The White Man’s Absolution

In his ongoing debate with Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy (more of a shouting match, really), Obsidian asks the question at the heart of race relations in the United States:

WHY is it so very important for White folk, to be able to say the word “N****r”? What do they lose from not saying it?

The answer is simple–so simple, that I think all Whites know the answer, but are simply unable to articulate it.

What do Whites gain from being able to say the word N****r?

They get their humanity back.

(If this gets my blog yanked by WordPress–well, it was nice knowing you all.)

Advertisements

26 Responses to The White Man’s Absolution

  1. escarondito says:

    When it comes to racial slurs, the minority always wags the dog in america. Didn’t you realize that? Why do you think it’s bad for non-jews to call jews kike? Latinos spic? Or is it that the double standard is being issued by a black man that gets you so riled up?

    • theblanque says:

      How can it be a racial slur if it is used as a term of affection by blacks?

    • escarondito says:

      Because racial slurs can be used as a term of endearment between the minorities it deals with, and can be used as a vicious racial slur if said from the mouth of a member of the majority. This should be obvious. But you still never answered my point.

      Is it that the double standard is being issued by a black man that gets you so riled up?

      • theblanque says:

        Either the word is a racial slur, or it is not.

      • escarondito says:

        By your standard bitch, faggot, cunt, kike, spic, chinc, jap, guido, mick, nigger are terrible words and should never be used by anyone. A slur is a slur no matter whose mouth it comes from. I would love to agree with you.

        In other words, you know its wrong, but you’re going to do it anyway. Nothing hypocritical or weak in that, is there?

        Unfortunately, this is life. This is reality. Girls will call each other bitch lovingly and give death eyes if you do it to them. As much as you hate it there is nothing you can do about it. But you seem to not have an issue with that.

        How would you know? I haven’t said one way or the other.

        So again my question, in a different format. Why do you not care about the double standard with regards to these other slurs, yet fight the double standard for nigger tooth and nail?

        Again, how would you know? You and Obsidian have both come here and made broad accusations against me without knowing or asking my position–you merely launched an emotional attack (and having the typical gall of accusing *me* of being “riled up” when it is you who can’t control his emotional state).

        Or, do you fight just as hard for the right to say bitch, faggot, cunt, kike, spic, chinc, jap, guido, and mick etc. without penalty?

        Why not? Why should any so-called “minority group” be allowed to declare words as off limits? I’m against such weak, effeminate behavior wherever it appears, and whomever tries to use it.

  2. escarondito says:

    @ poster

    They get their humanity back.

    If white people lose their humanity by not being able to dehumanize others, what does that say about the values and prinsciples that whites find have the most importance?

    • theblanque says:

      It shows that you have a deeply vested interest in treating whites as non-human.

      • escarondito says:

        That is not what my question says at all.

        Read again adn answer:

        “If white people lose their humanity by not being able to dehumanize others, what does that say about the values and prinsciples that whites find have the most importance?”

      • theblanque says:

        But that is the answer to your question.

      • escarondito says:

        So you are saying, that my question, “If white people lose their humanity by not being able to dehumanize others, what does that say about the values and principles that whites find to have the most importance?” implies that blacks are dehumanizing whites by not allowing them the power of verbally professing their ideas of racial superiority?

        I’m saying (since you finally bothered to ask) that the meaning of a word doesn’t change based on the race of the user; if the words are off-limits for one party, then it is off-limits for *all* parties–or it is open to use by all. To do otherwise is the behavior of the weak, hypocritical, and the effete.

        I’ll re-clarify my statement, because I am dumbfounded at your response and my troll alarm is ticking to ring. You feel, that by minorities(or blacks in particular, please clarify) asserting and demanding that whites not use racial slurs and offensive words against them, the minorities are stripping whites of their identity as humans to be verbally broadcast their words of racism and bigotry?

        If any minority group asserts that the majority must self-censor itself to protect the hurt feelings of the minority, then it is de-humaizing that majority. Your emotional distress is no ones moral crisis than your own.

      • Escarondito says:

        ***Please when you respond to my comment do so in a reply that way I know you have. Also, why did you delete my comments to Wil S. I’m not even sure who is adding their response to my posts now, wil s, the blanque, or snark.***

        I deleted them because they didn’t add to the conversation. I dislike racist screeds. My journal, my rules.

        In other words, you know its wrong, but you’re going to do it anyway. Nothing hypocritical or weak in that, is there?

        ***Hypocritical? No. I said I would love to agree with you that a slur is a slur and should not be said by anyone ever. Weak? No. It is stating the facts of reality. Look agian to my example of bitch to understand.

        Yes, it is hypocritical and weak–you know it’s wrong, but you are going to go along with it anyway.
        How would you know? I haven’t said one way or the other.

        ***Do you make a issue over not being able to say faggot and the like? Or do you just reserve your issue over double standards for nigger?

        Again, how would you know? You and Obsidian have both come here and made broad accusations against me without knowing or asking my position–you merely launched an emotional attack (and having the typical gall of accusing *me* of being “riled up” when it is you who can’t control his emotional state).

        ***There has been nothign emotional in my argument. I’ve been merely using your logic.

        Your huffing and puffing discourse has been nothing but emotional.

        Why not? Why should any so-called “minority group” be allowed to declare words as off limits? I’m against such weak, effeminate behavior wherever it appears, and whomever tries to use it.

        ***Nothing weak or effeminate about it. If there is something weak or effeminate about standing up saying I will not allow you to talk about me that way, and being unmovable in your position, we have two different definitions of weak and effeminate.

        It is entirely weak and effeminate to demand special privileges for yourself.

        ***PS*** Please put back my comments that I made about calling a paki mother a “Sand nigger cunt”. It aids in my argument. Plus I would love to ehar your reply. And also, where has wil s’s comments gone?

        No I won’t, and no it doesn’t. And my reply remains the same–either extend the license to all, or deny it to all.

        Eagerly awaiting replies.

      • Escarondito says:

        I’m saying (since you finally bothered to ask) that the meaning of a word doesn’t change based on the race of the user; if the words are off-limits for one party, then it is off-limits for *all* parties–or it is open to use by all. To do otherwise is the behavior of the weak, hypocritical, and the effete.

        ***What you are advocating for is the hypothetical. Unfortunately poster we don’t live in that. We live in life and the reality of the world.

        And where would we be were we to accept the reality of slavery, or Jim Crow? Hypocrite, heal thyself.

        COnsidering, I hope, you understand the nature and history of the word nigger, you would understand how standing up and not allowing yourself to be called that is not a weak, or effeminate, or hypocritical move.

        Were you to understand the nature and history of the word, you would understand that allowing blacks to use the word without facing the same consequences as whites would face shows how weak, effeminate and hypocritical you are.

        What would be weak, hypoctrical. and effeminate move would be complaining about being called nigger yet not doing anything about it, cowering to it, yet answering to it when called it. Perhaps, you feel weak for not being able to say it. As you seem to believe whites only hae their humanity when they are able to profess racial superiority. So when you feel weak and effete say nigger to yourself 3 times and perhaps your humanity will return.

        Either you cannot read what is written, or you know that you have no actual argument, and are trying to distract from that fact. the meaning of a word doesn’t change based on the race of the user; if the words are off-limits for one party, then it is off-limits for *all* parties–or it is open to use by all. To do otherwise is the behavior of the weak, hypocritical, and the effete.

        If any minority group asserts that the majority must self-censor itself to protect the hurt feelings of the minority, then it is de-humaizing that majority. Your emotional distress is no ones moral crisis than your own.

        ***Before I answer, like a deleted comment you took away earlier, I am going to flip the sentence around for you so you can taste some irony. This will be in relation to the fact that many white males don’t want to see black men be sexual in movies, and especially with white women, because of sexual competition.

