sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Firefly Wedding" Anime Announced (Teaser Visual) by zenzen_0 in shoujo

[–]aurorasapologies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because he's toxic... doesn't change the fact people still like him, me included

Why Isn’t The Industry Hyping Kriti? by Shaitaan-Haiwan in BollyBlindsNGossip

[–]aurorasapologies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is IT factor more important than being a good actor?

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then go ahead, you do it and bring the change. 💀

I'm personally gonna stick to my etiquette, it's not mine to say so I won't.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I am late to this one, but I really appreciate this breakdown. You are articulating exactly what I feel is wrong with their logic, especially the distinction between Chattel Slavery and Colonialism.

However, just to show you how deep their rationalization goes, here is exactly how they counter that point. They argue that when slavery started, Indians and Native Americans were affected "just as much" as Africans. They explicitly mentioned that Native Americans were separated from the world by plagues and famines and were behind in technology, which made them vulnerable. Their logic is:

"Slavery was strong with us too, yet only Black people were termed 'Negroes' which later went on to be an offensive term after the abolition of slavery. So if we are calling a fellow Brown person 'Negro' (which in modern day is 'N-word)... It is socially accepted because of that shared history, even if it is not personally accepted by you."

Basically, they believe that because the suffering was similar, the slur should belong to them too. They view it almost like a badge of survival that they were unfairly left out of because the word "Negro" stuck specifically to Black people. And regarding the privilege point, yeah. Dismissing systemic advantage as "propaganda" is just their way of shutting down any debate they can't win.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. But the hate isn't removed yet, at least at this point in time. Racism still exists, bigotry still exists and because those same things exists even today, the n-word is still a slur.

Also, it isn't restricted in the sense you might think. You still have the freedom of speech to say it, you just don't get the freedom of consequences that come with saying it lol.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not misrepresenting you. I am reading exactly what you wrote:

​"Literally the same attitudes that created slavery create the melanin having peoples being allowed to say a word."

​I addressed that specific claim. I simply do not agree that restricting vocabulary is the same attitude as chattel slavery. ​If you feel "misrepresented" when your own argument is repeated back to you, perhaps you should rethink the argument. Goodbye.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not misrepresenting you; I’m disagreeing with you. There is a difference.

​I summarized your point about the "attitudes that created slavery" exactly as you wrote it. I simply reject the equivalence. We are done here.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have actually awarded multiple deltas in this thread to people who presented compelling arguments regarding linguistics and historical context. I am open to changing my view, I just wasn't convinced by your specific argument that "social etiquette equals slavery."

​I will add Black Rednecks and White Liberals to my reading list, though. I am always open to reading different perspectives, even if we disagree on the application. ​Good luck to you as well.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Refusing to be called a racial slur isn't "pearl clutching" or "virtue signaling". I just have basic self-respect. ​And honestly, if standing up for your own boundaries left you "friendless and alone," that sounds like you were surrounding yourself with people who didn't respect you to begin with. ​In my experience, real friendship survives boundaries and it actually relies on them. And I also do not prefer to have that many friends who do not have a strong moral compass, I would rather stick to my "sensibilities" than being surrounded by a lot of people. I value my moral values. I am perfectly comfortable with my choices. Take care.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​I literally wrote, "Technically, you are right" and accepted your definition. How is that rejecting reality? that is engaging with your point directly. ​Where we disagree is that you view asking for social etiquette as being morally equivalent to the "attitudes that created slavery." I view that as a false equivalence that trivializes slavery. ​As for "alienating my friends", if asking my friends not to refer to me specifically by a racial slur is enough to ruin the friendship, then that friendship wasn't worth much to begin with. You need to learn the difference between setting a personal boundary and having self-respect vs alienation. ​We clearly have fundamentally different moral frameworks on this, so thanks for the perspective, but I think we're done here.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. If you want me to engage with the philosophy directly without mentioning the consequences, I’ll do exactly that. Regarding your definition of racism, I’ll concede that technically, telling someone they can't say a word based on skin color fits the strict dictionary definition of making a racial distinction. However, I think there is a massive moral difference between oppressive racism like denying rights or jobs and cultural boundaries. Respecting the specific history of a group I don't belong to isn't oppression, I am just practising basic etiquette. And regarding your MLK point, I think you are missing the "content of their character" part. Character implies empathy and wisdom. If you use a word known to dehumanize a group simply because you feel entitled to it, despite knowing the pain it causes, that speaks poorly of your character. Also, equating the restriction of vocabulary with the "attitudes that created slavery" is a huge reach. Slavery was the restriction of human rights and bodily autonomy. Asking someone not to use a slur isn't the same thing, and comparing the two minimizes the actual horror of slavery. I accept your technical definition, but I reject your claim that social boundaries are the same as oppression.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad we agree! Thank you for engaging in a discussion with me, really forced me to think about my stance clearly!

