted this thread to go.

Sorry to dissapoint.

molson

07-07-2008, 06:41 PM

Sorry to dissapoint.

Nah, this is actually more reasonable and civil than I expected it to go.

RendeR

07-07-2008, 06:43 PM

Thats sorta what I meant ;)

Zelig

07-07-2008, 07:15 PM

I have been away for a few days. Is he still dead?

Vegas Vic

07-07-2008, 07:31 PM

My earliest and most vivid memory of Helms was his bitter 1984 campaign against Democratic Governor Jim Hunt. Twenty-four years later, this contest remains the most expensive U.S. Senate race in history. The television ads during that campaign made the Swift Boat ads look warm and fuzzy by comparison.

Governor Hunt had a huge albatross around his neck with the Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro Democratic Presidential ticket, while Helms enjoyed some nice coattails with Ronald Reagan’s (525-13) electoral college landslide. Reagan carried North Carolina by 24 points, but Helms barely eked out 51.7% of the vote, and I honestly believe that if the Democrats had a stronger presidential ticket that year (e.g. Clinton/Gore), then Hunt would have beaten Helms.

Groundhog

07-07-2008, 08:13 PM

Christopher Hitchens offers a heartfelt eulogy:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194921/

Glengoyne

07-07-2008, 08:15 PM

Buccaneer

07-07-2008, 08:21 PM

Crapshoot

07-07-2008, 10:03 PM

Helms can rot in hell. A bastard and a bigot.

Crapshoot

07-08-2008, 01:10 AM

Dola,
The more praise Helms gets from the nutjob right (a point Ross Douhat made well), the more one comes to believe that the code words were just that - this was a man who called UNC the University of Niggers and Communists, who help up an appointment because the - an old dixiecrat, who should gone to hell with the Confederacy.

DrAFTjunkie

07-08-2008, 01:31 AM

Ok it took me awhile to figure out where you were coming from. I forgot to put the word term after racist so my statement should read:

Draft, you are no different than someone who would walk around calling someone a nigger. Maybe you should get off of your soapbox and take a long hard look in the mirror if you think calling anyone a racist term is right, regardless of who they are.

Sorry for that confusion.

I'm actually glad that you're sort of sticking to your guns here, 999. Regardless of the fact that I completely disagree with your opinion, it was people with steadfast beliefs that founded this country. I've changed my mind (thankyou illini 999) and I now believe that Jesse Helms' refusal to buckle was...shit, I'll give him "brave." No way was he "noble" but I'll give him "brave." And before you try and use it to try and discredit absolutely everythingI'm saying with an exploitable remark, I'm well aware that some of the founding fathers were avid racists. Most were not. Moving on...

I'm sticking to my guns on this one too.

Firstly man, you really don't need to clarify yourself and insert the word "term" after the word racist. I'll just come right out and call Jesse Helms a racist for you. Jesse Helms was a racist. I'll even admit to being very similar to someone who walks around calling black people "niggers". It's a similar action from a similar mindset. It's hatred. I, personally don't even think there's anything wrong with hatred unto itself, though. As Henry Rollins once said: "I hate...a lot." But to me, the wrong and right of hatred comes down to what you choose to hate and why you choose to hate it. In my eyes, it's not wrong to hate a person for being a racist. That's my opinion. In my eyes, it is wrong to hate a person based on the sole principal that he belongs to an inferior race. I don't think there is an inerior race. I don't think you can judge a person by his, or her race. From the fact-based information, it's pretty much a given (in my mind) that Jesse Helms was a racist. I hate him for it and I have no problem hating him for it.

I find it unfortunate that you seem to be completely igonoring most of what I'm writing here--entire posts at that. I think you're focusing only on the, in your eyes, indescrpencies of some of the things I'm saying, to create your entire rubuttals. It seems that you're trying to discredit me personally to "win" an argument, and I don't think arguments should be had with a win or lose mentality. If you win an argument, what do you actually win? IMHO, arguments are all about stating opinions, throwing out the odd fact here and there to back them up and asking questions with an end goal of coming closer to, or reaching a truth. I clicked on a Jesse Helms thread, saw that he wasn't being being unanimously vilified, became enraged and threw my hat in the ring about something that was bound to become an argument anyway. I've stated my opinions, backed them up with either facts or life experiences, and asked questions. You've stated opinions, backed none of them up, asked no questions, nor answered any of mine. The only thing you have done here, is tell me what kind of person I am without even knowing me.

chesapeake

07-08-2008, 09:34 AM

I may be missing something where Helms publicly clung to his racist ideology even in the last days of his tenure in the Senate. I would paint he and Byrd with essentially the same brush with respect to their positions on race and racism.

I'm also reading your account of the Mosely Braun incident above as your extrapolation of the events rather than Helms' actual position. If he was really incensed that a black woman's presence in the Senate, then he deserves even less credit than I give him. I'm reading those events as if he was incensed that a peer of his chose to play victim of racism card rather than deal with the issue through directly confronting him.

Helms publicly clung to his racist beliefs throughout his entire time in the Senate. He wasn't shy about it. He was always cloaked in his own sense of righteousness. His campaign for a a fifth term in 1996 was nasty and contained similar public appeals to bigots as the famous ad from the 1990 campaign.

I defy you to find any public statement Helms made recognizing that anything he said or did was racist. I know you can't find an apology to that effect, because there never was one.

Painting Byrd and Helms with the same brush is ludicrous. Byrd recanted his KKK membership and opposition to the civil rights movement 40 years ago. His voting record, public works and statements since the 1960s clearly show that this repudiation was genuine. Byrd showed that people can learn from their mistakes and make real change.

From an obit appearing in The Nation:

"Despite the best efforts of the senator and his spin doctors to rehabilitate the old man by hiring a few conservative staffers who happened to be people of color or by posing him for pictures with U2's Bono, Helms finished his career without the apologies that came from George Wallace, Orval Faubus and his fellow segregationists.
Even Strom Thurmond admitted his defenses of segregation were wrong, but not Helms. Nor did the North Carolinian ever make serious efforts to appeal to African-American voters -- as Wallace, Thurmond and "Jim Crow" politicians began to do late in their careers.
"He was sort of unrepentant until the end," said Duke's Kerry Haynie."

illinifan999

07-08-2008, 10:53 AM

I'm actually glad that you're sort of sticking to your guns here, 999. Regardless of the fact that I completely disagree with your opinion, it was people with steadfast beliefs that founded this country. I've changed my mind (thankyou illini 999) and I now believe that Jesse Helms' refusal to buckle was...shit, I'll give him "brave." No way was he "noble" but I'll give him "brave." And before you try and use it to try and discredit absolutely everythingI'm saying with an exploitable remark, I'm well aware that some of the founding fathers were avid racists. Most were not. Moving on...

I'm sticking to my guns on this one too.

Firstly man, you really don't need to clarify yourself and insert the word "term" after the word racist. I'll just come right out and call Jesse Helms a racist for you. Jesse Helms was a racist. I'll even admit to being very similar to someone who walks around calling black people "niggers". It's a similar action from a similar mindset. It's hatred. I, personally don't even think there's anything wrong with hatred unto itself, though. As Henry Rollins once said: "I hate...a lot." But to me, the wrong and right of hatred comes down to what you choose to hate and why you choose to hate it. In my eyes, it's not wrong to hate a person for being a racist. That's my opinion. In my eyes, it is wrong to hate a person based on the sole principal that he belongs to an inferior race. I don't think there is an inerior race. I don't think you can judge a person by his, or her race. From the fact-based information, it's pretty much a given (in my mind) that Jesse Helms was a racist. I hate him for it and I have no problem hating him for it.

I find it unfortunate that you seem to be completely igonoring most of what I'm writing here--entire posts at that. I think you're focusing only on the, in your eyes, indescrpencies of some of the things I'm saying, to create your entire rubuttals. It seems that you're trying to discredit me personally to "win" an argument, and I don't think arguments should be had with a win or lose mentality. If you win an argument, what do you actually win? IMHO, arguments are all about stating opinions, throwing out the odd fact here and there to back them up and asking questions with an end goal of coming closer to, or reaching a truth. I clicked on a Jesse Helms thread, saw that he wasn't being being unanimously vilified, became enraged and threw my hat in the ring about something that was bound to become an argument anyway. I've stated my opinions, backed them up with either facts or life experiences, and asked questions. You've stated opinions, backed none of them up, asked no questions, nor answered any of mine. The only thing you have done here, is tell me what kind of person I am without even knowing me.

I'm not trying to win any argument. To be honest, I had never heard of this guy until this thread and he sounds like a complete douchebag. I don't really think it was commendable of him to stick to his guns considering he was a racist. I don't really know what opinion of mine you're disagreeing with considering my only point was that you typed up a novel saying how wrong racism is, and then you went and used a racial slur which is wrong, and I'm sure if you called a black person a nigger on this board you would be boxed.

Zelig

07-08-2008, 06:07 PM

still dead?

