Reclaiming slur words

Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
2,024
LOL this will get thrown out in court just like every other time this has happened in Connecticut. The charge is a very old law that is meant only for advertisements, and no prosecutor is going to attempt to make it stick in this case. It would be a dumb move to even try to proceed with a court case. It's 100% unconstitutional. They should have been charged with disturbing the peace or something similar instead (if they were indeed in violation of such an ordinance, of course).
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
2,024
Where did you get that “statistic” from, VDare? You shouldn’t say that because it isn’t true. There isn’t any group of women, anywhere, with a higher murder rate than any group of men.
I assumed he looked at a chart comparing homicide victims and got it confused, but I am also curious about the source.
 

MoDc

Established
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
140
I assumed he looked at a chart comparing homicide victims and got it confused, but I am also curious about the source.
You’ll be waiting a long time for Artie’s source on his totally made up statistic, unless he has the balls to link to Stormfront or wherever he read it.
 

MoDc

Established
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
140
You’ll be waiting a long time for Artie’s source on his totally made up statistic, unless he has the balls to link to Stormfront or wherever he read it.
I’m going to give Artie another chance to show his proof for his statistic.

Since we can’t “take each other seriously” I’d seriously like to hear a source for such a ridiculous claim.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Can't find the original one that I saw, which was average murder rate between 1995 and 2015 in which black females consistently had a higher murder rater than white males. I found the graph, but without source:

Homicide rate 1995-2015.png

If I find the source, I'll link it.


In the mean time, there's another data sheet from the Bureau of Justice Statistics below, with violent crime rates from 1973 to 1992.

The link.

The statement (in red):

BJS violent crime.png
 

MoDc

Established
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
140
Can't find the original one that I saw, which was average murder rate between 1995 and 2015 in which black females consistently had a higher murder rater than white males. I found the graph, but without source:

View attachment 29502

If I find the source, I'll link it.


In the mean time, there's another data sheet from the Bureau of Justice Statistics below, with violent crime rates from 1973 to 1992.

The link.

The statement (in red):

View attachment 29503
That you won’t link the first one is telling.

At best the second one indicates a higher per capita rate and not an overall rate. Still I’m not sure you’re reading that right as right next to it, it says that in 92 90% of the perpetrators were male.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_Homicide_508.pdf

this has white males commiting 30% percent of murders, making your claims impossible

also worth noting the majority of murders come from the South where poverty is highest, hmm
 

MoDc

Established
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
140
Can't find the original one that I saw, which was average murder rate between 1995 and 2015 in which black females consistently had a higher murder rater than white males. I found the graph, but without source:

View attachment 29502

If I find the source, I'll link it.


In the mean time, there's another data sheet from the Bureau of Justice Statistics below, with violent crime rates from 1973 to 1992.

The link.

The statement (in red):

View attachment 29503
That you won’t link the first one is telling.

At best the second one indicates a higher per capita rate and not an overall rate. Still I’m not sure you’re reading that right as right next to it, it says that in 92 90% of the perpetrators were male.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_Homicide_508.pdf

this has white males commiting 30% percent of murders, making your claims impossible

also worth noting the majority of murders come from the South where poverty is highest, hmm
In fact, upon closer examination,the study uses “homicide rates” to refer to victims of homicide.

So it goes in the opposite direction of what you say, typical tactic of white supremacists to misrepresent crime statistics to fit your narrative. See why I can’t take you seriously?
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
In fact, upon closer examination,the study uses “homicide rates” to refer to victims of homicide.

So it goes in the opposite direction of what you say, typical tactic of white supremacists to misrepresent crime statistics to fit your narrative. See why I can’t take you seriously?
I won't be able to take you seriously if you turn an error into white suppremicy.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Of course it’s per capita! Overall numbers are meaningless without proportion.

You say the highlighted homicide rate is about victims, but that's not clear whatsoever. But I admit it's ambiguous.

To get some more clarity, the only homicide rates (per graph) by white male vs black female specifically I could find is here: BJS 1980-2008.

(Btw, there's a lot more data about victims than offenders, which is ridiculous)

BJS 1980-2008.png

Taking the two bottom graphs, the rate for young adults between white males and black females seems to converge around 1983. After 1983 the average murder rate for white males < 24y would be higher.

If we check the convergence point for white males and black females > 24y then that would be around 1992-ish, with a higher rate for black females than white males prior.

However, in this data, Hispanics don't have their own category. They are included in white or black along their identification. 93% of Hispanics are identified as white (by themselves or the officers), 7% as black. The 93% white Hispanics increases the crime rate of whites, while the 7% of Hispanics decrease the average crime rate of blacks. - source

Hispanic homicide rates are on average twice as high as whites, but three to four times as low as blacks.

