We read:
1). "most reviled words in the English language". Reviled in the current U.S. climate of PC hysteria would be more accurate. We DO speak English in Australia but the High Court of Australia recently ruled that the word is not offensive at all in Australia.
2). The loophole that you can avoid penalty by claiming that you used the word affectionately is fun. Can whites use that defence? And if whites are disbelieved while blacks ARE believed, is that racism? And what if a black uses the word abusively? How do you prove that? Or don't you try? And is THAT racism?
3). Why ban just one "reviled" word? What about the c-word, the f-word etc. Is not singling out just one racial word racism? And too bad there's nothing about calling a white man a "cracka", eh?
4). Anybody using the word in writing would be smart to spell it with a single "g", as "niger" is simply the Latin word for black and even Brazoria, Texas, is unlikely to ban Latin.
5). I occasionally refer to people of sub-Saharan African ancestry as "negroes" but I believe that that word is "offensive" too in America. Should that word be banned too? It IS, however, the scientific term -- though Leftists would say that there is NO scientific term for people of African ancestry. But I wonder how people of African ancestry can be given special preferences ("affirmative action") if they cannot be scientifically described?
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)
"It's one of the most reviled words in the English language, but if one Texas mayor gets his way, getting caught uttering the "N-word" will hit offenders where it hurts. Mayor Ken Corley of Brazoria, Texas, has proposed a city ordinance that would make using the word in an offensive fashion a crime equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500. But legal experts said it's unlikely the law will stand up to the First Amendment....A number of comments:
Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.
Source
1). "most reviled words in the English language". Reviled in the current U.S. climate of PC hysteria would be more accurate. We DO speak English in Australia but the High Court of Australia recently ruled that the word is not offensive at all in Australia.
2). The loophole that you can avoid penalty by claiming that you used the word affectionately is fun. Can whites use that defence? And if whites are disbelieved while blacks ARE believed, is that racism? And what if a black uses the word abusively? How do you prove that? Or don't you try? And is THAT racism?
3). Why ban just one "reviled" word? What about the c-word, the f-word etc. Is not singling out just one racial word racism? And too bad there's nothing about calling a white man a "cracka", eh?
4). Anybody using the word in writing would be smart to spell it with a single "g", as "niger" is simply the Latin word for black and even Brazoria, Texas, is unlikely to ban Latin.
5). I occasionally refer to people of sub-Saharan African ancestry as "negroes" but I believe that that word is "offensive" too in America. Should that word be banned too? It IS, however, the scientific term -- though Leftists would say that there is NO scientific term for people of African ancestry. But I wonder how people of African ancestry can be given special preferences ("affirmative action") if they cannot be scientifically described?
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment