[Open Discussions] "Negro" and "Oriental" removed from (US) Federal Laws

Jamie Stick wrote: [
Secondly, the First Amendment is not a "say whatever you want and get away with it"-card. That's foolishness. If you call me a tranny to my face, I will break your nose and then some. The First Amendment is there to protect the people, press, and other institutions from being censored by the government. It's meant to allow criticism and dialogue about the government happen without fear of reprisal from the government.

Yes you are right the first amendment protects from government intervention only. However simply because someone says something you find offensive does not give you the right to enact violence. To do so shows a lack of emotional control and is criminal. Too many people wish to criminalize language or respond to things they do not like with violence to allow such a statement to stand uncontested.

OB1Shinobi wrote: to be perfectly honest i dont think it matters in the least if someone gets the fraction wrong in this sort of conversation; what i am pointing out is that the american govt never took the postion that slaves only count as "such and such" percentage of a human - as if to say they were not fully developed human beings

the govt never did that
each state is allowed to send x number of people to congress

the exact number depends on the states population: the more people who live in the state, the more people that the state can send to congress

the more people a state has in congress, the more congressional influence that particular state will have

the idea is that the people of the state elect the state representatives, and these representatives then go to congress and represent the will of the people who elected them

southern slave owners wanted their slaves to count so that their states could have more congressmen, and therefore more political influence, but northern states argued that slaves dont elect their masters, nor do the masters represent the slaves interest - the accountability isnt there

this "such and such percentage" compromise was enacted to keep slave owners from havingmore congressional power as a consequence of having more slaves

im not saying that you, Senan, dont understand all this btw, i just want to be sure and spell it out very clearly because this is one of those history moments that people often misunderstand and misrepresent (and it is actually a little weird) to mean something more nefarious than what the real motivations behind it actually were

anyway, i still consider this new bill to be a token gesture, because no one in america says says "negro" or "oriental" anymore so its not changing anything, really

all the bill does is officially acknowledge a change that has already happened

and those terms were not offensive in their time, anyway

now, i do agree with the sentiment behind the gesture- i hope no one misunderstands me about that- so i am supportive of this.
but i would much rather see better funding for schools in low income neighborhoods or a resolution to build organic community gardens in districts living below the poverty line

those are things that would actually help to improve peoples lives

This is an accurate description of what happened and I agree that I made it sound like it was intended to be uber-racist when at the time it probably had more to do with economics and politics. I will be more careful when trying to use thios example in the future.

Looking back on it from my perspective now though, there is something to be learned from it about how we can be racist without intending to be. I feel like these men were overlooking a very important dynamic of that conversation. It took place in a room full of rich white men who were considering human beings as things to be counted. The things being counted were not represented in the room, nor would they have any representation in Congress. If slaves were to be considered less valuable than a white person and have no right to vote anyway, why count them at all? They needed to be because it would impact the power balance between the states. They had to decide who would get to send the most rich white people to Congress. This was a necessary part of the debate at the time, but the entire debate was framed by the obvious systemic racism that allowed slavery to even exist in the first place.

I don't think those delegates would have any reason to think the way I do considering their time and circumstances, but I hope we can learn the lessons from it.

Thank you, OB1, for making me clarify the point I've been failing to make

MadHatter wrote: However simply because someone says something you find offensive does not give you the right to enact violence. To do so shows a lack of emotional control

Nah, it just means I will not tolerate bullshit. I could not break a person's nose, but they deserve it. Just because you're accustomed to people not hitting you for the stupid things you say doesn't mean that when a person does they've lost control. Maybe they are in control and their choice to smack you into last week was a calculated response to foolishness coming out of your mouth. That's my approach: calculated response to foolishness.

MadHatter wrote: and is criminal.

What is legal is rarely a good standard for what is right.

MadHatter wrote: Too many people wish to criminalize language or respond to things they do not like with violence to allow such a statement to stand uncontested.

I have no desire to legislate the word tranny. I want you to know that if you say it to my face, I will break your nose and then some. Furthermore, I'd like to get a point where people fight for my rights as ardently as they do for their right to treat me like shit with the words they use.

Jamie Stick wrote: Again advocates violence over words

So should Christians start to be violent against LGBT people and atheists when they insult their religion? Should they " not tolerate our BS?" Violence over words unless they are a threat of violence is a sign of weakness. Its a sign that someone gives some much of their power over to other peoples words that they cant defeat them with words or just walk off. So all that is left is the posturing and territorial attacks of a challenged animal. Its criminal and for good reasons. Words are not a threat to you. Words have the power you willingly give them. I have been short my entire life and bullied for it. And you know what I have found? I am happier then my bullies because they cannot hurt me with their words so the hurt and hate just poisons them from the inside out.

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Again advocates violence over words

Shut up, Cracker.

See, I'm using my words!

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Again advocates violence over words

Shut up, Cracker.

See, I'm using my words!

No that is just a bigoted insult that hold no merit other then the last gasp of a poor argument. Its not using words any more then a child going " yea well ummm your mom" is. Its a sign that you can't refute what is said with logic so insult and attack is all that is left. Frankly I would think you better then this. Because from what I have seen any other time you could at least manage logic and facts to back you up even if I dont agree with the logic or the validity of the facts they at least existed.

The truth is that words don't work.

They didn't work against the guy who slapped my ass.

They didn't work against the guy who yelled at me, "WHAT ARE YOU?" on the subway on my way home.

They didn't work against the guy who followed me yelling, "Are you some kind of faggot?" on my way to the grocery store.

They didn't work against the pair of guys who yelled at me on my way to pick up some cleaning supplies.

Words work with the willing, but with others it requires a more calculated response. Which are you?

I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Jamie Stick wrote: The truth is that words don't work.

They didn't work against the guy who slapped my ass.

They didn't work against the guy who yelled at me, "WHAT ARE YOU?" on the subway on my way home.

They didn't work against the guy who followed me yelling, "Are you some kind of faggot?" on my way to the grocery store.

They didn't work against the pair of guys who yelled at me on my way to pick up some cleaning supplies.

Words work with the willing, but with others it requires a more calculated response. Which are you?

Someone laying hands on you is not words. Someone laying hands on you is assault and is worthy of the exact same response. That is self defense. Using violence against mean words however is criminal and unethical. You can cite all the examples of mean things you have heard in your life, trust me I have heard similar myself and guess what? It still does not warrant a response of violence. Who is more foolish the bigoted fool that spouts insults? Or the fool that allows the insult to impact their day, never mind the fool that allows it to move them to violence. Giving peoples words that much power over you is foolish. Its that simple. I mean really if you have been on the internet as long as most of us here have there is nothing that has not been said to you before. And so what? They are braying donkeys venting their own inner ignorance, pain, hate, or any other number of personal "illnesses" on others to feel better. Why again would you let them move you at all, let alone move you to violence. At best they are pitiable, at worst laughable. In short I use words when words are thrown at me IF I am even bothered enough to respond. Most of the time I laugh as it says more about the person tossing insults then me.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I don't advocate violence. But I do think that if you're going to hold to your 1st amendment right to say what you want to whom you want, you also accept the consequences of saying what you want, either immediately, or eventually.

Yes a foul response can be expected at some point. But it doesnt make it smart, or right.

MadHatter, I'm going to have to bow out. I can't with you tonight. I don't feel as though you've heard a word I said much less that you care that I've lived through this stuff. You say you've had similar experiences, but your lack of a heart speaks to the contrary.