1575849449746.png
source


And just in case you were wondering about the hispanic population numbers:

1575847461404.png

Still haven't found the source for that first graph, but honestly it doesn't seem far-fetched at all considering the data.


And that crime rates are higher in the South doesn't mean crime follows poverty. Like I said, correlation statistics show that crime causes poverty more than poverty causes crime.
 
Last edited:

Hon33

Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
806
In theory at least, you can say whatever words you want to, whether it is generally deemed culturally appropriate to do so or not.
If you choose to however, then you have to know that not everyone is going to be happy about your use of the word.
What I generally find to be the best approach is to treat everyone with respect and not use any terms which someone else may find offensive.
I’m white. I have never in my life used the “n word” either about or to address, a black person. Having grown up in a society deeply divided by religion, my parents always taught to respect every one.
If a black person wants to address another black person using that term and they’re both happy enough with that - that’s their choice. I can’t really see a time however, when it would ever be anything other than derogatory for me to address them that way.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
630
question aimed at black ppl: do you use the n-word? Do you think it's offensive?
I've seen debates among black americans abt whether or not black people from other countries could use the word.
As a black teen, I can say that word is commonly used among the youth. I know why, and the reason is absolutely dumb. People say it because it's considered "trendy and cool" once I tested my classmate who was also black, this is how the convo went:

Me: Why do you use that word? You already know what the original meaning is, so why use it?
Him: See, we took off the "er" and put an "a" and it's meant to be cool and it has a new meaning.
Me: The N word is a word used against blacks and yet you use it. No one should use it for that matter, and changing two letters don't do anything.
Him: But it's cool! It doesn't mean what it meant back then. I'm a N*gga, you're a N*gga!
Me: Do NOT call me that, since you can't be smart enough to avoid using that word, I doubt you'll understand my point so never mind.
Him: Okay, N*gga.
Me: :mad:

Just like other cuss words are used for fun. On a daily basis, even online, you see people saying "Hey b*tch! What's up h*e?" Like why is calling your loved ones these words considered cool? Because good is known as evil and evil is known as good. To the majority of the world mostly the youth, being a bad@ss seems very important. I'm talkin' someone who can talk you off, beat you up, drink, smoke and act like that's a good thing. That is a bad thing but people are so consumed in their sins, they done forgot how evil that actually is. Most people now and days are stuck in lust, money, and vanity mainly. No one cares about being humble anymore, only prideful with a humorous personality along with "bad@ss" actions.

Sorry I went off topic there, but this is basically the answer. Also, if someone called me that, I'd tell them not to, if they continue, I'd walk away. Hearing dumb words coming from someone who knows right from wrong is truly disturbing.

Edit: Also, if anyone here is black and you use that word, you must be caught up in society instead of the actual truth. Cussing is pleasurable to many but at the end of the day, you know what it originally means but you deny it because you're so prideful.
 

WoWFan

Newbie
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
4
Obviously speech shouldn't be legislated by anyone or any institution. Everyone should be able to say whatever he likes as long as it's not a direct call to violence.
Why shouldn't you be able to freely call for violence? You say it shouldnt be legislated by anyone or any institution and then directly contradict yourself in your next sentence. A call to violence isn't physical violence itself. It is nothing but mouth sounds being verbalized. A thought.

But we, as a society, have deemed that those verbalized thoughts are harmful and we have legislated against it. Yet you argue that other harmful verbalized thoughts should be allowed to be spoken freely without consequence. Using slurs is harmful to those they are directed at. We have tons of psychological research proving this. Your position is illogical.
 

peridot

Established
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
255
I've listened to this debate for decades.

Just in case someone hasn't already said this:
The issue here really isn't about a "word,"
but for what and why people use it.
Everyone here agrees (in English) that no one using the n-word is extending their use of Romantic Languages, and their etymology of "black." In English, the n-word is specifically meant to reference dark skinned people (usually Africans, but the British used it about folks from the Indian continent as well) in an inhumanly demeaning way, whether directly, or in a "reclamation" sense.

The problem is there is not a way to outlaw fools or mental cruelty.
There IS a way to solve it, but most people have no stomach for the solution.

If you "outlaw" the word, people will just find other ways to be cruel.
If you "outlaw" the thought, you create a totalitarism in which the law makers must use hypocrisy to keep themselves out of jail.

Can you reclaim it?
What is really meant here is can you get "a lot" of people to agree with your redefinition of it.
Does it really change the meaning?
Depends on when and how many folks feel like willingly repeating your blurb.
If you get enough, the dictionary writers will eventually add another line with your chosen definition.
It doesn't change its etymology, but you can convince a lot of willingly gullible folks of anything.

It also doesn't change people or their motivations.
Once you "reclaim" that slur, some one will create a few more.
Perhaps they will just reclaim something like "all around swell guy"
to mean something exactly opposite from the original definition.
 
Top