Yeah, Radar had the audio

I’m just going to ask… is it ok to freely call whites “crackers” but not ok to call blacks “the N-word?” Please explain the difference.

Oink on July 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM

Also- this isn’t “racist,” and I’m sick of people twisting the word to cover anything that is even “racial.” There’s nothing inherently racist about the N word just as there’s nothing inherently racist about “cracker.”

TheBlueSite on July 10, 2010 at 1:38 AM

so weird.

eh on July 10, 2010 at 1:49 AM

i meant the two comments juxtaposed with one another. i actually think you’re more right than oink in the abstract. we should not treat words the same way we treat weapons. obviously a single word can have multiple meanings dependent on context and intent.

i think you underestimate how controversial casual use of the n-word is amongst black americans. it shows up in a lot of commercial rap, but then so does a lot of hard, gratuitous language. the 70′s-80′s argument that the n-word or the variant, “nigga” can be made beautiful, or something, when “reclaimed” as a fraternal colloquialism has lost most of it’s purchasing power. it’s treated as a swear word. there is no longer a cultural appeal in being “down” and one black person would not address a strange black person as “nigga” unless he was seeking a confrontation.

ironically, the one sure-fire way to get ordinarily averse black people to circle their wagons around the privileged use of the n-word, is for them to be lectured by a white person on what a bad word it is. and i think you can understand why. for instance, comedian paul mooney says he uses the word just because it offends white people. it offends black people that white people are offended when black people use the n-word, because it represents white people trying to control the word every bit as much as when it was used to enforce a culture of segregation and racism.

so i’d have to say that it is substantially different when a black person uses the word from when a white person uses it. further, though we could go through the specific use gibson put it to with a microscope and scalpel and explain fully why it was racist, i don’t think i’m going far out on a limb by assuming that a statement like, “you’ll be raped by a pack of n*ggers, dressed like that,” betrays some racist attitudes, along with all of the classically misogynist ones evident in his rant.

about the nature of her recording, perhaps she is not more pleasant a person than he and the recording affords her the opportunity to blend into the ether while he reveals his ugly side. so what. if gibson has any brains, we’ll soon be treated to testimony of her ugly side. it doesn’t make his ugly side pretty.

oink, i thought was altogether off-base, but then, i don’t know whether naurutoboy had ever defended or minimalized in contrast the sentiment that “cracker babies” should be killed. i suspect he hasn’t and this is just some stock challenge oink throws out whenever someone has the temerity to be offended by racist speech or behavior.

the challenge is something to the effect of, “how can you ever say this is wrong without simultaneously disclaiming this other, superficially analogous thing as wrong?” it’s a topic-changing reaction and the hidden purpose is to sabotage discussion of the first thing.

the tragic thing is that i’m sure that both oink and naurutoboy object morally to both the n-word and the c-word in somewhat similar proportions (everyone, whether they admit so in presentation or not, recognizes that the n-word is inherently a much “worse” word than the c-word for the obvious reason that black people never availed themselves of the apparatuses of the majority culture, including the state, to violently deprive whites as a group of their natural born rights, and never will). but they must pretend that this isn’t so – that one is nobly defending the group standing innocently in the firing line of the other. this is how we talk past one another on matters concerning race and never really discuss anything.

eh on July 10, 2010 at 3:08 AM

i don’t understand why people are so keen on defending gibson. he made one movie about jesus once. i’m not saying his other movies were all crap, but why stake a position on this at all?

his remarks are indefensible. the legalistic nonsense about whether it’s a bit shady to record and release a private conversation absolutely pales in comparison to the fact that and man in these comments would KILL the sonofabitch who spoke to his sister the way gibson spoke to this woman.

and consider the context. we’re all here at hotair.com. conservative site. …y’all are going to give gibson the acorn defense? “secretly recording conversations is wrong, i say!”

so i gotta ask: just because he made one lousy jesus movie?

eh on July 10, 2010 at 3:26 AM

i don’t understand why people are so keen on defending gibson. he made one movie about jesus once. i’m not saying his other movies were all crap, but why stake a position in his defense at all?

his remarks are indefensible. the legalistic nonsense about whether it’s a bit shady to record and release a private conversation absolutely pales in comparison to the fact that and man in these comments would KILL the boy who spoke to his sister the way gibson spoke to this woman.

and consider the context. we’re all here at hotair. conservative site. …y’all are going to give gibson the acorn defense? “secretly recording conversations is wrong, i say!”

so i gotta ask: just because he made one lousy jesus movie?

eh on July 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM

As for Gibson, he’s a foul-mouthed, bad tempered drunk.

Hardly unique.

OldEnglish on July 10, 2010 at 3:43 AM

agreed.

i suppose different people take different things from a given thing. for the sensationalist hacks, it’s his use of the n-word. for me, i immediately started considering the possibility that gibson has on occasion hit this woman very hard. the things he was saying were classic wife-beater talk.

others, inexplicably, think the worst part of this is that the lady pulled an o’keefe on gibson.

eh on July 10, 2010 at 3:51 AM