DebateGate

In the context I used it, it means "those who are as bigotted as Ann Coulter."

Plane, you asked if context mitigates.   In fact, context is critical to analysis.  Cornel West said "Martin Luther King, Jr. was a negro who resisted niggerization."  He also said, attributing the idea to Abraham Lincoln,  "The nigger was an American invention."  John Lennon said "Woman is the nigger of the world."  In none of these contexts is the word used to demean African-Americans.  It is used to point out how the race was oppressed (or, in Lennon's case, how woman were being oppressed in a similar manner).

"Woman is the nigger of the world" has a completely different meaning from "That woman is a nigger."  "The nigger was an American invention" is different from "Some American niggers are inventors."  And the use of the term "nigger" in this entire paragraph is well within reasonable standards of debate.  One cannot, effectively, discuss the relative merit of the word (and the concept of context) without using the word.  Now imagine if this post was selectively quoted in this fashion:

   Stray Pooch said "Some American niggers are inventors."  What a bigotted ass!

Of course the quote is accurate, but out of context it appears that I am deliberately using the word in an offensive manner, rather than simply illustrating an inappropriate use of the word.

Yes, Ann might have used the word "faggot" to illustrate a point.  But she did so in a manner which accused Edwards of being a "faggot" and which used an obviously offensive word in a context which suggested the word should be considered acceptable. And let's face it, even accepting the fact that such humor has a receptive audience in like-minded people, her use of it was juvenile and silly.  She should be slapped around copiously and then forced to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell.  (See, that's how Ann would have put it had the shoe been on the other foot.)

Why is that a cop out? You seem to think her statement was about Edwrads. I don't.
I think her statement was more about people hiding behind rehab, a point i agree with.

It's a copout because I am asking you to take a stand and clearly state your personal opinion on the subject. You avoid doing so by saying "My approval is not required" or words to that effect.  I didn't say your approval was required, I just asked whether you approved. 

Faggot is a perfectly good word. So are nigger, bitch, spic and kike. I don't use them often. But not because i disapprove of the words, i just don't think the use of those words enhance personal relations. I certainly don't think they should be banned. I don't think they  should be on some list that automatically double prison time because you are now guilty of hate.

Neither do I, but I still disapprove of the use of such words.  I have never said that someone who uses such language should be subjected to legal action.  I have said, however, that people who DO use such language ought to be criticized and must deal with the consequence of their offensive behavior.   I believe people have been banned from this website for being offensive.  I know we have used many "bad" words (like the big, bad F) here but there is a limit - however arbitrary - to how much a poster can get away with.  If I started posting topics like "N*GGERS ARE THE CAUSE OF THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICA!" I am sure I would be invited out without much delay.  (Though frankly, I never did like NAGGERS.)

You have stated that such words do not "enhance personal relations."  In fact, as a good general rule they tend to offend most people.  Of course, when groups who have similar prejudices get together, their use may even enhance those relations.  But generally, reasonable people understand that these words are offensive and understand why.    If you do choose to use such language, you should expect disapproval.  If, as you have stated in this thread, you view such expressions of disapproval as a form of punishment, you ought to expect to be (by your definition) punished when you use such language.  In the case of this thread, of course, you have not used such language (except for purposes of legitmate debate on their own merit).  My criticisms of your posts is based on the merit of your arguments, not your choice of words. 

The AFGE is milking this, I think.  I know when the Army worked with the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) at Dundalk Marine Terminal during REFORGER 1984 we couldn't get those Ignorant Lazy Assholes off of their duffs to get the ship unloaded in 24 hours.  Our longshoremen could have easily done it, but the ILA wouldn't allow the operation to go that quickly because it would cost their workers (and I use the term loosely) hours in pay.  Unions and military operations are a very bad mix.

Privatization has its own shortcomings, but I say anything that diminishes the unions is a good thing.

The fact is, the persons responsible for the mess at WRAMC are the NCO's and Officers in charge there.

I'm not sure this comment got posted, so if it is a repeat, sorry 'bout it.

BT, yes I said that failure to condemn Coulter's words constituted tacit approval.  That is not a demand.

For the record, I intended those comments to apply generally - and not specifically to you.  Your position is that the comments didn't mean what most people would conclude they mean.  That does not necessarily mean approval, though it well may.  Rather, it indicates denial IMO. 

I wrote four paragraphs explaining how the whole "tacit approval" argument might be made. Aren't you glad I deleted them? 

Reading the Cherokee Phoenix online (at the Cherokee Nation website which, I believe, is www.cherokeenation.org , there is some interesting debate going on.  According to the lawyers for the descendants of freedmen and intermarried whites, the Cherokee Nation was reestablished as a sovereign nation in 1866 by treaty.  That treaty specified that former slaves (of the Cherokee, who held many) and intermarried whites must be given national citizenship (in the Cherokee Nation, that is).    So this ruling may well violate that treaty.  The Supreme Court of the CN has apparently refused to stop execution of the order, though they may still hear the case.  The CN argues that nobody but the people of the Nation has the right to determine who will be a member.  That's pretty hard to argue with. 

Incidentally, by odd coincidence I am currently reading an excellent novel by Charles Frazier (Of "Cold Mountain" fame) entitled "Thirteen Moons" which tells a fictionalized account of the trail of tears and the disintegration of the CN in the south.  Great read.

Plane, you are a class act.

BT, I thought you might be getting at the point that my "implication" that you were lying compared to Coulter's implication.   But the two are not the same.  Coulter was, obviously, referring back to her original joke - and making another joke about PC.  That does not change the fact that she was implying Edwards was a faggot in order to make the joke.  

You're saying that I left "just enough wiggle room" is not true.  I made a very specific reference to a particular opinion being Clintonian. You were saying that "technically" she wasn't calling Edwards a Faggot.  Well, technically Bill CLinton did not have relations with that woman.  (Since he defined "relations" as direct sexual intercourse.)  But obviously any rational person would have taken a BJ as "relations."   By Clintonian I meant (as I clarified) using fine points of technical or grammatical finesse to support an otherwise indefensible position. In Clinton's case it was a lie.  In your case it was (or at least appears to be) making a weak defense for Coulter.  I can certainly see where you might rationally take that to mean that I was calling you a liar - especially since I called him a liar in my response.   But that was not the case.  You were expressing an opinion, and I really can't see how someone can lie doing that.  I simply meant that your defense was logically weak.  That is a critique.  If you view such a criticism as scorn, you are reading it more personally than it is intended.  

I also said that complaining about not being "forced" into criticism smacked of "You're not the boss of me" childishness.  Again, I can see where you might take that as calling you childish, and I suppose to a small extent it is.  But I simply mean to point out that your position seems to mirror that idea - not that you are, as a person, childish.  

I have always thought that you - along with a few of the other posters on this site - can take a direct challenge to your opinion without becoming personally offended.  I'm sure you understand the "separate the personal from professional" military ethic.  I am addressing your opinion - not you personally.  If you have taken offense, none was intended.  Where my poor wording or ineffective expression may have caused that, I apologize.  But I do not apologize for opining that Coulter ought to be criticized, or that failure to do so can indicate a tacit approval.  Nor do I apologize for thinking that a rational analysis of Coulter's statement makes that statement more than sufficient for leveling the charge that she called Edwards a faggot.  Both the accusation and the choice of term in levying it are inappropriate.  As to the rest, I would not stand in the same room with Ann Coulter, and being the egotist I am, I plan on continuing to express my opinion even if it pisses off the populace on both sides.