        “If any majority group asserts that the minority must self-censor itself to protect the hurt feelings of the majority, then it is de-humaizing that minority. Your emotional distress is no ones moral crisis than your own.”

        Which would be a good point–if the majority were asking for self-censorship on the minority and not for itself. Again, either extend the license to all, or deny it to all.

        And now to repond to your remark. In essence the emotional distress is the moral crisis of the majority considering they were the ones who created the word.

        But it is the minority who use the word with impunity. Again, either extend the license to all or deny it to all.

        Also, point blank, whether it is said by a black man or white man it is the moral crisis of whoever says it, to understand the word, its history, and their intent, as well as the receivers perceived intent of the sender. Sounds like a mouthful but I hope you understand.

        ***PS*** you never clarified if you have an issue with the double standard with all minority slurs or just blacks. Please make it known. Thank you.

        I’d rather stay on-topic.

  3. theobsidianfiles says:

    Thought I’d duck in here.

    Esca’s question is quite a powerful one; and when put against Blanque’s declaration of how White America writ large “gets its humanity back” by being able to ape Michael “Kramer” Richards-without any further explanation-really is interesting to observe.

    Think I’ll keep my eye on this one…

    O.

  4. Menelik Charles says:

    Traditionally, the humanity of white people has always depended on their dehumanisation of others. Without so doing, white people feel themselves diminished. That’s why happy smiling Negroes are so missed among certain sectors of the white population. Step ‘n’ fetchit is doubtless a Tea party favourite; Barack is not!

    How much did you pay for the privilege of swallowing all that left-wing propaganda, hmm? Have you finished paying off your college loans?

  5. Snark says:

    I have no particular desire to say ‘nigger’, nor any desire to call or refer to anybody by that epithet.

    I have EVEN LESS DESIRE to be presented with a list of words which I may no longer say, to be enforced by the law; a list which apparently only applies to me because of the colour of my skin; other demographics may have the privilege of exemption from the list.

    Being informed that I may not use certain words in the language of which I speak, because of the colour of my skin, yes, it’s pretty damn dehumanising.

    This is what the complainers don’t get: it’s NOT A QUESTION of whether or not I want to say the word. It’s not a question of what I stand to lose from not being permitted to say the word. In this case, I lose nothing in particular from not being permitted to say a specific word. But the fact that the state should decide which words I am ALLOWED to utter? It doesn’t matter which word or words are being prohibited, that is an affront to my dignity and my humanity.

    You call for unity, Obsidian, but you can’t get past anything. You’re not a slave, and we’re not slavers. You have absolutely no grievances in this regard, just as we have no reason to feel guilty.

    My sentiments exactly. Either extend the franchise to all, or deny it to all.

    • Escarondito says:

      ***Also, what are you all talkign about. Being dehumanized is being strung up and danced around, being dehumanized is having another nation come to your country and sling napalm on your sleeping neighbors, being dehumanized is being tied to a post alone in a field and beaten for being exactly how you were born.

      “Being informed that I may not use certain words in the language of which I speak, because of the colour of my skin, yes, it’s pretty damn dehumanising.”

      ***You can use them all you want. Just be aware of the consequences.

      “I have EVEN LESS DESIRE to be presented with a list of words which I may no longer say, to be enforced by the law; a list which apparently only applies to me because of the colour of my skin; other demographics may have the privilege of exemption from the list.”

      ***Like I said earlier, girls can call each other bitch all they want, can you do it as a guy? Jews can joke and call each other kike but could I do it as a black man and get away with it? Blacks can call each other nigger but can a white person do it and get the same reaction? In all cases no.

      So like I said, there are double standards in this world. Get used to them. I have, they do, we do, we all do. Your dehumanized argument is weak at best, outlandished at minimum. All americans must therefor be dehumanized cause we can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. OOOOO Double standard. Come back to reality Count Chocula. When you get strung up and lit on fire then you can say you are being dehumanized and enjoy your little mel gibson torture fantasy. Until then, quiet your noise like you’re in a library and learn something about the world before you start spouting such nonsense.

