Mexicans are Dumb and Will Destroy America?

[zippy2006]

What do you mean? Are you trying to claim that Trad uses racial slurs in public since he explained his dispositions in this thread?

I'm not trying to claim it, I'm stating it's a reality. His comments are public here and now. Honestly, it surprises me that you make that distinction.

Actually Anna, I think you're demonstrably wrong here. I think TH would even disagree with you. These are two completely different things:

1. Calling a black man a n***** in public 2. Making it publicly available that you use racial slurs in private and asking if there is a problem with doing so

...as I said to zoo, whether TOL counts as "public" is an interesting question. You can present an argument for why you think 1 and 2 are the same if you want.

You've commented several times about overreaction and emotional response. Maybe I'm not cold and unemotional, I'll be the first to grant you that, and that's okay with me and okay if you call me on it if I'm out of line. But I don't believe my posts are irrational.

They're not irrational, but many of them lack positive arguments. That's understandable on this issue which is so close to home for you and such a touchy topic.

I have a relative with Asperger's. It's hard to know where culpability lies, I'll grant you that. But we all know when issues come up, that somewhere there's a line, where excuses stop and culpability begins. I'm not saying I have a right to know where that line is, but I think disagreeing with the things he's said here in this thread is not at all out of line.

I think I understand what Trad is talking about, and I think most of you are misunderstanding him. He uses the word n***** for shock value. That's all. My friend did it too. He could only be considered racist in an odd way, since he actually prefers black people. They just think its funny to use a word that has such a reputation and shock those they are around with it. It's dumb, but it's not eugenics.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that's an incredible thing to suggest.

I don't. I'm familiar with what you wrote, and again I think it's mostly assertion. Feel free to explain one of those quotes with an actual argument, if possible with numbered steps and clear premises. It should conclude with the idea that you shouldn't use the referents for racial slurs in private.

 

[Memento Mori]

How did I miss this? 14 pages of flirting with racism? Amazing.

 

[doloresistere]

He's admitted he has racist tendencies, zip. I don't see how that's not willful.

What makes it willful then if it is so obvious?

 

[Traditio]

I don't. I'm familiar with what you wrote, and again I think it's mostly assertion. Feel free to explain one of those quotes with an actual argument, if possible with numbered steps and clear premises. It should conclude with the idea that you shouldn't use the referents for racial slurs in private.

Actually, I don't dispute this, and I can give an argument as follows:

1. Justice is that according to which we give to each what is due to him.

2. A good name is the chieftest of a man's external goods (according to the authority of St. Thomas).

3. Using the n-word impugns the good name of the black people.

See ST II-II (the secunda partis secunda partis (second part of the second part), qq. 72-76.

Using the n-word likely falls under back-biting or derision, both of which can be mortal sins, depending on various factors.

If you use the n-word, you're almost certainly committing at least a venial sin.

I'm inclined to say that my use of the n-word is venial, since the harm to my neighbor's reputation isn't grave, and also given the nature of the occassions in which I use the term. How much am I going to impugn the good name of the black people if I use the n-word with someone who already uses the n-word?

On the other hand, if I were to call a black person a [n-word] to his face out of anger, that almost certainly would be a mortal sin (reviling).

Zippy, on a personal note: if you're going to be a priest, and a good confessor, I strongly recommend reading the Secunda Pars of the Summa Theologiae (both the first and second parts). [I haven't done this, but then, I'm not pursuing ordination.]

 

[zoo22]

I didn't call them [n-word's] to their face. You've misunderstood me.

No, I didn't figure you would.

 

[zippy2006]

He's admitted he has racist tendencies, zip. I don't see how that's not willful.

I see you added a sentence.

I suppose it depends on how we are understanding the word "tendency." It could mean:

1. "I have racist tendencies" means "I have a tendency to willfully engage in racist acts." or 2. "I have racist tendencies" means "I have an unintentional tendency toward racism."

From the context of this thread it seems clear to me that Trad means 2, not 1.

 

[zippy2006]

Actually, I don't dispute this, and I can give an argument as follows:

1. Justice is that according to which we give to each what is due to him.

2. A good name is the chieftest of a man's external goods (according to the authority of St. Thomas).

3. Using the n-word impugns the good name of the black people.

See ST II-II (the secunda partis secunda partis (second part of the second part), qq. 72-76.

