421–430 of 540 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, when I hear someone use that word, I do assume it's primarily in service of saying something that sounds like the n-word with plausible deniability. It'd be something else if it was a commonly used word
IMHO - you would be wrong. It is a perfectly good word. This horse-shit has to stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so hard to understand. The issue is the legacy of slavery, and Nigerian immigrants aren't dealing with that.
Nigerians today have to deal with the legacy of colonialism, war, pogroms and famine. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War "The Nigerian Civil War (also known as the Biafran War and the Nigerian-Biafran War) ... between 500,000 and 3 million Biafran civilians died of starvation." This is just scratching the surface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so hard to understand. The issue is the legacy of slavery, and Nigerian immigrants aren't dealing with that.
Most racial justice activists don't agree - they believe that there's significant ongoing racism in addition to the legacy of slavery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gay marriage is still openly advocated against by the right.
How does that demonstrate open-mindedness by the left? The left is (ostensibly) universally supportive of LGBT rights. Liking the in-group is not a demonstration of open-mindedness. (Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT; i.e., there's something inherently wrong with it. It would not be charitable of me to assume that this is what you meant, but it's the only way I can mak…
> Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT
Yes, it's called being in the minority[0]. I'm not sure what gymnastics you're playing trying to make "out group" equivalent to "something wrong", but that's your addition to the conversation, and not something I ever suggested.
Let me repeat that: there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup. To suggest such a thing is closed minded. I would say this demonstrates my point, given that you appear to identify as part of "the right".
[0]: ok there's a bit more to it than this, normally involving prejudice from the ingroup. But this still doesn't really change anything relevant. The right is certainly more of an ingroup than the LGBT community. Compare the number of right wing congressional representatives to the number of openly LGBT ones.
What's going to happen when these aspiring business people visit other countries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the way I understand microaggressions, which aren't to do with whether someone is offended or not. The idea is that if, for example, you're black, and day in, day out, there are lots of little things that on their own aren't worth being upset about (for example, people not holding the door for you, pushing in front of you in line, crossing the road rather than walk past you, assume you're low-level staff r…
From Wikipedia: > Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal or behavioural indignities, whether intentional or unintentional It’s the unintentional part that I take issue with, which means that it’s not on you to understand the context of my statement, it’s on me to imagine the infinite variety of ways you might interpret my statement and vet them for possible insensitivity before making i…
An extreme but relevant example: If a person is ignorant of the harmfulness of bleach, and injects their children with it with intent to cure an ailment, are they guilty of a crime? If so, is it the crime of being ignorant?
So from that lens, can a person act aggressively without intending to? In a technical sense, I think not. Aggression is, by definition, a state of intent. When we say "act aggressively", we likely mean "act in a way that suggests an aggressive intent". It's our interpretation of intent based on action.
An important note here is that it's our interpretation of someone else's intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is obviously nuance, but if the word sounds like a slur, and is used generally to describe people of a certain race, then the offended can certainly express their offense, and the culture should consider the offended person's position. In this case I am pretty sure the word is "neger", and yeah, I don't think we should mourn or handwring over any sort of great loss of Norweigian culture/heritage that has occurr…
That's straight up American imperialism, I suggest you to do better and think it through next time you suggest horrible things like that.
I can’t believe the reactionary comments to this. Of course, we have no idea of the context. But if it was anything like the linked video - and it could have been worse - it’s perfectly understandable why students would be surprised and perhaps upset. If you disagree, its worth asking yourself, what reaction would you expect if you were a chinese professor enunciating the word “cunt” during a lecture, with no prior w…
Do you get upset when you learn the word for "black" in spanish?
I was surprised by the linked video though, it could have done with a prior warning in my opinion.