      • Snark says:

        You are in favour of special privileges, theblanque is in favour of treating people equally – see this: “My sentiments exactly. Either extend the franchise to all, or deny it to all.”

        Your best argument is “this is the way things are, so just get used to them,” yet you call other peoples’ arguments weak? Come on … it used to be that being tied alone to a post in a field and beaten for how you were born was “just the way things were,” so perhaps you have no argument against why victims of such assaults should “just get used to it.” Either you shall put up a better argument, or you shall not reply.

      • escarondito says:

        It is the privilege, not special privilege, of what we all have in a PC society.

        All privileges are special privileges when contravening the privilege carries a penalty.

        The fact that one of another group cannot use racial or otherwise harsh epithets against your group without repercussion. That is the whole point.

        And the whole problem.

        Also, here is where your new argument falls flat. No one is hurt in this “get used to it” society.

        Tell that to Dr. Laura.

        While you and blanque keep thinking that you are being dehumanized, you are not, and if you look at my examples, I’m positive you see the vast difference between verbal censorship and lynching. One is true de-humanization one is not.

        One doesn’t have to be lynched to be dehumanized. Yet, one cannot be censored without dehumanization. Either extend the license to all, or deny it to all.

        There is the reply. Where is blanque on my earlier questions?

        I answered them.

        Also, you never answered me. Do you have an issue with all double standards(bitch, cunt, spic, kike) or is it just the word nigger? Please answer that. Don’t dodge.

        I did answer them–my answer was the same: either extend the license to all, or deny it to all. Your refusal to accept that is not my problem.

  6. […] The Blanque – “The White Man’s Absolution” […]

  7. Escarondito says:

    Yes, it is hypocritical and weak–you know it’s wrong, but you are going to go along with it anyway.

    ***I don’t consider it wrong. Considering I am not, nor is my culture being harmed in any way shape or form, I have no issue with not being able to call a girl a cunt and get away with it. Unless it is your nature to verbally harm others, you shouldn’t have an issue. You just want the equal liscnece to harm others. Says alot about you.

    You obviously know that it is wrong–otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to defend your hypocrisy.

    Your huffing and puffing discourse has been nothing but emotional.

    ***No huffing nor puffing here. But over the course of this discussion I have blown your house down to expose how you truly feel.

    Keep telling that to yourself–you might actually come to believe it.

    It is entirely weak and effeminate to demand special privileges for yourself.

    ***I think I see what point you are trying to get at but your choice of words is terrible. I know a completely different word beside “effeminate” which would sell your case and would almost make me agree with you but you don’t know it or won’t use it. Anyway, we are not demanding when members of your own race censor themselves as well.

    Effeminate is exactly the word I choose to use, because it is the word that fits. It obviously bothers you a great deal.

    And where would we be were we to accept the reality of slavery, or Jim Crow? Hypocrite, heal thyself.

    ***Difference. Huge. First of all it is a red herring. We are discussing, the reality that all races, and groups in general have things they can do and say amongst themselves that others are seen as bad for doing to them.

    Difference none. You argue that we should accept the way things are, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. You argue for the status quo. The status quo once held Jim Crow and slavery as the reality of the day.

    Were you to understand the nature and history of the word, you would understand that allowing blacks to use the word without facing the same consequences as whites would face shows how weak, effeminate and hypocritical you are.

    ***Whites yelled the word as they lynched black men. Black men say the word as they greet a friend. When whites use the word it is an flashback to the lynching time. When blacks use the word it should also be a flashback to the lynching time? Because blacks lynched other blacks? What you are not seeing is that the definition of the word isn’t what breeds the double standard but the intent of the word. The intent of all words brings the double standards for all the words.

    Except in your eyes, the intent of whites who say the word is always the same, while blacks can have varying intent.