DrAFTjunkie

07-09-2008, 12:14 AM

I'm not trying to win any argument. To be honest, I had never heard of this guy until this thread and he sounds like a complete douchebag. I don't really think it was commendable of him to stick to his guns considering he was a racist. I don't really know what opinion of mine you're disagreeing with considering my only point was that you typed up a novel saying how wrong racism is, and then you went and used a racial slur which is wrong, and I'm sure if you called a black person a nigger on this board you would be boxed.

What I typed up was hardly a novel. Y'know, god forbid that somebody has something to say that can't be summed up in a few sentences.

I disagree with your opinion that the words cracker and nigger are equally offensive in this particular case, and in general for that matter. The word cracker, as I stated earlier is a shortened version of the term whip-cracker, which was originally used to describe white slave owners and is now commonly used to disparage white racists. It's a very specific word that I used to describe one specific man that in my eyes, was inarguably a racist. But I think we can all agree that the proof that Jesse Helms was a racist is overwhelming. I don't think that anyone can logically argue that he wasn't. I didn't use the word cracker to describe him without knowing the facts about him. If I were to call you a cracker without knowing anything about you, then sure...tear me the fuck apart because I'd deserve it.

When Jesse Helms used the word "niggers" in his summation of UNC (university of niggers and commies) he was essentially saying that all of the black students in attendence were contemptible, igonorant and inferior without (I assume) knowing any of them, or anything about them. Based soley on the color of their skin, they were niggers and henceforth, contemptible, ignorant and inferior. This is wrong. Making such a powerfully negative connotation about a large group of people based only on the color of their skin is wrong. And the worst part about it for me, is that he was saying this about college students when he himself was a college dropout. Jesse Helms was a cracker and a bit of a hypocite too, maybe.

To me, the two words are apples and oranges anyway. Cracker implies racist beliefs based on the assumption that there actually is a superior race, whereas nigger implies an inherent inferiority based on race and race alone. You can prove that someone has racist beliefs (it helps when they spout them so freely), but you cannot prove, in my opinion, that any race is inferior to any other race. I won't say that the word cracker isn't thrown around improperly and ignorantly sometimes, but I don't think using that word to decribe a racist douchenozzle like Jesse Helms was improper or ignorant.

Whaddya think?

Groundhog

07-09-2008, 12:30 AM

Well, now I know where the term cracker came from!

Subby

07-09-2008, 07:11 AM

but you cannot prove, in my opinion, that any race is inferior to any other race.
Pygmies.

CU Tiger

07-09-2008, 07:20 AM

What I typed up was hardly a novel. Y'know, god forbid that somebody has something to say that can't be summed up in a few sentences.

I disagree with your opinion that the words cracker and nigger are equally offensive in this particular case, and in general for that matter. The word cracker, as I stated earlier is a shortened version of the term whip-cracker, which was originally used to describe white slave owners and is now commonly used to disparage white racists. It's a very specific word that I used to describe one specific man that in my eyes, was inarguably a racist. But I think we can all agree that the proof that Jesse Helms was a racist is overwhelming. I don't think that anyone can logically argue that he wasn't. I didn't use the word cracker to describe him without knowing the facts about him. If I were to call you a cracker without knowing anything about you, then sure...tear me the fuck apart because I'd deserve it.

When Jesse Helms used the word "niggers" in his summation of UNC (university of niggers and commies) he was essentially saying that all of the black students in attendence were contemptible, igonorant and inferior without (I assume) knowing any of them, or anything about them. Based soley on the color of their skin, they were niggers and henceforth, contemptible, ignorant and inferior. This is wrong. Making such a powerfully negative connotation about a large group of people based only on the color of their skin is wrong. And the worst part about it for me, is that he was saying this about college students when he himself was a college dropout. Jesse Helms was a cracker and a bit of a hypocite too, maybe.

To me, the two words are apples and oranges anyway. Cracker implies racist beliefs based on the assumption that there actually is a superior race, whereas nigger implies an inherent inferiority based on race and race alone. You can prove that someone has racist beliefs (it helps when they spout them so freely), but you cannot prove, in my opinion, that any race is inferior to any other race. I won't say that the word cracker isn't thrown around improperly and ignorantly sometimes, but I don't think using that word to decribe a racist douchenozzle like Jesse Helms was improper or ignorant.

Whaddya think?

While I agree with this post, what I think you are missing is while calling Helms a cracker may be correct it will not draw ire or retribution, however calling Al Sharpton a Nigger (which I submit is also neither incorrect nor inappropriate) would certainly lead to repercussions

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 07:40 AM

oliegirl

07-09-2008, 07:52 AM

:popcorn:

KWhit

07-09-2008, 08:26 AM

See you, CU.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 09:26 AM

What I typed up was hardly a novel. Y'know, god forbid that somebody has something to say that can't be summed up in a few sentences.

I disagree with your opinion that the words cracker and nigger are equally offensive in this particular case, and in general for that matter. The word cracker, as I stated earlier is a shortened version of the term whip-cracker, which was originally used to describe white slave owners and is now commonly used to disparage white racists. It's a very specific word that I used to describe one specific man that in my eyes, was inarguably a racist. But I think we can all agree that the proof that Jesse Helms was a racist is overwhelming. I don't think that anyone can logically argue that he wasn't. I didn't use the word cracker to describe him without knowing the facts about him. If I were to call you a cracker without knowing anything about you, then sure...tear me the fuck apart because I'd deserve it.

When Jesse Helms used the word "niggers" in his summation of UNC (university of niggers and commies) he was essentially saying that all of the black students in attendence were contemptible, igonorant and inferior without (I assume) knowing any of them, or anything about them. Based soley on the color of their skin, they were niggers and henceforth, contemptible, ignorant and inferior. This is wrong. Making such a powerfully negative connotation about a large group of people based only on the color of their skin is wrong. And the worst part about it for me, is that he was saying this about college students when he himself was a college dropout. Jesse Helms was a cracker and a bit of a hypocite too, maybe.

To me, the two words are apples and oranges anyway. Cracker implies racist beliefs based on the assumption that there actually is a superior race, whereas nigger implies an inherent inferiority based on race and race alone. You can prove that someone has racist beliefs (it helps when they spout them so freely), but you cannot prove, in my opinion, that any race is inferior to any other race. I won't say that the word cracker isn't thrown around improperly and ignorantly sometimes, but I don't think using that word to decribe a racist douchenozzle like Jesse Helms was improper or ignorant.

Whaddya think?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, using a racial slur against anyone is wrong regardless of who they are.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 10:53 AM

I. J. Reilly

07-09-2008, 10:54 AM

I have nothing to say about Helms specifically, he’s been irrelevant for a long time and rightfully so.

But what a sad commentary on today’s GOP this has been. When the “leading voices of the party” are unanimous in their praise for Helms, to the point of completely ignoring every negative about him, it tells you everything you need to know. A reflexive defense of “one of ours”, is that what passes as the party of ideas now? I feel bad for John McCain; he deserves better than being forced to drag this decaying elephant corpse of a party through the general election.

st.cronin

07-09-2008, 11:00 AM

DrAFTjunkie

07-09-2008, 01:05 PM

While I agree with this post, what I think you are missing is while calling Helms a cracker may be correct it will not draw ire or retribution, however calling Al Sharpton a Nigger (which I submit is also neither incorrect nor inappropriate) would certainly lead to repercussions

Let me simplify this even more:

The word cracker implies a racially superior attitude.

The word nigger implies that somebody is ingnorant, contemptible and racially inferior.

Jesse Helms= cracker because he had a racially superior attitude. Maybe I took the low road in calling him that, but I'll stand by it.

Al Sharpeton= nigger because he belongs to an inferior race? I'll give you ignorant and sometimes contemptible, but inferior based on the color of his skin? That's, IMHO, taking the no road, man. Do you stand by that?

Truthfully, despite my anger towards CU's post, I'd be really PO'ed if he gets banned. These are all just opinions and words. And it's not like people are throwing around dirty words in a thread about pro wresting, or gaming. This was a thread that was (I think) to discuss Jesse Helms. How can you not start talking about race and dirty words in such a thread?

RendeR

07-09-2008, 01:19 PM

Let me simplify this even more:

The word cracker implies a racially superior attitude.

The word nigger implies that somebody is ingnorant, contemptible and racially inferior.

Jesse Helms= cracker because he had a racially superior attitude. Maybe I took the low road in calling him that, but I'll stand by it.

Al Sharpeton= nigger because he belongs to an inferior race? I'll give you ignorant and sometimes contemptible, but inferior based on the color of his skin? That's, IMHO, taking the no road, man. Do you stand by that?

Truthfully, despite my anger towards CU's post, I'd be really PO'ed if he gets banned. These are all just opinions and words. And it's not like people are throwing around dirty words in a thread about pro wresting, or gaming. This was a thread that was (I think) to discuss Jesse Helms. How can you not start talking about race and dirty words in such a thread?

your definitions appear to be just as racially biased as your attitude. Cracker and nigger are the same thing, just different directions of use. If you don't believe that then you're just rationalizing to make yourself feel better.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 01:20 PM

The problem is that your defintion is outdated. Today, cracker is a slur used to describe someone who is white. I would say there is a very small number of people who use the word cracker to imply someone has a racially superior attitude. It's a slur, just like nigger, spic, wop, chink, etc.

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 01:30 PM

Honolulu_Blue

07-09-2008, 01:33 PM

*sigh* people don't seem to understand that there is no way to rationalize making an ignorant racist statement.

Cracker
WoP
Nigger
Spic

Its all the same, its one color looking at another color and calling them somthing derogetory because of NOTHING MORE THAN COLOR.

Keep defending it all you want, there is absolutely NO good reason to call ANYONE ANY of those names.

If you do you're no better than Helms. Period.

Hmm, I don't really agree that "it's all same."

Some words are a lot more "charged" and carry a lot more power and weight behind them others. While words like "cracker" or "honky" are certainly based on race/color of skin, as is the "n word", I think that simply based on the history of our country and reality, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

I am not condoning the use of any of these words, but they are not equal/the same.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 01:34 PM

I would say cracker has more of a regional connotation, though. I've only heard it used against southern whites. That certainly doesn't defend it's use, but I think it's a bit different than the other word.

Thats the whole problem though. people keep finding excuses to let this type of thing slip through. Who cares what region its used in? its wrong, period. Wether you or I believe its use is regional or it has 50K different meanings, when its used in derogatory fashion it is a racial slur, period.

I wish that the nit-picking over things that simply need to stop would end. "oh this is wrong, but that? naw over there in BF-Egypt its just fine so don;t stress that one"

If its wrong anywhere its wrong everywhere when it comes to racism.

Why can't people see that?

RendeR

07-09-2008, 01:37 PM

Hmm, I don't really agree that "it's all same."

Some words are a lot more "charged" and carry a lot more power and weight behind them others. While words like "cracker" or "honky" are certainly based on race/color of skin, as is the "n word", I think that simply based on the history of our country and reality, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

I am not condoning the use of any of these words, but they are not equal/the same.

So they're not the same, but they're still all wrong to use? WTF sense does that make? they all relate to race/creed/color, they're ALL racial slurs, how the hell are they different?

You walk into tiajuana and call someone a spic and see how long you live. They are the same and they are all wrong to use.

Subby

07-09-2008, 01:39 PM

Is cracker really considered an offensive term now? Really?

QuikSand

07-09-2008, 01:42 PM

calling Al Sharpton a Nigger (which I submit is also neither incorrect nor inappropriate)

You stay classy, Tiger.

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 01:43 PM

Thats the whole problem though. people keep finding excuses to let this type of thing slip through. Who cares what region its used in? its wrong, period. Wether you or I believe its use is regional or it has 50K different meanings, when its used in derogatory fashion it is a racial slur, period.

I wish that the nit-picking over things that simply need to stop would end. "oh this is wrong, but that? naw over there in BF-Egypt its just fine so don;t stress that one"

If its wrong anywhere its wrong everywhere when it comes to racism.

Why can't people see that?

I think people can see this, but you're trying to make this into a much simpler issue than it really is, by saying all of them are exactly the same. I think that's a bit shortsighted. All of the words can be wrong, but some can be more wrong than others. For instance, I didn't like the use of cracker or the N word in this thread, and would never direct them at anyone. But I find one of them far more offensive than the other.

I've been called a "mick" before. Do you think that's as bad as the N word? If it is, then I've got some ass kicking to do.

Subby

07-09-2008, 01:44 PM

RendeR should change his screenname to CrackeR.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 01:47 PM

I think people can see this, but you're trying to make this into a much simpler issue than it really is, by saying all of them are exactly the same. I think that's a bit shortsighted. All of the words can be wrong, but some can be more wrong than others. For instance, I didn't like the use of cracker or the N word in this thread, and would never direct them at anyone. But I find one of them far more offensive than the other.

I've been called a "mick" before. Do you think that's as bad as the N word? If it is, then I've got some ass kicking to do.

Personally? yeah I think 'mick' is just as bad, since when its going to be used it is to insult or instigate a fight anyway. I'm sure some people's friends will call them 'mick' just as a lot of blacks call one another nigger and I don't think either is a good tihng.

RendeR should change his screenname to CrackeR.

You don't really understand this thread at all do you?

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 01:50 PM

Personally? yeah I think 'mick' is just as bad, since when its going to be used it is to insult or instigate a fight anyway. I'm sure some people's friends will call them 'mick' just as a lot of blacks call one another nigger and I don't think either is a good tihng.

I've never heard a black person use that word with the "er" at the end.

Ben E Lou

07-09-2008, 01:50 PM

It's a slur, just like nigger, spic, wop, chink, etc.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a3ehJZJIkPk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a3ehJZJIkPk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

CU Tiger gets a week. Take the advice of the video above.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 01:55 PM

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 01:57 PM

My guess is that was already taken into account. If anything, I think a week is pretty lenient. He'd be banned for life on most other boards.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 01:59 PM

My guess is that was already taken into account. If anything, I think a week is pretty lenient. He'd be banned for life on most other boards.

True enough. I'm just really lenient when the topic at hand is already an on-the-verge type of thing like this thread has been.

Subby

07-09-2008, 01:59 PM

In fairness Ben, we have been discussing racially focused things and while I think CU's comments were a bit over the line I think you could be lenient on this one and not lose control of the universe. your call.
Yeah...JUST A BIT.

Good call there, racial czar.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 02:00 PM

I actually just discovered that the term "jipped" as in being taken advantage of, is technically a slur against gypsies.

As in "I just got Gyp'd" meaning I just got cheated/taken advantage of as if by Gypsies"

I never new that was the origin of that term. I think I'll no longer use it.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 02:00 PM

molson

07-09-2008, 02:01 PM

I think it was probably a typo and/or a very poorly constructed sentence, as I still don't understand what the hell he was talking about there.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 02:01 PM

Yeah...JUST A BIT.

Good call there, racial czar.

Thanks for the props asshat-czar.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 02:03 PM

So someone can get away with calling someone a cracker, but call someone a nigger and you get boxed? The double standard lives on.

I just caught this as well. Ben, if you box one you gotta box the other as well. illinifan999 is right on this.

molson

07-09-2008, 02:03 PM

Yeah...JUST A BIT.

Good call there, racial czar.

Assuming no typo....

He said that calling a black guy a nigger was "neither incorrect nor inappropriate". That's a little outside the racial discussions going on in the thread.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 02:03 PM

I think it was probably a typo and/or a very poorly constructed sentence, as I still don't understand what the hell he was talking about there.

I suppose we'll find out in a week ;)

molson

07-09-2008, 02:05 PM

So someone can get away with calling someone a cracker, but call someone a nigger and you get boxed? The double standard lives on.

Without getting into the banning thing, a slur against less-powerful minority is FAR more offensive than a slur against an in-power majority. If you don't understand the difference, I don't think you understand why those words are offensive in the first place.

Subby

07-09-2008, 02:06 PM

I just caught this as well. Ben, if you box one you gotta box the other as well. illinifan999 is right on this.
Only a complete fucking cracker would equate those two words.

Subby

07-09-2008, 02:07 PM

Assuming no typo....

He said that calling a black guy a nigger was "neither incorrect nor inappropriate". That's a little outside the racial discussions going on in the thread.
I was being facetious :)

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 02:08 PM

RendeR

07-09-2008, 02:09 PM

Without getting into the banning thing, a slur against less-powerful minority is FAR more offensive than a slur against an in-power majority. If you don't understand the difference, I don't think you understand why those words are offensive in the first place.

Again, the very act of giving them a stronger/less strong position allows the continued usage of terms that for lack of a better term are seriously fucking offensive.

It doesn't matter HOW wrong they are, they're both plain wrong and deserve the same consequences for their use.

molson

07-09-2008, 02:13 PM

Oh, so it's ok to be racist as long as you're not white. Gotcha.

I'm not saying one's wrong and one's not.

But if you want to throw a tantrum about not being allowed to be as racist as someone else, go nuts.

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 02:23 PM

Oh, so it's ok to be racist as long as you're not white. Gotcha.

Except he said both words were offensive in the very post you quoted, so either you can't read or you felt it was more important to fire off a little one liner than actually utilize some brain power and make an intelligent argument.

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 02:26 PM

BTW, I'm totally waiting for someone to pull an Anna Benson and start rattling off a list of racial slurs and seeing how far they can go without being boxed.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 02:41 PM

I'm not saying one's wrong and one's not.

But if you want to throw a tantrum about not being allowed to be as racist as someone else, go nuts.

I think he was more concerned about someone being allowed to be racist. He's not complaining that he can't use the N-word, he is complaining that someone else is allowed to use the C-word. The fact that CU got boxed for calling one man - Sharpton the N-word while Draft is allowed to call one man - Helms the C-word is hypocritical. I can understand that the N-word is more racially charged, but the proper thing to do is not to make both words meet in the middle, but to remove the hate from both sides so nobody cares to use either of them. Much better for equality in love rather than equality in hate.

