Question: why is it considered socially acceptable for a black man to refer to another black man as ‘nigger’, whereas a white man who publicly uses the same word is deemed a racist?
I would be most grateful for some clarification, especially from a black member who uses the aforementioned term.
Thanks
… this is not a reply to the question, but to the larger topic. But double standards involve the issue of equality. One person/group wants equal standards/rights/benefits as the other person/group. This usually means that the persons/groups are equal to eachother in all/most other respects except the ‘standard(s)’ or ‘right(s)/benefit(s)’ in question.
Okkaaaaay 
Sooo, why can’t white people call black people ‘niggers’ while black people can?
A Malaysian chap at my university is quite happy to refer to other asians as “Gooks”, yet somehow has the belief that “All whites think they’re better than everyone else”.
I call asians “chinks” and “chinkanese” all the time…
To their face…behind their back…online. I dont care. I dont think of it as a derrogatory term as much as I do a term of endearment.
“My little chink friend, how cute she is.”
…not…
“Those fucking chinks, with their squinty eyes and ching chang chong!”
to be frank, if a black person called you a ‘cracker’ i don’t think you’d be too happy/might take it the wrong way.
exactly, there’s a difference between being politically incorrect and being just a racist bastard which some can’t seem to realise.
i’ve got black mates and i’ve referred to them as the “N” word (dun dun dun) and i wouldn’t give a damn if they called me a ‘cracker’ as Rafajafar said there’s a difference between being racist and joking between friends (terms of endearment) which is why being policitically correct can be very annoying.
with Whale’s point in mind black people call each other by that as a form of endearment whereas if a white man calls him that it’s seen as a racist comment as they’re not a friend and it would not likely be a term of endearment. the notions of being politically correct is just a simplisitic approach to racist issues.
in a similar manner it’s like a woman telling a bloke to fuck off as defending her womanhood and a hetero bloke telling a homo to fuck off as being homophobic which is another issue that people like to label mild words and actions by a majority/difficult issue by claiming they are just notions of hate.
A perfect example of the double standards to which i am referring.
you may well consider it to be a “term of endearment” but it still makes reference to underlying differences between you and your friendly chinks. That, according to some, is racist.
Take your example into my analogy: would you approach a group of black men who you have not met before and, as a term of endearment, say “what’s up my niggers!”?
Who said I’m white?
Go into your local record store and peruse the hip-hop section. You may be surprised to find many songs which refer to white people as ‘crackers’ or ‘honkeys’. The artists who have recorded this material are not, to my knowledge, in jail for it.
Now imagine what would happen if a white person released a song making reference to black people as niggers. Double standards.
I never said it wasnt a double standard…I said it was bullshit.
Fucking oversensitive assholes need to be hung by their own stretched out nutsacks.
Thats definately one way of putting it. Another is to encourage looking at the whole issue of race objectively, without immediately demonising anyone who makes reference to a racial difference, an idea advocated by Jason H in his thread ‘Politics of Racism’.
So, everyone thinks that they’re comfortable with that then?
Really?
So what would you say to someone like Hitler who approached this issue with some form of objectivity and accepted that there ARE racial differences, and then went on to say that some races are superior to others?
Surely if two things are different and competing then it is logical to infer that one will be better than the other?
Remember, no demonising…
Your thoughts please.
“Hitler had the right idea; he was just an underacheiver. Kill them all” - Bill Hicks
I think that in order to achieve societal objectivity we would need to kill all people of bias. When we begin to do this, someone will shout, “Hey, I think that’s wrong.” Then we put a bullet in their head for not being objective enough. Eventually this will go on until there’s two guys left, both with guns. As they point the gun at each other, one man will say, “I think we might have been wrong about this whole objectivity thing.” Whereupon the last guy shoots him. The last man standing begins to ponder his loneliness and winds up killing himself.
Now, this may be fallacy of extremes, but I think it illustrates why I have a problem with people who preach objectivity. It’s unatainable and unbalanced. Objectivity itself is subjective.
Yes, people who want to fault others for their subjective ideals should be hung by their overstretched nutsack. Why should you convert them? Why shouldn’t they convert you?
Just be.
What if instead of killing everyone, we agreed upon a system of analysis which we could both agree on?
Let us call that system ‘Logic’.
What if, by some process, we use that system to exchange ideas in the hope of reaching the truth?
Let us call that process ‘Discussion’.
If, based upon these premises, you convince me that you are correct, I am ‘converted’. Let us agree that if the reverse happened, you are ‘converted’
Here is a question: If two races differ, and they compete, is it not logical to infer that one will be better than the other?
Please discuss.
See, that’s the problem with logic and discussion. They’re not garunteed to derive the same subjective mores.
For instance, Canabalism is considered bad in the U.S. In some tribal cultures, it is considered good.
Now let’s look at Kantian logic in this…
If everyone was a canabal, we would kill off the entire human race and there would be no one else left to judge the good of the situation.
Oh, but there’s another way of looking at this…
If someone enters my homeland, they are most likely a threat to my tribe’s well being. I can either trust him, kill him, or let him go. If I trust him, I risk the chance he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If I let him go, I run the risk that he brings friends back to take over my tribe. If I kill him, I am certain he wont be of any more trouble. If I defend my tribe, and I kill a man, if I do not eat him, I am wasting precious limited resources that could go to better use. Since waste is wrong, and killing outsiders is right, from my societal standpoint, canabalism is good.
Ethics… no matter how reasonable your way of looking at them may seem, someone will disagree with you.
And thus, the problem. Logic and Discussion will not get you to the absolute truth because we, as humans, are of limited perspective. It WILL get you closer, but you shall never figure everything out absolutely… that’s not to say absolute truth doesnt exist.
[If you would like my critique on the cannibalism analogy, please PM me.]
Agreed there will always be disagreements.
Agreed that we are limited beings who are incapable of fully understanding the truth.
Agreed that ethics is a subjective scale which has its roots in the elusive cloud we call ‘Morality’ (which, in my opinion, is summed up well by your signature).
Within these constraints, please answer the question:in reality, and to place us as close to the truth as our limited human minds can take us, are some races better than others?
Are some races better than others?
…I dont see any white track stars. I dont see any black olympic swimmers. The Chinkanese have higher IQ’s on average. Black guy have big dicks, white guys are medium, and chinkanese men have smaller winkies.
Depends on what you’re talking about, I guess.
All I know is, I hate those greedy jews.
(doesn’t really)
I coulda swore that answer could have been drawn from my previous post, though. It’s all relative. Be more specific. That’s a spooky question, it’s not fair to ask it.
Races don’t exist outside of a cultural context.
Look at Brazil, you ask someone what someone eles race is in Brazil, they will give you a phenotypical description, there are no catagories.
Look at Japan, did you know that Japan had a maginalized minority? Yep, don’t try to find them though- they look exactly the same.
Rafa, you rule 
A few more examples though: I dont see any black scientists that have significantly shaped our understanding of the world, I dont see native Americans going over to Europe and colonising them, and I dont see arabs taking oil from America.
Here’s a more specific question: are some races better at surviving than others, do they have a higher evolutionary fitness?
If resources became so scarce that one race needed to wipe out another race to ensure their survival, who would wipe out who? (consider the number of black African nations with nuclear weapons).
LostGuy, consider sub-species in dogs, “populations distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics” [dictionary.com]. i’m not denying that culture comes into it, but if you took genetic samples from a thousand black people and a thousand white people, granted there would be variations WITHIN the group, but there would be significant differences BETWEEN each group as a whole.
Brazil aside, a child can easily distinguish between an afro-caribbean and a caucasian without having to ask about their history and language.
I felt bad for this guy when you said no black scientists have shaped our world.
Hey, he ain’t no Newton, but I sure do love peanut butter.
lol, in fairness I said shaped our UNDERSTANDING of the world but nice of you to draw my attention to this guy.
Here’s to peanut butter.
My friend ofcourse, The Jews. Thats kinda of an obviouse one don’t ya think? Us rats survive it all. You must agree that going along with natural selection, this tiny minority of us with our history is rather extrodinary that we still exist let alone have our own country now 
But I would like to point something out. Terms like “nigger” arn’t always derogatory depending on the location. In N.Y for example I remember in highschool whites calling other whites “nigga” the same with blacks and vice versa. Blacks called me “nigga” I called them “nigga” and no one thought anything of it. As if the term lost its meaning in its overuse.
the Jews really have gone through a lot of shit in their lives. it seems every few decades some fuck comes along as “a test of faith” by exterminating dozens of the poor buggers. don’t get me started on the whole Israel/Zionist problem though.