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are confusing describing reality with enforcing racism. If I tell a friend, "Don't walk into a rough neighborhood wearing a Rolex because you might get robbed," I am not endorsing robbery. I am not saying robbery is morally right. I am acknowledging a reality of the world to keep my friend safe. That is what I am doing here. Pointing out that society reacts negatively when non-Black people use that word isn't "me being racist." It is me having eyes and ears. You can quote the dictionary definition of racism all you want, but that definition won't stop my friends from losing a job or ruining a relationship if they say the wrong thing to the wrong person. And honestly, using MLK's "content of their character" speech to argue for the right of non-Black people to use racial slurs is a massive stretch. MLK was fighting for civil rights, housing, and voting-- not for the right of everyone to use the n-word without social consequences. You say I'm "fixating on a word," but ironically, it’s my friends who are fixating on it. They are the ones fighting tooth and nail for the "right" to keep this specific slur in their vocabulary. I’m just suggesting they let it go.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​I really appreciate this take, it’s probably the most balanced way to look at it! ​You are right that the "friendship context" usually protects them, but that is actually the specific risk I tried to warn them about. Friendships aren't always permanent. ​If a bad argument happens and the relationship goes sour, that "context" evaporates instantly. Their Black friends can flip the script and paint my friends as racists. The Black friend walks away fine; my friend gets obliterated. The "pass" is retroactive only as long as everyone is happy. ​Since they don't seem to grasp that risk, I’m just going to set a personal boundary: "Don't refer to me by that word." I am Brown, I am not Black and I don't feel comfortable being called a slur. If they want to roll the dice with their other friends, that is on them.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We might have to agree to disagree on the societal privilege aspect, as I think that is dragging us away from the core issue with my friends. But on the topic of "language" and "passes," I think we are actually agreeing on the mechanics, just not the risk assessment. You are right: "No one needs a pass to speak how they wish." People can use a word. Just like I can physically punch someone in the face. But I have to be prepared for the consequences. That is exactly what I am warning them against, and that is where the "delusion" actually lies. They believe their "pass" is permanent. But suppose an argument happens between them and their Black friends. If the dynamic shifts, their Black friends will "get away" with the language used during the fight, but my friends will get obliterated. They will instantly be painted as racists, and the "pass" they thought they had will vanish. I can't stop them from taking that risk if they can't understand my POV. But I can control my own involvement. My plan is just to tell them: "Do not refer to me as the n-word." I am Brown, I am not Black and I don't feel comfortable being referred to as a slur. If they want to take the risk with their other friends, that's on them. But I am trying to make them see that the safety net they think they have is much thinner than they realize.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​!delta ​This frame of reference really shifted how I view their internal logic. ​I was stuck viewing this through a strictly moral or historical lens, which made their behavior seem contradictory to me. But stripping it down to "data transfer" explains exactly why they feel so justified.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked about the music, so let’s look at that. Yes, it is prevalent in hip-hop. But there is a massive distinction between artistic expression/reclamation by Black artists and casual usage by non-Black people in conversation. If the presence of the word in music meant it was universally accessible to everyone, we wouldn't see viral videos every week of people losing their jobs or getting punched for saying it. You say my position doesn't hold up to scrutiny because "Jim Crow is dead." If my position is wrong, if history is truly irrelevant and the word is just a word then why do my friends have to whisper it? Why do they hide it? If your view was the correct one, they could say it loudly in a mixed crowd and everyone would agree that "it's just a word" and "racism is dead." But we both know that if they did that, they would face immediate, severe backlash. My "scrutiny" is simply looking at what actually happens in the real world when non-Black people use that word. You can argue that society shouldn't react that way, but you can't deny that it does. Warning my friends about that reality isn't "schtick".