Using the n-word likely falls under back-biting or derision, both of which can be mortal sins, depending on various factors.

If you use the n-word, you're almost certainly committing at least a venial sin.

I'm inclined to say that my use of the n-word generally is venial, since the harm to my neighbor's reputation isn't particularly severe.

Okay great! I think that's sound and nicely concise. :thumb:

So are you done committing venial sins?

Zippy, on a personal note: if you're going to be a priest, and a good confessor, I strongly recommend reading the Secunda Pars of the Summa Theologiae (both the first and second parts). [I haven't done this, but then, I'm not pursuing ordination.]

Thanks Trad, I'll keep that in mind. :e4e:

 

[Traditio]

So are you done committing venial sins?

Read the Secunda Secundae (second part of the second part) and ask me that question again. Pretty much everything's at least a venial sin (this is hyperbole, of course...but not as much as you'd think) lain:

 

[zippy2006]

Read the Secunda Secundae (second part of the second part) and ask me that question again. My impression of the work is that it aptly could be renamed: "Going to Hell: A How to Manual." If what you're doing at any given moment isn't a mortal sin, it's probably venial.

Pretty much everything's a sin. :noid:

Well, how about that sin in particular then? :chuckle:

 

[doloresistere]

I see you added a sentence.

I suppose it depends on how we are understanding the word "tendency." It could mean:

1. "I have racist tendencies" means "I have a tendency to willfully engage in racist acts." or 2. "I have racist tendencies" means "I have an unintentional tendency toward racism."

From the context of this thread it seems clear to me that Trad means 2, not 1.

Me too.

 

[zoo22]

I see you added a sentence.

I suppose it depends on how we are understanding the word "tendency." It could mean:

1. "I have racist tendencies" means "I have a tendency to willfully engage in racist acts." or 2. "I have racist tendencies" means "I have an unintentional tendency toward racism."

From the context of this thread it seems clear to me that Trad means 2, not 1.

I think you're nuts. Trad didn't need to get into telling his fried chicken and watermelon jokes or how he likes to laugh at black people or whatnot. He draws it out. That's perfectly willful. Trad pulls this stuff all the time, tossing around things he knows will offend. He enjoys it. Telling people how he finds the Aurora shooting totally hilarious or whatever. He thinks there's a chamingness to it.

 

[Traditio]

Well, how about that sin in particular then? :chuckle:

I should. :idunno:

That said, some general points to go with this:

1. At least certain uses of the n-word are probably venial. But there are some people in this thread who think that this use constitutes solid grounds for firing someone from his job or forcing him into resignation.

For a venial sin which slightly impugns the good name of another, this person (and people of like mind) consider it proportionate to take away the guilty party's very livelihood, his whole substance, and leave him in utter disrepute.

Is that really proportionate?

2. I find it bizarre that so many people are outraged by this. It's certainly not the worst thing that I do in the course of any given day ( how fortunate and blessed would I consider myself if it were! :sigh: ), and it's definitely not the worst thing that many people do on TOL on any given day.

Sure. I may impugn the good name of another in an insubstantial way in circumstances where it isn't likely to be taken seriously. But on any given day, some members openly insult each other and attempt to give them a bad reputation in the eyes of other forum users in order to get people to dislike and shun them.

To my understanding, those are not venial sins (at least in terms of the due matter).

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't. I'm familiar with what you wrote, and again I think it's mostly assertion.

An interesting assertion, but mistaken. I set out my objections again in the last. They didn't bear much resemblance to your familiarity.

Feel free to explain one of those quotes with an actual argument, if possible with numbered steps and clear premises.

To what purpose, given? Else, I've already set out an objection to usage from origin. You likely missed it looking for all that angry, repetitive declaration about slurs in private, no doubt.

It should conclude with the idea that you shouldn't use the referents for racial slurs in private.

Peculiar.

 

[zippy2006]

I think you're nuts. Trad didn't need to get into telling his fried chicken and watermelon jokes or how he likes to laugh at black people or whatnot.