    Either you cannot read what is written, or you know that you have no actual argument, and are trying to distract from that fact. the meaning of a word doesn’t change based on the race of the user; if the words are off-limits for one party, then it is off-limits for *all* parties–or it is open to use by all. To do otherwise is the behavior of the weak, hypocritical, and the effete.

    ***Like I said, perceived meaning is not what breeds the double standard but percieved intent. Pissing and moaning that “If I can’t say it, we all can’t say it” will do nothing in the long run. You know it, I know it. As much as you want all people to be able to say nigger it will never happen. Just as much as I want all people to stop saying nigger. It will never happen. You can’t stop people from saying whatever they want to say unless you tie their mouths shut. Or put in some inhibitor chip. And like I said, you can say Nigger all you want. Just don’t expect to be looked at kindly by people. Which is why I said the “sand nigger cunt” comment is clearly applicable and is no screed. If you feel everyone should be able to say it Blanque why don’t you go about saying nigger to all the black people you meet? And when rasheed has an issue with it say your point that you feel all should be able to say it. You seem to fight so passionately for it, or is that just because you are behind a computer screen?

    I’d rather stay on-topic

    ***It is on topic. If you only object to the nigger double standard it shows bias.

    It is off-topic.

    Tell that to Dr. Laura.

    ***Was she fired, or did she quit herself?

    Quit–after being harangued for challenging a double standard.

    One doesn’t have to be lynched to be dehumanized. Yet, one cannot be censored without dehumanization. Either extend the license to all, or deny it to all.

    ***Correct. One doesn’t have to be lynched to be de-humanized. But let’s begin by actually looking at the word. I’m not sure you are.

    Dehumanize – (Def.) – is the process by which members of a group of people assert the “inferiority” of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements
    Synonyms – Demean, disgrace, degrade, take down, put down

    So you’re are saying we are making you inferior by the overt act of disliking the use of a racial epiteth went talking to us? Or are we asserting you are inferior by making sure we subtely let you know through diversity laws that racial slurs will not be looked kindly upon in the public square? Know one is saying you are inferior. In fact, it is saying you are an asshole trying to profess superiority over me using that word. Hmmm. So a woman is dehumanizing a man when she says you will not call me a cunt and make me feel inferior? That states that a man can then only be on equal ground if he is able to call her a cunt. So you feel like you can only be equal with her by being able to make her as inferior as you can be made to feel by her withholding one word from you in the massive english language? You have an issue with power man. Because you don’t have the power to make another person feel like shit you say you are dehumanized? Sad shit man. Sad shit.

    All of which assumes my intent is what you think it should be. Who has the problem with power–I, who wants equality, or you, who wants to control the very intent of my speech.

    I did answer them–my answer was the same: either extend the license to all, or deny it to all. Your refusal to accept that is not my problem.

    ***Liek I said. If you truly have an issue with ALL double standards. Then say all the words that you want to in the world, like you already have the power too. No one took that away from you man. Just realize your mom won’t like you if you call her a “sand nigger cunt”. However, I’m sure she will understand afterwards when you explain you are not a fan of double standards. Hope it works out well.

    Again, the answer is simple–extend the license to all, or deny it to all.

  8. Escarondito says:

    Like I said the actual liscense to say ti was never taken away from you. The social acceptable liscense was.

    So the license wasn’t taken away, but it was. Uh-huh. That’s logic for you.

    You choose to try and change the social acceptable reason you can’t say it without saying it. Thus, you continue to give power to the double-standard.

    No–the hypocrisy of blacks who refuse to stop the use of the word amongst their own gives power to the double-standard.

    But, you seem to not choose to say it, because you yourself don’t have the conviction to. I can’t help you there. If you want to fight for this as a prinsciple, man up and go express your right to say nigger. Stop whining about how you can’t on the internet.

    I never said that I wanted to; what I have argued is that blacks are hypocritical because they demand the license for themselves, but refuse to extend the license to others. Either extend it to all, or deny it to all.