Edit: The more I think about this post, the more it bothers me. You may not have said that one was wrong and the other wasn't, but you did say that one was more wrong that the other. That is pretty much the same as saying that one is more OK than the other. I don't think there should be any amount of OK here. Both are completely wrong.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 03:24 PM

I think he was more concerned about someone being allowed to be racist. He's not complaining that he can't use the N-word, he is complaining that someone else is allowed to use the C-word. The fact that CU got boxed for calling one man - Sharpton the N-word while Draft is allowed to call one man - Helms the C-word is hypocritical. I can understand that the N-word is more racially charged, but the proper thing to do is not to make both words meet in the middle, but to remove the hate from both sides so nobody cares to use either of them. Much better for equality in love rather than equality in hate.

Edit: The more I think about this post, the more it bothers me. You may not have said that one was wrong and the other wasn't, but you did say that one was more wrong that the other. That is pretty much the same as saying that one is more OK than the other. I don't think there should be any amount of OK here. Both are completely wrong.

Thank you! This is the point I was trying to get across.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 03:49 PM

Equating the two is completely ignoring all historical and cultural contexts. So, if you're comfortable doing that and thinking that's intellectually honest, then yes, they are equal.

Again, trying to rationalize the terms and their usage because of historical context and cultural context is exactly WHY we keep running into the problem to begin with.

It shouldn't MATTER how this shit started, what matters is that these terms, these Racial Slurs/descriptors/insults WHATEVER you want to call them, these words incite anger, hate, and more. They need to be stopped, period.

Equating them makes that easier to do, they're ALL wrong, so stop using them and perhaps one day this racial bias MIGHT go away. (yes I know there are a thousand OTHER reasons for it but its a START damnit)

:banghead::D:banghead:

RendeR

07-09-2008, 03:51 PM

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 03:59 PM

Committing a crime is wrong. We want crime to stop. So how dare anyone say that one crime is worse than the other. After all, that's saying that one crime is more okay than the other.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 04:05 PM

Now who's trying to compare apples to oranges?

molson

07-09-2008, 04:07 PM

Committing a crime is wrong. We want crime to stop. So how dare anyone say that one crime is worse than the other. After all, that's saying that one crime is more okay than the other.

Of course.

If someone thinks both words should be banned from FOFC, that's fine (though there's the argument that villifying a word only gives it more hateful power).

But if someone's going to "call me out" for distinguishing those terms, I'll respond by pointing out that they're VERY, VERY different, and it's an important distinction. Lumping in Cracker with Nigger is just wrong. A super-left view would consider a grouping like that in itself racist and offensive to blacks, though I wouldn't go that far.

There's a lot of weird arguments in this thread.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 04:23 PM

Committing a crime is wrong. We want crime to stop. So how dare anyone say that one crime is worse than the other. After all, that's saying that one crime is more okay than the other.

Bad analogy.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 04:34 PM

If someone thinks both words should be banned from FOFC, that's fine (though there's the argument that villifying a word only gives it more hateful power).

One of the words has been sufficiently villified as to result in a boxing...

But if someone's going to "call me out" for distinguishing those terms, I'll respond by pointing out that they're VERY, VERY different, and it's an important distinction. Lumping in Cracker with Nigger is just wrong. A super-left view would consider a grouping like that in itself racist and offensive to blacks, though I wouldn't go that far.

There's a lot of weird arguments in this thread.

I would consider that super-left view racist. Both terms are racist. Racism = bad. Saying my racism isn't as bad as your racism is wrong. Racism = bad. White racist have done much more damage than black racists, but the key to ending racism is to stamp it out in all forms, not just stamp out some while letting others pass.

molson

07-09-2008, 04:44 PM

Saying my racism isn't as bad as your racism is wrong.

I have NO idea why that would be wrong, unless someone is annoyed that blacks have more "leeway" using racial slang than whites do, which is the vibe I got from illinifan999 (and which is a pretty commonly expressed idea).

He also called it a "double standard", which is absolutely wrong, because the words are very different.

larrymcg421's analogy is right on.

Crime=Bad. Murder and Aggravated Battery are both "completely wrong", but one deserves a harsher sentence than the other, because it's clearly worse. If someone argues that Murder is worse than Aggravated Battery, and thus should have a harsher sentence, that's not "wrong", and its certainly not saying that Aggravated Battery is "OK", or even "more OK", because neither are remotely "OK".

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 04:55 PM

I have NO idea why that would be wrong, unless someone is annoyed that blacks have more "leeway" using racial slang than whites do, which is the vibe I got from illinifan999 (and which is a pretty commonly expressed idea).

He also called it a "double standard", which is absolutely wrong, because the words are very different.

Are they both a racial slur? You can't argue that they aren't since you've already stated that one is less offensive, to which I would say, so what? Less offensive is still offensive. The simple fact is that CU Tiger and Draft both used racial slurs. And yet, only one was boxed. How is that not a double standard?

I actually called it in one of my earlier posts that if someone were to call someone a nigger they would be boxed, while nothing would happen to the person who called someone a cracker.

Webster defines a double standard as:

a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

What SkyDog did is the exact definition of a double standard.

DrAFTjunkie

07-09-2008, 04:56 PM

We're not going to stamp out racism if we continue to ignore it. We have to discuss it and I think we're doing a good job of it here. I don't think CU should've been banned, but if has been, then I suggest that I get one week too. It'll suck to not have answers to any of my n00b FOF questions for a week, but fairness is more important to me, and to this discussion.

And Illini, man...I've said time and time again that everything I've said is IMHO, in my eyes, etc. My apples and oranges are exactly the same as they were before and no amount of people agreeing with you and your stance is going to change that. In my opinion both words are not equally offensive. One refers to a very specific kind of white person, and the other refers to an entire race of people. Surely, one white person can be bad, but can an entire race of people?

BrianD

07-09-2008, 05:03 PM

I have NO idea why that would be wrong, unless someone is annoyed that blacks have more "leeway" using racial slang than whites do, which is the vibe I got from illinifan999 (and which is a pretty commonly expressed idea).

I believe this position slows progress in improved race relations. Having one group say "what you do is completely wrong and unacceptable in all situations but when I do it, it isn't quite so bad" is a divisive position. Changing that to "what you do is completely wrong and unacceptable in all situations and I'm not going to do it either" is a healing position. Like I said before, there needs to be a standard of acceptability and everybody needs to get to that point. We don't want to meet somewhere in the middle.

Crime=Bad. Murder and Aggravated Battery are both "completely wrong", but one deserves a harsher sentence than the other, because it's clearly worse. If someone argues that Murder is worse than Aggravated Battery, and thus should have a harsher sentence, that's not "wrong", and its certainly not saying that Aggravated Battery is "OK", or even "more OK", because neither are remotely "OK".

Here is the analogy you are making in SAT format: Murder is to aggravated battery as racism is to racism. Now if you want to break racism down and discuss different racist acts and compare them to different crimes, we'd have a better analogy. But in this situation we are talking about hate-filled speech in one direction versus hate-filled speech in another direction.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 05:06 PM

One refers to a very specific kind of white person, and the other refers to an entire race of people. Surely, one white person can be bad, but can an entire race of people?

That's not the case anymore. Cracker is used against white people as a whole. It's no longer used to describe a specific kind of white person. It may have used to have been, but it's really not the case these days. I was playing basketball last weekend and a black person told me I ran pretty fast for a cracker. How is that ok?

molson

07-09-2008, 05:11 PM

Webster defines a double standard as:

a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

What SkyDog did is the exact definition of a double standard.

Well, I learned something today, "double standard" is actually a neutral term, and it doesn't necessarily carry the negative connotation that we have given to it.

By that definition, sentencing a murderer to life in prison, and aggravated batteror to one year in jail, is a "double standard", because you're treating groups of people differently. In that case, its certainly a justified double standard, but its still a double standard, says Webster.

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 05:16 PM

molson

07-09-2008, 05:19 PM

I

Here is the analogy you are making in SAT format: Murder is to aggravated battery as racism is to racism. Now if you want to break racism down and discuss different racist acts and compare them to different crimes, we'd have a better analogy. But in this situation we are talking about hate-filled speech in one direction versus hate-filled speech in another direction.

I've been breaking it down in this entire discussion, again and again, distinguishing racism towards an oppressed minority v. racism towards a entitled majority.

I would say "Murder is to nigger as public urination is to cracker"

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 05:19 PM

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

So it's ok to call someone a cracker, but it's not ok to call someone a nigger? You're saying it's ok to call someone a racial slur? So then breaking it down further, you're saying it's ok for people to be racist as long as they are racist towards the people who it may not offend as much?

molson

07-09-2008, 05:21 PM

A double standard implies equality in the facts that matter but inequality from facts that don't. Murder and battery are different things so they get different punishments. Punishing a male murderer and a female murder differently only because of gender would make it a double-standard.

Right, and to me (and you may disagree), the difference between the offensiveness of cracker v. nigger is NOT simply race, and thus it's not a double standard. It's about real differences like power and oppression, HUGE differences that give those words their offensive meanings in the first place.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 05:22 PM

Well, I learned something today, "double standard" is actually a neutral term, and it doesn't necessarily carry the negative connotation that we have given to it.

By that definition, sentencing a murderer to life in prison, and aggravated batteror to one year in jail, is a "double standard", because you're treating groups of people differently. In that case, its certainly a justified double standard, but its still a double standard, says Webster.