Actually I think fried chicken and watermelon jokes are generally innocuous. I know black people who think that is quite funny. My sister has dated a black man for years and he and his friends are quite capable of laughing at themselves.

He draws it out. That's perfectly willful. Trad pulls this stuff all the time, tossing around things he knows will offend. He enjoys it. Telling people how he finds the Aurora shooting totally hilarious or whatever. He thinks there's a chamingness to it.

That's true, I'm not denying that he is unfortunately attached to shock value.

But when Trad said he has racist tendencies I don't think he was referring to these things you are noting. He was referring to his quiet assumptions about black people based on cultural norms. Ebonics, for example. He doesn't like the way black people tend to speak. He was, among other things, raising some curious issues about racism vs legitimate cultural pet peeves. I think it's an interesting topic. :idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

Feel free to explain one of those quotes with an actual argument, if possible with numbered steps and clear premises.

To what purpose, given?

Or don't. (To demonstrate that you've done what you claimed you've done without begging the question via assertion)

For example:

Else, I've already set out an objection to usage from origin.

You did. It was one of the assertions I mentioned, which is why I asked for an argument. Presumably that argument would look something like this, "Words that have an origin as racial slurs should not be verbalized (hence private use) at all." That's one of the least convincing things I've ever heard. :idunno:

But Trad fulfilled my request and put an end to that part of the conversation. :up:

 

[zoo22]

Actually I think fried chicken and watermelon jokes are generally innocuous. I know black people who think that is quite funny. My sister has dated a black man for years and he and his friends are quite capable of laughing at themselves.

Sure. Some people also call each other fat whore and think it's funny, but it's not something you toss around as if everyone does.

That's true, I'm not denying that he is unfortunately attached to shock value.

But when Trad said he has racist tendencies I don't think he was referring to these things you are noting. He was referring to his quiet assumptions about black people based on cultural norms. Ebonics, for example. He doesn't like the way black people tend to speak. He was, among other things, raising some curious issues about racism vs legitimate cultural pet peeves. I think it's an interesting topic. :idunno:

When Trad or whoever starts laughing about how much thy likes to say n*****, the conversation isn't about quiet assumptions anymore.

 

[Town Heretic]

...You did. It was one of the assertions I mentioned, which is why I asked for an argument.

You had one, if not spoon fed. I gave him credit for knowing the origin of the term. Do you need its history? So the word, created by slave holders, used to dehumanize and distance long past the point of human traffic, isn't the sort of word that belongs in the mouth of someone who should love his neighbor.

Presumably...

a reasonably well educated fellow wouldn't need a diagram. And he didn't.

That's one of the least convincing things I've ever heard. :idunno:

Then you're being irrational and I can't help you with that, to match you.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure. Some people also call each other fat whore and think it's funny, but it's not something you toss around as if everyone does.

Well if you think calling someone a fat whore is qualitatively similar to saying they enjoy fried chicken or watermelon, I think you're very confused. :idunno:

When Trad or whoever starts laughing about how much thy likes to say n*****, the conversation isn't about quiet assumptions anymore.

Anna made a point about Trad himself admitting he has racist tendencies. You took up that point, but have conflated a number of things Trad did not mean by "racist tendencies." You're simply not staying on topic:

Anna: Trad admitted he has racist tendencies, therefore his act is willful
zip: By "tendencies" I think he meant definition 2, not 1
zoo: Using the n-word in private is a willful act
zip: But it isn't what Trad meant when he admitted he has racist tendencies. So it's a different topic and it doesn't really have anything to do with my response to Anna...? :idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

You had one, if not spoon fed. I gave him credit for knowing the origin of the term. Do you need its history? So the word, created by slave holders, used to dehumanize and distance long past the point of human traffic, isn't the sort of word that belongs in the mouth of someone who should love his neighbor.

It's a poor argument. There are lots of ancient words with hateful origins. That is not in itself an argument to avoid the syntactic string of letters.

I think Trad gave a much better argument.

My point is that the vagueness with which you write does not accomplish what you expect it to accomplish, and I think this is a good example of that fact. Give the next fellow the benefit of the doubt and make your argument more explicit.