    And also, it doesn’t matter that Dr. laura was harrased. She quit! Point. Blank. Period. She could’ve stayed on and fought the good fight. But like you she has the prinsciple that she wants to fight on about yet backs down on it easily.

    Would a black woman have been similarly harassed? That is the point–Point. Blank. Period.

    BTW. If you do go out and say nigger to address every black person you see please video tape it so we can see the results!!!

    Again, where did I ever say that I wanted to say it?

  9. Escarondito says:

    Actual liscence means physical ability to say it. Was never taken away.

    Socially acceptable means…I don’t have to explain that do I? Was never taken away.

    Logical? Yes. You can’t understand that? Tough. I assume you are smarter than that.

    “I never said that I wanted to; what I have argued is that blacks are hypocritical because they demand the license for themselves, but refuse to extend the license to others. Either extend it to all, or deny it to all.”

    So you don’t want to say it, but you want to whine on your message board about it? If you want to change something, take action to change it. Otherwise, just be quiet, sit on the sidelines, and let the world go round.

    A black woman wouldn’t be similarily harrased. You and I both know that. But you didn’t see my other part. Like you, if she has a serious issue with the double standard do you think bowing out like a punk to pressure helped change it? Exactly. Nothing changed but a time slate name.

    “Again, where did I ever say that I wanted to say it?”

    What I keep assuiming is that you want to, or you’re doing something to change this double standard. I see now you just want to whine to the internets. That won’t bring the change you want man. So like I was saying earlier, your extend it to all, or deny it to all will never happen while you sit behind your keyboard. So, because of your lack of action, ACCEPT it, and move on until you decide to enact some change.

    Whatever you say, Onyx.

    • Escarondito says:

      Oh come on now blanque.

      We were having conversation the entire time, but ont his point you have to back out and try to be cutesy?

      A conversation where you tell me I have to “get used to it” over and over again, and won’t admit to your hypocrisy–yeah, that’s a conversation for you.

      I’ll take it that you then agree with my points then.

      No, you won’t; you can instead take that FB’s satirical description of Onyx fits you more so than Obsidian–which is why you got so bent out of shape when he posted it

      Also, the fact that you keep saying “extend to all or none” as a sidestep of my bias question is telling. You must also want to be able to see woman change and them not being embarrased like a gay man. Perhaps you also want to sit while you pee and not be called a sissy like a woman. Maybe you want to only fight the n-word double standard.

      You mean I refuse to let you derail the point by dragging in other examples of hypocrisy to justify your own.

      But, if you don’t want to be biased, either “fight them all, or fight none”.

      You mean, “If other people are hypocritical, I get be hypocritical!”, right?

      • Escarondito says:

        No, It means,

        “If we are being hypocritical, is it not hypocritical to fight one double standard yet let the rest slide”?

        No, it doesn’t. You lose.

  10. Escarondito says:

    Actually, if you truly want to talk about winners and losers, you are the loser.

    I know you are, but what am I?

    You want this change so bad to “extend to all, or to none”, yet, you do absolutely nothing to bring about this change. You sit here on the computer and. do. nothing.

    I’m not the one maintaining the double standard.

    So everyday that you aren’t able to say nigger due to the double standard is another loss for you. Sorry, but I’m not sorry. Change works for those who work for it.

    Says the one who refuses to change. You go, Onyx–you go.

    And I hope you don’t think just typing on your computer is working for that change. Do you?

    Once again–I’m not the one maintaining the double standard.

    • Escarondito says:

      Again. I don’t care at all about the double standard. YOU DO. It’s up to you to change it not me. If you wanna walk through DC with a banner saying, “Extend to all, or none”, get some people behind you and we’ll see what happens. Until then, you’re just going to sit and write your double standard manifestos on the internet? What sense does that make for achieving your goals?

      Which is what I stated in the first place: you have a deeply vested interest in treating whites as non-human. You couldn’t face yourself if you saw whites as human.

      I think we’re done here.

      I said we were done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: