Jian Ghomeshi trial

[pErvinalia]

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

If you can't quote me saying that, then it is just you saying it.

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

[Cunt]

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

Now, lets go on with your conclusions and assumptions...

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

You really don't read well, but anyone who clicks on my original statement can see what I said, and what you said.

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

I would say something insulting about you, but your own words are doing a great job of that.

You still don't even know who the victim in the J.G. case was. Fucking hilariously ignorant.

[Forty Two]

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

If you can't quote me saying that, then it is just you saying it.

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

Cunt is correct on this, and you're wrong. He did not say it's "ok" for whites to call blacks 'nigger" to toughen them up.

What he was referring to was singling out any group -- in other words, saying, it's lawful or permissible to call white people racist names is permissible while prohibiting racist namecalling of blacks. Arguably, that is a suggestion that blacks need protection that whites don't. Now, you may actually believe that to be true -- a lot of SJWs do believe that to be true - they say that blacks, due to their historical issues are actually more vulnerable than whites, and so indeed they need that kind of protection whereas whites don't. And, since blacks can't be racist against whites, then it's o.k. for blacks to namecall whites but not vice versa.

So, if you accept the premise -- that historical issues can render a racial group more deserving of protection from insult, then you will accept the conclusion that certain groups can be singled out for special protection (or that such protection would not be "special" -- it would be what is required to equal things out -- ie unequal treatment is needed for equality). However, if you reject that premise, and view such things as a function of individuals, not classes or races, then the notion that a black guy can call white guys white cracker while white guy can't call a black guy a spearchucker doesn't make sense.

[Cunt]

I have been asked several times to be nicer with rEv, so he must need some special protection.

I don't mind being a bit gentle with someone who so clearly has challenges.

(I can only get away with this because he is furiously researching who the victim in the trial was - it would take a smart person about a minute...but in the spirit of being gentler with him, I will give him a few hours)

[pErvinalia]

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

Now, lets go on with your conclusions and assumptions...

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

You really don't read well, but anyone who clicks on my original statement can see what I said, and what you said.

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

I would say something insulting about you, but your own words are doing a great job of that.

trolololol. Answer this: Do you think making jokes about black people based on their race makes them weak? Yes or no? Expand if you want. Or troll, if you just can't help yourself. But it's perfectly clear from your post that you think it makes them weak and that we shouldn't enable weakness. That's frankly a view that's so retarded I'm surprised even you could make it.

You still don't even know who the victim in the J.G. case was. Fucking hilariously ignorant.

I haven't commented at all about the victim of the J.G. case. YOU were talking about "court cases" (plural) not this specific case. I was responding to that. It is indeed fucking hilarious ignorant how you can't even recall what you yourself wrote only a few posts ago.

[Forty Two]

trolololol. Answer this: Do you think making jokes about black people based on their race makes them weak? Yes or no?

Nothing he said suggests he thinks joking about black people based on their race makes them weak. He said that singling out a race for special protection against namecalling or jokes suggests that they are weak. It seems to me Cunt is saying that black people are not weak, and they are just as able to handle jokes and names as anyone else.

But it's perfectly clear from your post that you think it makes them weak and that we shouldn't enable weakness.

Here you are just way off base. Not only is it not "perfectly clear" that he thinks that. It's not even fairly attributable to what he wrote.

[pErvinalia]

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

If you can't quote me saying that, then it is just you saying it.

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

Cunt is correct on this, and you're wrong. He did not say it's "ok" for whites to call blacks 'nigger" to toughen them up.

What he was referring to was singling out any group -- in other words, saying, it's lawful or permissible to call white people racist names is permissible while prohibiting racist namecalling of blacks.

But no groups are singled out. Hate speech laws, which a relevant here, apply to things that are outside ones control, most notably things you are born with. So race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc.

[Cunt]

I haven't commented at all about the victim of the J.G. case. YOU were talking about "court cases" (plural) not this specific case. I was responding to that. It is indeed fucking hilarious ignorant how you can't even recall what you yourself wrote only a few posts ago.

Look at all the clues...

What is this thread about? I mean, this thread you are posting in...what is the subject...?

When you understand who the real victim was in the case, you will begin to understand the other things I said.

Of course, you could cling to ignorance...I expected you to do so for hours anyway. Even if any interested party could look up the answer in minutes.

[pErvinalia]

trolololol. Answer this: Do you think making jokes about black people based on their race makes them weak? Yes or no?

Nothing he said suggests he thinks joking about black people based on their race makes them weak. He said that singling out a race for special protection against namecalling or jokes suggests that they are weak. It seems to me Cunt is saying that black people are not weak, and they are just as able to handle jokes and names as anyone else.

But it's perfectly clear from your post that you think it makes them weak and that we shouldn't enable weakness.

Here you are just way off base. Not only is it not "perfectly clear" that he thinks that. It's not even fairly attributable to what he wrote.

well if that's what he meant, then you are correct. Not that we will ever know from him, as he'd have to stop trolling for 2 minutes to clarify. The reason it needs clarification is that no groups are singled out. Hate speech laws apply to all races, sexes, genders etc.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't commented at all about the victim of the J.G. case. YOU were talking about "court cases" (plural) not this specific case. I was responding to that. It is indeed fucking hilarious ignorant how you can't even recall what you yourself wrote only a few posts ago.

Look at all the clues...

What is this thread about? I mean, this thread you are posting in...what is the subject...?

When you understand who the real victim was in the case, you will begin to understand the other things I said.

Of course, you could cling to ignorance...I expected you to do so for hours anyway. Even if any interested party could look up the answer in minutes.

So when you were referring to "cases" plural, you were actually referring to a case singular. Ok. That makes eminent sense. :insane: How can I be blamed for responding to what your actual words were, not what you post hoc redefined them to be?

[Cunt]

It seems to me Cunt is saying that black people are not weak, and they are just as able to handle jokes and names as anyone else.

I see that what I wrote can be understood, thanks.

As a matter of fact, the ONLY people in public calling black people niggers are other black people. And George Carlin.

Please continue to protect rEv...he has challenges which entitle him to special protection.

[Svartalf]

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

If you can't quote me saying that, then it is just you saying it.

Here's what you said: I think singling out any group, be they a racial group, rape victims or politicians, by making it unacceptable to joke about them, would be like saying they were too weak or frail to be treated like anyone else.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1650033

So assuming even you agree (not a given, knowing the views you hold) that blacks are a racial group, and joking about blacks can involve calling them niggers, then you are directly inferring that blacks who don't want to be called a nigger are too weak or frail.

Cunt is correct on this, and you're wrong. He did not say it's "ok" for whites to call blacks 'nigger" to toughen them up.

What he was referring to was singling out any group -- in other words, saying, it's lawful or permissible to call white people racist names is permissible while prohibiting racist namecalling of blacks. Arguably, that is a suggestion that blacks need protection that whites don't. Now, you may actually believe that to be true -- a lot of SJWs do believe that to be true - they say that blacks, due to their historical issues are actually more vulnerable than whites, and so indeed they need that kind of protection whereas whites don't. And, since blacks can't be racist against whites, then it's o.k. for blacks to namecall whites but not vice versa.

So, if you accept the premise -- that historical issues can render a racial group more deserving of protection from insult, then you will accept the conclusion that certain groups can be singled out for special protection (or that such protection would not be "special" -- it would be what is required to equal things out -- ie unequal treatment is needed for equality). However, if you reject that premise, and view such things as a function of individuals, not classes or races, then the notion that a black guy can call white guys white cracker while white guy can't call a black guy a spearchucker doesn't make sense.

If a word is okay for one group to use, then it's okay for all. Niggers can't resreve the use of the term for themselves only.

[Cunt]

So when you were referring to "cases" plural, you were actually referring to a case singular. Ok. That makes eminent sense. :insane: How can I be blamed for responding to what your actual words were, not what you post hoc redefined them to be?

Go look it up.

Or, if you are lazy AND fucking stupid, don't. You could instead express your ignorance a bunch of times in the thread.

[Forty Two]

One, that is true, depending on the jurisdiction. But, then the premise of his comment is undermined, because there is no singling out in that scenario. Nobody is permitted to call people racist names (as long as the law is enforced equally).

That being said, that is NOT feminist theory, and remember, you are big on standing by feminist theory. According to feminist theory, racial minorities and women cannot be racist or sexist, and therefore their speech cannot be hate speech. That may not be in accord with the law, but it is intersectional feminist theory.

See at about 1:45 in --

[pErvinalia]

So when you were referring to "cases" plural, you were actually referring to a case singular. Ok. That makes eminent sense. :insane: How can I be blamed for responding to what your actual words were, not what you post hoc redefined them to be?

Go look it up.

Or, if you are lazy AND fucking stupid, don't. You could instead express your ignorance a bunch of times in the thread.

Once again, you were referring to plural cases. What are these cases? I don't have a window into you mind (thank fuck for that). You have to tell me what they are before I look them up.