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

Your analogy is wrong, in your example there are two completely unrelated groups, one being murderers, one being someone who beat someone up. its a huge difference.

people are people. no difference beyond appearance. In your opinion one group has less rights to complain than others, that in itself is racist. until everyone decides to stop whining about how they're mistreated or how they're better than others its just never going to end.

Start with your own position, think about it. You automatically believe that since blacks are a minority and 200 years ago they were enslaved and 50 years ago they finally broke through to equality, that the white folks shouldn't be allowed to bitch when they're mistreated?

Do You really really believe ANY of that stuff from the past makes a real difference in how 1 white man and 1 black man SHOULD interact today?

Humanity needs to LEARN from the past and stop living in it. No one is better than anyone else and no one owes anyone anything.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 05:24 PM

Here's the real spirit of my argument though. White American people complaining about racisim towards them, and especially comparing it or grouping it with racism towards an actual less powerful minority is just silly. That's just how I feel. It really short-changes the suffering of blacks in this country. It's like a rich person complaining about not having a big enough pool.

Does it matter at all to you if the white person complaining about racism toward them is also speaking out against racism toward black people? And did you really just compare hate-speech to not having a big enough pool? That is offensive in itself. I'm all for ending the suffering of all minorities in this country, but I don't see the growth of my suffering (however small by comparison) as helping the matter. Even if there is inequality of perceived insult, not calling both out equally seems hypocritical. We shouldn't accept hate in any amount.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 05:26 PM

We shouldn't accept hate in any amount.

:thumbsup:

molson

07-09-2008, 05:26 PM

So it's ok to call someone a cracker, but it's not ok to call someone a nigger? You're saying it's ok to call someone a racial slur? So then breaking it down further, you're saying it's ok for people to be racist as long as they are racist towards the people who it may not offend as much?

I should note that I've enjoyed debating this with RenderR and BrianD........

But....

Broken Record: "I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker"

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 05:27 PM

I've enjoyed debating this with RenderR and BrianD.......

Broken Record: "I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker, I'm not saying it's OK to call someone a cracker"

You just said that it was justifiable for CU Tiger to be boxed but not Draft (WHO CALLED SOMEONE A CRACKER). So then what are you saying?

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 05:30 PM

molson

07-09-2008, 05:31 PM

You just said that it was justifiable for CU Tiger to be boxed but not Draft (WHO CALLED SOMEONE A CRACKER). So then what are you saying?

A boxing isn't some kind of threshold that exclusively determines when something isn't "OK".

BrianD

07-09-2008, 05:32 PM

Right, and to me (and you may disagree), the difference between the offensiveness of cracker v. nigger is NOT simply race, and thus it's not a double standard. It's about real differences like power and oppression, HUGE differences that give those words their offensive meanings in the first place.

I guess I do disagree. To me, the words themselves don't change with power and oppression. The words themselves identify the speaker as a racist. Now a racist in a power position is more dangerous than a racist in an oppressed position, but now we are talking about people and not words. If I hate you and you hate me, I would say we are pretty equally bad. If I hate you and I'm carrying a gun, or if I hate you and have six of my friends with me, I am more dangerous. The point I am trying to make is that hate is bad in any direction. Is it really so bad that I'd like to get rid of the hate from all sides?

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 05:33 PM

You just said that it was justifiable for CU Tiger to be boxed but not Draft (WHO CALLED SOMEONE A CRACKER). So then what are you saying?

There are alot of things that happen on FOFC that one would not say is "okay", but don't necessarily deserve boxing.

molson never said it was okay. He just said it didn't deserve a boxing.

illinifan999

07-09-2008, 05:33 PM

Next time someone argues that molson is saying it's okay to call someone a racial slur, please actually quote the comment where he said that. If you can't do it, then don't make the claim.

This fucking strawman bullshit is irritating.

I'll run this through for you.

OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

He is saying that it is ok that SkyDog used a double standard. The double standard being this.

Draft calls Helms a cracker. (Nothing happens except this debate)
CU Tiger calls Sharpton a nigger. (He's boxed)

Two racial slurs. One boxing. Double standard was used. Molson say's it's ok because the "the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Putting all that together, I'm sorry if I took it that it was ok to use cracker since it's not conduct that is worthy of punishment. It's a racial slur. Why doesn't it deserve a boxing?

Radii

07-09-2008, 05:37 PM

I really wish someone had laid down some odds on a banning coming from this thread when it was first posted. It had to have been pretty high from the start.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 05:39 PM

A boxing isn't some kind of threshold that exclusively determines when something isn't "OK".

I don't want to put words in your mouth (at least more than I may already have), but would you agree that his use of the slur at least is worthy of general scorn and a general smack-down from the community?

RendeR

07-09-2008, 05:43 PM

Next time someone argues that molson is saying it's okay to call someone a racial slur, please actually quote the comment where he said that. If you can't do it, then don't make the claim.

This fucking strawman bullshit is irritating.

You're very wong here. read the thread, the text is there. The next time you want to deride someone's argument have some facts to back it up. molsen admitted the double standard, even though he agreed with it, he admitted it happened.

molson

07-09-2008, 05:44 PM

Does it matter at all to you if the white person complaining about racism toward them is also speaking out against racism toward black people? And did you really just compare hate-speech to not having a big enough pool? That is offensive in itself. I'm all for ending the suffering of all minorities in this country, but I don't see the growth of my suffering (however small by comparison) as helping the matter. Even if there is inequality of perceived insult, not calling both out equally seems hypocritical. We shouldn't accept hate in any amount.

I went too far when I implied that whites shouldn't complain about racism towards them. I didn't mean that.

Here's the scenario I find off-putting

-Guy says nigger, and is reprimanded, criticized, etc.
-Guy and his sympathizers are pissed off about the reprimand or criticism, noting that black people say nigger all the time to each other, and even sometimes use white slurs, and don't get the same punishment or criticism.
-The implication there is that a black guy calling another black guy a nigger, or even a black guy using a white slur is just as bad as a white guy calling a black guy a nigger. I find that implication very disturbing, I don't know what to tell you (And I should note I'm a white guy). It's like the white guy and his sympathizers are trying regain power, by elevating "cracker" to the level of "nigger" and also minimizing the latter term.

I know this isn't an original thought I'm expressing, I wish there was some master's student around here who could articulate it better than me.

Anything I said or implied beyond that, I retract.

molson

07-09-2008, 05:47 PM

You're very wong here. read the thread, the text is there. The next time you want to deride someone's argument have some facts to back it up. molsen admitted the double standard, even though he agreed with it, he admitted it happened.

WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OK???????????

Honolulu_Blue

07-09-2008, 05:48 PM

It's a racial slur. Why doesn't it deserve a boxing?

Multiple people have tried to explain this in multiple ways, but, in essence, it's because not all racial slurs are created equally. That's just the reality of it. You may not like that reality or agree with it, but it's the way things are, at least for the time being.

Why is ok to call someone a jerk on TV? But if you were to call someone a fucking asshole on TV the FCC would come down on you? Because not all insults are created equally either.

The word "bitch" is used on primtime TV all the time now, but do you ever heard the word "cunt"? No. Because not all insults are created equally.

Didn't Chef (before he went all psycho) used to refer to the kids in South Park as his little "crackers"? But, even the South Park dudes/Comedy Central wouldn't allow the "n-word" to be thrown around (even in bleeped out form). Why? Because not all insults are created equally. (I could be wrong on this, since I haven't really watched South Park in forever, but I'd be surprised.)

There are societal norms that say certain words/slurs are more acceptable than others. (For reasons why that is, see above).

As for the boxing, societal norms aren't really a factor. As always, it comes down to whether The Dark Jedi feels it deserves a boxing. If he feels that calling someone the n-word is worth a 1 week boxing, and calling someone a "crack" isn't? Well, then that's the way it is here. That's FOFC's "societal" norm for you.

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 05:49 PM

molson

07-09-2008, 05:51 PM

I don't want to put words in your mouth (at least more than I may already have), but would you agree that his use of the slur at least is worthy of general scorn and a general smack-down from the community?

It's a poor choice of words, bad form, not-OK, and I wouldn't do it myself. General scorn is fair. I wouldn't defend him from a general smack-down from the community, though I probably wouldn't join in myself to any great degree because I don't think the word's that huge a deal, like nigger is. Maybe some white person can try to exagerate and build-up how deeply offended he is by such a word, but I don't buy it. They're annoyed/irritated by what they see as blacks getting away with something, but there just isn't the cultural and societal history for that word to do any real comparable damage to anybody.

st.cronin

07-09-2008, 05:52 PM

In before the lock!

larrymcg421

07-09-2008, 05:54 PM

For those that are having trouble reading the thread:

I'm not saying one's wrong and one's not.

If someone thinks both words should be banned from FOFC, that's fine .

BrianD

07-09-2008, 05:59 PM

-The implication there is that a black guy calling another black guy a nigger, or even a black guy using a white slur is just as bad as a white guy calling a black guy a nigger. I find that implication very disturbing, I don't know what to tell you (And I should note I'm a white guy). It's like the white guy and his sympathizers are trying regain power, by elevating "cracker" to the level of "nigger" and also minimizing the latter term.

I can appreciate this. I would agree that use of the N-word within the black community isn't as bad as when it crosses racial lines, but I would say that use still slows progress. I can understand trying to remove power from the word, but then you are left with the confusion of why it is only bad some of the time. Either let the word be used and remove the power from it, or complain when anyone uses it. Trying to do both at the same time removes the focus from where it should be.

For the second point, I don't see it is trying to elevate "cracker" to the level of "nigger". To me, hate is hate. There is no place for it, and it should be stomped on wherever it shows up. To keep them separate is like giving one group some free shots until "cracker" is elevated and we are all even. In my mind, fighting against all words and feelings of hate equally is the best way to make progress. To me, nothing sends a stronger message than saying "you can do better and so can I".

BrianD

07-09-2008, 06:18 PM

They're annoyed/irritated by what they see as blacks getting away with something,

This is the main point I would argue against. I (and I'll only speak for myself) wouldn't be annoyed because a black person was getting away with something I can't get away with. I would claim that displaying racism while complaining about racism isn't productive. All that does is puts people on the defensive and prevents progress. It would be like me calling you names while arguing with your points. We would start to focus on the name calling and not the points raised.

Zelig

07-09-2008, 06:28 PM

Jesse Helms seems to be one relevant son of a bitch!

Axxon

07-09-2008, 06:43 PM

Can't we all just get along? In the spirit of getting along, let us not forget National Brotherhood Week.

One week of every year is designated National Brotherhood Week. This is just one of many such weeks honoring various worthy causes. One of my favorites is National Make-fun-of-the-handicapped Week which Frank Fontaine and Jerry Lewis are in charge of as you know. During National Brotherhood Week various special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood. This year, for example, on the first day of the week Malcolm X was killed which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is. I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that. Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week.

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

BTW, messed up fact but it's indeed true that Malcolm X was murdered on the first day of National Brotherhood Week in 1965. Ponder that irony for a bit fellas.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 06:55 PM

Another bit of an offering for my man Jesse. I'm sure he agreed with the sentiments again of my man Tom Lehrer who wrote about a subject dear to all of our hearts. Sadly, so much of these songs are still relevant over 40 years later.

I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:00 PM

DrAFTjunkie. Amen.

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:03 PM

RendeR

07-09-2008, 07:05 PM

WHEN DID I SAY IT WAS OK???????????

Here:
Originally Posted by molson http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/yellow/buttons//viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1774084#post1774084)
OK, I concede then, Skydog employed a "double standard", though (I feel), a justified one, because the conduct wasn't comparable or equally worthy of punishment.

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:06 PM

As for Al Sharpton, I believe he has done more to create racism in this country then end it. I dislike the man and do not consider him my leader as a black person.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:08 PM

I don't think cracker and nigger are equal in my opinion. One word (nigger) has a deep and hatred filled history in this country. While the other (cracker) is a racial slur but does not and should not be put on the same level as the other word.

As for Helms there is nothing admirable about a man who stuck to his ignorant and hateful beliefs.

I agree about Jesse and while it probably feels good to agree with the first paragraph here's my problem.

If we start trying to justify racial terms on some kind of sliding scale, we're really saying some racism is ok and really, the only way to get past racism is not doing this. It's only going to give people who are now on the short stick ( in this case a cracker ) a grievance point and a reason to perpetuate their racism since their opinion of what's the worse slur isn't necessarily going to be anyone elses.

I think you either have to go one extreme or the other. Either respect free speech or censor it all. No, well, your slur isn't so bad so you can keep doing it but Johnny's slur, that's a bad slur. Lets ostracize Johnny. He's a bad person. That can't end well IMHO.

RendeR

07-09-2008, 07:11 PM

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:14 PM

You can not ignore the history of the word. I recognize that both are racial slurs however the history of both are not equal.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:16 PM

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:19 PM

hate mongering is hatemongering, one is not "more aceptable" than another. its equally wrong from either side. period.

This is the crux of my position. You cannot validate one hateful comment while villifying another. No matter how you personally feel one might be MORE or LESS evil than the other, BOTH are hate statements. Trying to maintain a one is better than the other position simply keeps the whole racist bullshit steaming along.

There was an example earlier in this thread about crime. I thought it was a decent example. Crime is crime. Except if we're talking about murder or selling drugs. I do not believe someone who steals should get the same about of time as someone who murders. If society can accept giving someone who murders more time then someone who steals(for example bread) then why is it improbable to understand(not accept) that there is an identifiable difference between the words.

If we're talking in general terms then yes crime is crime and hate-mongering is hate-mongering. However as the example of the thief and the murdered has shown two crimes are not created equal.

Neither is appropriate to say but their is a difference that is all I am trying to point out.

RomaGoth

07-09-2008, 07:21 PM

No matter how you dress up a pig, he is still a pig. I do not admire Helms for standing by his beliefs. I do not believe that he is a bigger man because of that. He was ignorant, a bigot, and just plain wrong with his opinions on race. Just because he didn't change his beliefs over his lifetime does not make him a man of convictions. He was a piece of shit.

What we need in office in the U.S. is real people with real conviction. This means people who believe that taking bribes is wrong. That racism is wrong. That sexism is wrong. That outsourcing all of our manufacturing for a song is wrong. The list goes on and on but hopefully my point is made.

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:24 PM

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:25 PM

You can not ignore the history of the word. I recognize that both are racial slurs however the history of both are not equal.

What does history have to do with anything when remembering it actually perpetuates the situation you want to resolve? At some point, to get past it, someone has to give up the comfort of hatred that the word gives them and venture into the scary new world where others are trying to get past it.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not advocating everyone just up and reclaim the word but there's a point where it's a given the word sucks and now we move on and let other words slip into the suck hall of fame. It's like putting in Baseball Players who were only sorta good into their Hall of Fame because the really good ones are already there. No one thinks that Phil Rizutto is as good as Honus Wagner but we kinda understand why he's there.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:29 PM

There was an example earlier in this thread about crime. I thought it was a decent example. Crime is crime. Except if we're talking about murder or selling drugs. I do not believe someone who steals should get the same about of time as someone who murders. If society can accept giving someone who murders more time then someone who steals(for example bread) then why is it improbable to understand(not accept) that there is an identifiable difference between the words.

If we're talking in general terms then yes crime is crime and hate-mongering is hate-mongering. However as the example of the thief and the murdered has shown two crimes are not created equal.

Neither is appropriate to say but their is a difference that is all I am trying to point out.

Bad analogy IMHO. There is a tangible physical difference and effect between murder and theft. It doesn't take any real rationalization to understand the difference because the difference is unarguably clear.

With words though, that's not the case at all. It's a much grayer area and it's equally sustainable an argument that no words should be censured because in and of themselves, they have no effect. The effect is solely in the reactions, not the actions themselves, quite unlike murder or theft.

You can yell anything you like to a blind, deaf guy and no one at all will be hurt. Murder and theft, not so much.

Flasch186

07-09-2008, 07:29 PM

:popcorn:

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:30 PM

Sigh. :(

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:31 PM

Sigh. :(

In case that was in regards to any of my posts would you care to elaborate just a bit?

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:35 PM

In case that was in regards to any of my posts would you care to elaborate just a bit?

It was in regards to your post. You and I won't be able to agree on this(which is fine) and I realized that this debate would just keep going back in forth with no progress being made. I understand what your trying to say though but I feel like I have already given my opinion and anything else would just be extra.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:40 PM

It was in regards to your post. You and I won't be able to agree on this(which is fine) and I realized that this debate would just keep going back in forth with no progress being made. I understand what your trying to say though but I feel like I have already given my opinion and anything else would just be extra.

Ok, but whatis this point we can't agree on? It sounds like you're projecting thoughts into my mind and assuming that something is impossible with no possible way to know that. It's even possible that there's no disagreement at all simply we're not getting the point through the words we each chose to use and what those words mean to us. ( :) )

I'm not asking you to start a prolonged discussion but I really do want to know what part is it that we disagree on. I won't press you past that. It's ok to disagree but I'd like to know if that's true or not.

Noop

07-09-2008, 07:45 PM

Ok, but whatis this point we can't agree on? It sounds like you're projecting thoughts into my mind and assuming that something is impossible with no possible way to know that. It's even possible that there's no disagreement at all simply we're not getting the point through the words we each chose to use and what those words mean to us. ( :) )

I'm not asking you to start a prolonged discussion but I really do want to know what part is it that we disagree on. I won't press you past that. It's ok to disagree but I'd like to know if that's true or not.

You must be a lawyer. LOL. I think the history of the word is important. You don't think it is relevant and I disagree with that notion. Too me cracker, redneck, honky(I know a few friends who hate this word) are one in the same, in fact Jeff Foxworthy has made his career telling redneck jokes. All of those words were created in response to the word nigger.

Peace.

Vegas Vic

07-09-2008, 07:47 PM

I don't think cracker and nigger are equal in my opinion. One word (nigger) has a deep and hatred filled history in this country. While the other (cracker) is a racial slur but does not and should not be put on the same level as the other word.

I agree.

Could you imagine a white person trying to convince anyone that "cracker" harkens back to decades of being lynched, tortured, castrated, having their church burned down, or having a cross burned in their yard.

"Cracker" might be an offensive term to some, but it's not even in the same zip code as the "N" word.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 07:56 PM

You must be a lawyer. LOL. I think the history of the word is important. You don't think it is relevant and I disagree with that notion. Too me cracker, redneck, honky(I know a few friends who hate this word) are one in the same, in fact Jeff Foxworthy has made his career telling redneck jokes. All of those words were created in response to the word nigger.

Peace.

The history of the word is important. No disagreement there.

I don't think in terms of acceptable racial slurs it's history is relevant. Two different things being discussed here. It's not relevant because neither word should be accepted in racial terms. They're both wrong. That's what's relevant to that discussion.

An interesting thing about you mentioning Foxworthy. Let's consider Richard Pryor who oh yes, added the er ( to the up post about never hearing a black person add this ) and used it a lot. Research Pryor's use and then disavowment of the word, both well thought out opinions and I respect both his points on the subject. Honestly, he sounds like someone who tried to make the word irrelevant then realized that he couldn't make that happen then absolutely realized the history of the word and stopped using it. Fascinating stuff but it's not easy to find on the internet.

Just wanted to give my man Richard some props and kinda laugh that Foxworthy is mentioned for something Rich had covered decades ago. :)

BrianD

07-09-2008, 07:58 PM

All of those words were created in response to the word nigger.

This is one of the reasons I think the words contain as much hate even if they don't have the history.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:01 PM

I agree.

Could you imagine a white person trying to convince anyone that "cracker" harkens back to decades of being lynched, tortured, castrated, having their church burned down, or having a cross burned in their yard.

"Cracker" might be an offensive term to some, but it's not even in the same zip code as the "N" word.

Well, if we're going to start down this one I'd bet there's a lot of Jewish guys with centuries, not decades to harken back to ( does the inquisition or some guy in the 1940's ring a bell? Just to mention a few examples actually ) and just may find that the black perjorative is even on the same continent to their perjoratives. Does that make it ok for them to use the N word in that case, you know, since the words are not equal and all and theirs is worse?

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:01 PM

Understood Axxon.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:02 PM

You cannot remove the history of slavery, prejudice, power, segregation, and imposition of supremacy from the word nigger, though I do find it idealistic and sympathetic to want to.

Cracker has none of that attached to it.

They are equal on one level, but far from equal on another (and I believe) deeper level.

To make it clear, I don't want to do what you mentioned. I really don't have a dog in that race so sympathy isn't it.

I just think we're talking about two separate issues here like I posted to Noop.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Understood Axxon.

Peace Noop. Good debating with you again.

Vegas Vic

07-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:04 PM

Well, if we're going to start down this one I'd bet there's a lot of Jewish guys with centuries, not decades to harken back to ( does the inquisition or some guy in the 1940's ring a bell? Just to mention a few examples actually ) and just may find that the black perjorative is even on the same continent to their perjoratives. Does that make it ok for them to use the N word in that case, you know, since the words are not equal and all and theirs is worse?

I got lambasted for saying this in class but Jewish people are still Jewish people. I can not say the same about black people because they have long since been removed from Africa they could go back home even if they wanted too. I say this with the upmost respect to the people of the Jewish faith but I don't think that analogy is a good one.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:04 PM

What racial epithets are associated with those events?

Sadly enough, in both cases, it seems Jew was all it took. :(

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:05 PM

I think this thread is going to be locked by the way.

molson

07-09-2008, 08:10 PM

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:11 PM

I got lambasted for saying this in class but Jewish people are still Jewish people. I can not say the same about black people because they have long since been removed from Africa they could go back home even if they wanted too. I say this with the upmost respect to the people of the Jewish faith but I don't think that analogy is a good one.

So, in 1948, all those displaced Jews from Russia, Poland, Germany, eastern Europe weren't long enough removed from the Middle East to not be able to go back home if they wanted to? Jeez, they were gone several centuries.

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:15 PM

So, in 1948, all those displaced Jews from Russia, Poland, Germany, eastern Europe weren't long enough removed from the Middle East to not be able to go back home if they wanted to? Jeez, they were gone several centuries.

No no no no. I meant that they were still Jews and could go to their homeland (Israel) blacks can not identify where they come from other then saying they come from somewhere in Africa. Now that I have said that inane comment. I am going to try to leave this alone because what I have said usually causes a raucous.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 08:16 PM

Cracker as a "hateful" comment is really a stretch. There's hardly any basis for that in history whatsoever.

This may sound flippant, but hate as an emotion doesn't require history.

molson

07-09-2008, 08:16 PM

Well, if we're going to start down this one I'd bet there's a lot of Jewish guys with centuries, not decades to harken back to ( does the inquisition or some guy in the 1940's ring a bell? Just to mention a few examples actually ) and just may find that the black perjorative is even on the same continent to their perjoratives. Does that make it ok for them to use the N word in that case, you know, since the words are not equal and all and theirs is worse?

Are you asking if its OK for Jews to say Nigger because their suffering is worse?

Who's arguing that??

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:19 PM

Jesus?

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:19 PM

No no no no. I meant that they were still Jews and could go to their homeland (Israel) blacks can not identify where they come from other then saying they come from somewhere in Africa. Now that I have said that inane comment. I am going to try to leave this alone because what I have said usually causes a raucous.

Hey, like I've told you, you'll have to get used to rucusses if you want to hold an opinion around here. I think you're doing just fine on this one.

Yes, the Jews could go to Israel. Well, first it had to be created again but you do bring up a good point. ;)

I never really thought of it that way because the argument about going back where you came from really is the most absurd argument in this case unless you're native american and you want everyone to leave. Why on earth should the concept be given any merit? Too many people of all races have fought and died in that battle for anyone to be told that. I think it's optimistic that for the most part, when the discussions of race come up now we're down to fighting the words. It can be depressing fighting the words but if you remember that not that long ago, it wasn't about words at all.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:21 PM

Are you asking if its OK for Jews to say Nigger because their suffering is worse?

Who's arguing that??

Anyone that says that one racial slur isn't as bad as another one. That's my point. That's the crux of what I'm trying to say.

There are two discussions. One deals with the history and power invested in certain words. The second deals with allowing any words but disallowing others. The double standard deals with this position and we had an example where one slur got a boxing the other didn't.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 08:21 PM

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:22 PM

Jesus?\

Why would the Mexican care? ;)

molson

07-09-2008, 08:23 PM

This may sound flippant, but hate as an emotion doesn't require history.

True. But someone can say "Nigger" without hate behind it. "Cracker" too.

The issue isn't really what the speaker means, the issue is that some words have required a stigma where they're "penalized" by society, regardless of the intent of the speaker. The only way a word can obtain this kind of stigma is its history. History is everything.

A person can call you a "jerk" and mean it with all the hate of the biggest racist ever. But since that word doesn't have a racial history, the word itself doesn't have that stigma.

That's the problem with using the term "hate-mongering" to describe ANY word that references race. We don't know the intent of the person saying cracker or honkey, we don't know if it's hate-motivated at all. Same with nigger, but with that word, it doesn't matter, because it's distinguished by its history. We've decided it's a hate term no matter the context. It's different.

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:24 PM

I ask this in all sincerity...why is this relevant? To be honest, most blacks in this country come from America. I could say I come from Europe, but I have no idea where.

I was off on a tangent... that statement some how seems wrong to me but hey to each his own.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 08:25 PM

I ask this in all sincerity...why is this relevant? To be honest, most blacks in this country come from America. I could say I come from Europe, but I have no idea where.

I'm pretty sure this was a tangent here based on my mentioning the Jewish people but I can't speak for him obviously. That's how I took it anyway.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 08:27 PM

I was off on a tangent... that statement some how seems wrong to me but hey to each his own.

I guess my point was that most white people don't know where they come from either. There have been enough generations in this country that the origins aren't all that important anymore. There may be more to it than I understand, but it seems to be fairly universal around here.

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:29 PM

I'm pretty sure this was a tangent here based on my mentioning the Jewish people but I can't speak for him obviously. That's how I took it anyway.

You would be correct.

Noop

07-09-2008, 08:33 PM

Marisa Tomei is hot. Sorry I had to mention.

Subby

07-09-2008, 08:57 PM

Is it okay if a white person calls another white person a cracker? Because Axxon is a totally hilarious cracker!

Axxon

07-09-2008, 09:00 PM

Is it okay if a white person calls another white person a cracker? Because Axxon is a totally hilarious cracker!

But I'm not a white person :confused: . I don't care though. Cracker it is then.

Subby

07-09-2008, 09:02 PM

Oh my bad. I thought Phoenix was Crackertown.

Subby

07-09-2008, 09:03 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (7 members and 1 guests) Subby (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=5), Axxon (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=704), CU Tiger (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=5304), Honolulu_Blue (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=236), illinifan999 (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=1678), Noop (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=2357), sabotai (http://operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=190)

Hey that racist cracker CU Tiger is reading this thread right from the penalty box! Sweet.

Axxon

07-09-2008, 09:05 PM

Oh my bad. I thought Phoenix was Crackertown.

I'm from Tampa. I moved to Phoenix. I didn't read the bylaws so I didn't know I had to be a Cracker to come here.

Of course, Florida has a particular cracker of it's own. They're proud of it. There's definitely a different meaning with "florida cracker" and though I'm not one, I've heard the term for years and never in the negative, not even among other races. Just a random thought but maybe that's why they let me in Phoenix?

sabotai

07-09-2008, 09:06 PM

Is it okay if a white person calls another white person a cracker? Because Axxon is a totally hilarious cracker!

Of course not cracker. A racial slur is a racial slur, and a ghost can hate his own honky race. A mayflower just simply can not call other palefaces a racial slur just because they also happen to be a snowman. This is one of the way that people turn words against other races. A howdy may call his ivory friend a ghoul, and then before you know, someone is calling all of the eggs a ghoul, and then it steam rolls into hate speech.

So no, just because you happen to be crisco doesn't mean you get to call other marshmallows by a racial slur.

That's just ignorant.

Subby

07-09-2008, 09:09 PM

Well don't I feel like a dumbass cracker.

Thanks sabotai. :\

sabotai

07-09-2008, 09:29 PM

Well don't I feel like a dumbass cracker.

Thanks sabotai. :\

No problem casper.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 09:39 PM

I think we've now reached a point where the thread should be locked.

AZSpeechCoach

07-09-2008, 09:55 PM

Oh my bad. I thought Phoenix was Crackertown.

If you watch the news, you'd believe that Phoenix was a small group of morally upstanding white people under seige from millions of Mexicans ready to rape and rob them if they step outside the house.

BrianD

07-09-2008, 10:49 PM

BTW, I'm totally waiting for someone to pull an Anna Benson and start rattling off a list of racial slurs and seeing how far they can go without being boxed.

Of course not cracker. A racial slur is a racial slur, and a ghost can hate his own honky race. A mayflower just simply can not call other palefaces a racial slur just because they also happen to be a snowman. This is one of the way that people turn words against other races. A howdy may call his ivory friend a ghoul, and then before you know, someone is calling all of the eggs a ghoul, and then it steam rolls into hate speech.

So no, just because you happen to be crisco doesn't mean you get to call other marshmallows by a racial slur.

That's just ignorant.

Apparently 13 white racial slurs is still considered OK.

Oilers9911

07-09-2008, 11:05 PM

Dunno about the rest of you guys but I find it very hard to be upset by any of these "slurs" towards white people.

Pumpy Tudors

07-09-2008, 11:59 PM

I'll have comments on this once Danny Glover, the rest of the Canadians, and myself get together and have a meeting.

Groundhog

07-10-2008, 12:07 AM

Of course not cracker. A racial slur is a racial slur, and a ghost can hate his own honky race. A mayflower just simply can not call other palefaces a racial slur just because they also happen to be a snowman. This is one of the way that people turn words against other races. A howdy may call his ivory friend a ghoul, and then before you know, someone is calling all of the eggs a ghoul, and then it steam rolls into hate speech.

So no, just because you happen to be crisco doesn't mean you get to call other marshmallows by a racial slur.

That's just ignorant.

I LOL'ed.

DrAFTjunkie

07-10-2008, 02:54 AM

If this thread had gone off topic, which it hasn't, then maybe it should be locked. But this thread has been very active today, with opinions from a shitload of different people. It's abOOt dipolmacy (j/k somebody mentioned South Park) it's a topic that, from what I've seen, a lot of people are really reluctant to talk about. Ya can't shut that down, man...even if it can get painful.

I'm surprised to see Jeff Foxworthy and Richard Pryor mentioned, but not Chris Rock. His black people/niggas philosphy is well known, and although I laughed because it sort of made sense to me, it threw me off a bit to tell you the truth. It think that, for a lot of people it cemented home the idea that, yes, there is such thing as a black person, but for a lot of other people it might have sent a mixed message. "He's allowed to say crack-ass-cracka, but I'm not allowed to say nigga." It does seem like a bit of a double standard, but I realize that since he's using it in a comedic manner, he's difusing the dirty words in some manner. They are just words after all; it's malice that gives them power. And I do think there are inherent differences between all races. Comedy seems to be a good way to get people to take themseleves less seriously, to acknowledge that differences exist and don't have to be a good or a bad thing. It allows us to cross culture lines with a light heart.

RendeR

07-10-2008, 08:17 AM

Cracker as a "hateful" comment is really a stretch. There's hardly any basis for that in history whatsoever.

Facts are facts. And the fact that you finally admit that you think calling someone a nigger is "equally wrong" to calling someone a nigger, and the fact that you used the word "admirable" to describe Helms earlier in thread convince me I'm on the right side here and I can move on.

See and this post proves to me that you haven't atually read or understood a damn thing I've posted.

*I* do not admire Helms. I started this whole fiasco out by defending the fact that some people (in this case JonInMiddleGeorigia) MIGHT find that trait about helms admirable.

Cracker and Nigger ARE equally wrong IMO. You can't win that argument with me because I think and truly BELIEVE its an ignorant and racist PoV to try defending the use of one over the other just because one side was persecuted and the other wasn't. its about hate and its about degredation from both sides.

I'm not trying to say there isn't a stronger and more powerful HISTORY behind each word, there obviously isn't. But we're not arguing the words' history, we're arguing wether or not its right or racist to USE either word in today's day and age.

If you use Cracker to describe a white guy, you should be villified and rightly so, if you use nigger you should be villified, and rightly so. THIS is why I believe draft should have been boxed right along with CU Tiger. It doesn't matter what the histories of the word are, all that matter is they directly used racial slurs against someone.

Can we agree to disagree now?

Noop

07-10-2008, 08:21 AM

Why stop at cracker? What about redneck? Honky?

Subby

07-10-2008, 08:21 AM

I agree that you are a pontificating cracker.

RendeR

07-10-2008, 08:26 AM

Why stop at cracker? What about redneck? Honky?

Honky I agree with, Redneck I dunno, possibly. I find Redneck to be more if a class of people insult than a racial one, but I could be wrong there too.

RendeR

07-10-2008, 08:28 AM

I agree that you are a pontificating cracker.

Yeah but we already understand your ignorance Subby, so its all good.

Noop

07-10-2008, 08:28 AM

Funny how that works. Mr. Kitten

BrianD

07-10-2008, 08:29 AM

RendeR

07-10-2008, 08:33 AM

While the words themselves can be annoying, the sad part of this conversation it trying to determine which racial insults are really bad and which are only a little bad. If real progress was being made, we wouldn't need any of them.

That's what I've been saying, as has Axxon. If we're ever going to get beyond racisim we simply can't have a better/worse mentality, its all wrong.

BrianD

07-10-2008, 08:38 AM

And I, and others, think that that's a great idea but miles away from reality. I'm set for agree to disagree, there doesn't appear to be any new ground here.

And since it is so far away from reality, let's not even try. I'm pretty sure I can agree to disagree with that.

KWhit

07-10-2008, 09:00 AM

Wow, this thread went off the deep end.

Are people really trying to equate Cracker with the N word? Really?

That's ridiculous.

molson

07-10-2008, 09:31 AM

See and this post proves to me that you haven't atually read or understood a damn thing I've posted.

*I* do not admire Helms. I started this whole fiasco out by defending the fact that some people (in this case JonInMiddleGeorigia) MIGHT find that trait about helms admirable.

RenderR: "It is admirable that he stuck to who he was and held his belief's so dear."

That's a quote - it's not like when you accused me of saying something 10,000 times when I hadn't.

This is all about people being upset that one person was boxed for a black slur and another wasn't for a white slur. That's what pisses you off.

Vegas Vic

07-10-2008, 09:40 AM

Why stop at cracker? What about redneck? Honky?

Let's not forget about my all-time favorite -- "peckerwood"!

KWhit

07-10-2008, 09:43 AM

Dillweed.

molson

07-10-2008, 09:48 AM

Wow, this thread went off the deep end.

Are people really trying to equate Cracker with the N word? Really?

That's ridiculous.

Some (RederR) actually claim that they're equal.

Others (BrianD) still haven't gone that far, but claim that it's problematic to even put one ahead of another.

The second is somewhat more sympathetic and reasonable a point. I THINK the general idea is that putting one "racial" thing ahead of another invokes exactly the spirit of prejudice that we're talking about in the first place.

I (and most) think its completely ridiculous to consider it some kind of "racial prejudice" to acknowledge that nigger is worse that cracker. It's likewise not a kind of prejudice to acknowledge (and emphasize) that minorities, and not the power majority, are the most disadvantaged victim of racism. Further, sweeping those kind of power differences and history of oppression under the rug, while certainly convienient for white people in power, is some kind of odd white power play in its own right. It's putting "white suffering" at a level playing field, and it completely disregards racial realties.

You don't fix racism by pulling wool over everyone's eyes and inventing truths that aren't there, by saying, "From now on, all racial words are bad, and we won't say any of them, got it? great". Maybe if that would actually work, and everyone's attitudes and actions changed 100% at exactly the same time, per this social contract you're proposing, it MIGHT be worthwhile to ignore reality like you're asking us to.