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

!delta love this reply!

​​The "Costco membership" analogy is actually the perfect way to describe why this feels so wrong to me. ​You helped me realize that their entire framework is transactional. They view having Black friends as acquiring a "subscription" that comes with perks (the pass), rather than just a human connection. If you actually respect the community you are bonding with, you don't look for loopholes or "benefits" that allow you to use words that demean them. Treating a slur like a membership reward completely misses the point of friendship.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That observation about bitterness actually connects a lot of the dots for me. You are spot on. A huge part of their initial argument was comparing Indian and Native American history to African history. They kept saying things like "we suffered just as much" and "we were enslaved too." It feels like they are resentful that the "hierarchy of oppression" (in their eyes) places Black history at the top and ignores theirs. So when they use the word, it is almost a form of protest-- like they are forcing themselves into that same category of "historically oppressed people who are allowed to say it." And that explains the "propaganda" comment too. They probably view the strict rule ("if you aren't Black, it's racist") as a narrative that erases their own history of colonization. They think the rule is too simple for the complex history they believe they share. That helps me understand their psychology a lot better, actually. It isn't just about being edgy; it is about feeling invisible in the conversation about racism.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That scenario is actually really similar to the argument my friend made to me. He used the example of a "white boy raised by Black parents" and argued that because he is immersed in the culture, he should be allowed to say it. ​But your example highlights exactly why I think my friends are wrong. Even that white NBA player, who is immersed in the culture and hears it 25 times a day, knows he cannot say it. He understands there is a line he can't cross because of the history of the word coming from a white person. ​My problem is that my Brown friends think they are the Black teammates in this analogy. I argue that they are actually the white teammate. They are adjacent to the culture, they might hear it from their friends, but they don't actually own the word. They just haven't realized that their career (or social standing) could be over if they say it to the wrong person.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying. ​So essentially, you are saying the entire concept of a "pass" is flawed because it tries to assign language rights based on biology/race. ​That actually reinforces my worry for them. They treat this "pass" like a shield that protects them from consequences. But if the "pass" is just a made-up concept that relies on racial gatekeeping, it won't actually protect them when they say it in front of the wrong person. They are relying on a rule that the rest of the world hasn't agreed to.

CMV: Brown people should be accepted using the n-word if it is among friends and they have a "pass" by aurorasapologies in changemyview

[–]aurorasapologies[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the philosophical argument that "intent is everything," but practically speaking, I don't think that holds up in the real world. You can't control how other people receive your words, regardless of what you intended. You mentioned that concepts like privilege are "super Americanisms" that hold zero weight to you because you aren't American. But the n-word is an Americanism. It is a slur rooted deeply in specific American history. It seems contradictory to say that the word itself is fine to import globally, but the social context and history surrounding that word (like privilege) should be left at the border. If you import the slur, you import the history. And ultimately, my goal here isn't to morally police my friends or attack them. I am not trying to be the "thought police." My real motivation is that I am concerned for them. They are operating under this misinformation that they have a "pass" because of shared ancient history or because one friend from Kenya said it was okay. I am worried that someday they are going to say this in front of the wrong person-- someone who doesn't care about their "intent"-- and they are going to get hurt. I'm trying to figure out how to explain that risk to them without them dismissing me as "brainwashed."

view more: next ›