Eden Prairie Coach

Donate To GopherHole
Gopherfan84 said:
We disagree on the complexity. I don’t think I need access to the word (along with plenty of others) period so I find it relatively simple.
I also think Flom is sincerely apologetic. Maybe you know him better than me though.
Click to expand...
I don't know him at all.

You think there are other words that are more complex than the n-word on when and who can use it under what circumstances? I really don't think you do.

Do you think Leonardo DiCaprio should have to apologize for using it in Django?
Do you think the coach at Eden Prairie should have to apologize?
Do you think an African American rapper should have to apologize for using it?

Now, I'm not disagreeing with however you come down on these questions, I'm just saying that it's a nuanced rationale. The most nuanced analysis has to be given to this word than any other word in the English language.
 

Gophers_4life said:
No whites want to say the word.

It is perfectly legitimate to question why anyone should get to say it, if it's so bad for whites to say it.


Completely false argument to pretend that only those who want to say that will present those challenges, and is nothing more than a fake way to dismiss the challenge.
Click to expand...
Some do.

As much as I think it's a nuanced analysis, I also think there are people who just want to say awful things. Just like there are men who want to describe women using awful words and people of other races that want to say awful words.

There definitely is a portion of the population that does just want to hurt people. It's why it's nuanced.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Some do.

As much as I think it's a nuanced analysis, I also think there are people who just want to say awful things. Just like there are men who want to describe women using awful words and people of other races that want to say awful words.

There definitely is a portion of the population that does just want to hurt people. It's why it's nuanced.
Click to expand...
I'm only addressing the idea of "some should get to use it, because made up reason X, Y, and Z" vs "it's a hateful word born out of hatred and false categorization, therefore it should never be used by anyone".

Is it really nuance? Or is it "make it up on the spot, based on whims and gut feelings"?

Agree there will always be some hateful people.
 

GopherPlaya said:
If you don't say the word, you shouldn't worry about who can say it. So many people are focused on the wrong thing. Don't put yourself in that situation, period. Flom could have gotten that point across without saying the word. To act like he is being unfairly persecuted doesn't make sense. He messed up, faced the consequences, and won't make the same mistake again. No reason to make this any more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

I don't do a lot of things that are complicated. I've never had an abortion but I can understand it's a complicated issue. I've never been a part of domestic violence, but I understand it's a complicated situation.

Do you need to be personally impacted by a situation to understand it's complexity? If that's true (which I don't think it is), you are either incredibly dumb or lack any and all empathy.

You think I made it complicated? GTFO. I didn't make these rules. I don't even disagree with some of them. I'm more disagreeing with anyone who says it's "not complicated". It is extremely complicated even if it isn't personally complicated for me.

You can make these rules all you want - - "Don't say it, period." "It's not complicated, period." But that's exactly the point. You require complete and utter capitulation to ever evolving nuanced analysis surrounding 1 word. It's insanity.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I'm only addressing the idea of "some should get to use it, because made up reason X, Y, and Z" vs "it's a hateful word born out of hatred and false categorization, therefore it should never be used by anyone".

Is it really nuance? Or is it "make it up on the spot, based on whims and gut feelings"?

Agree there will always be some hateful people.
Click to expand...
I think it's nuanced. I think a ton of language is nuanced.

I do think it's different when two black guys are saying it to each other than if I said it. Unlike some of the folks on this thread, I would never tell other people what they can or cannot say and some people within that culture seem to want to say it.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Unlike some of the folks on this thread, I would never tell other people what they can or cannot say and some people within that culture seem to want to say it.
Click to expand...
But you do agree that some people are allowed to tell some kinds of other people that they cannot say it. Or is that wrong?
 

Gophers_4life said:
But you do agree that some people are allowed to tell some kinds of other people that they cannot say it. Or is that wrong?
Click to expand...
Well, I mean, it depends upon are "allowed". I don't think anyone should get thrown in jail for saying anything.

As far as losing a job, I think you should be able to be fired for saying certain things but that's a nuanced analysis. It doesn't just compromise a list of words of which you have strict liability against using. A method like that leads to an insane set of rules (like our current rules) where we hope that these rules essentially take care of the nuance for us.
 

gopherinatl said:
This is the argument from white dudes who badly want to use the n-word and this is how they justify it.
Click to expand...
It's actually an argument of principle, which there are two in this situation, but the second one is the important one:
  1. If the word is bad it is bad. I hate the word, I don't say it, and believe no one should say it, and would be happy if the word went extinct.
  2. Second principle is we should all be treated equally, which means the same laws and rules for all. We should all be able to drink from the same water fountain. When you rationalize away this principle this is how you get segregation, because that is what it is. The left loves segregation, they just implement it in new forms as much as they can and then try to convince you that it is good.
I hate segregation and its racist mindset, but some love to dress segregation up into a principle of altruism, they rationalize it and convince themselves that treating people differently based upon race is a good thing, it's not. A lot of people have done very bad things through history based on these types of rationalizations. Defeating these segregations, be it physical, mental, or otherwise are important to ultimately defeating the ideas of segregation and its growth. Once you allow segregation in one aspect, there is no way to stop it from spreading.

So your argument is one of a person who loves racial segregation.
 

OK. Thanks for the honest and open posts, Bob. :)


For myself: I have zero desire to ever use the word, and I want it to be that no one ever uses the word.


While it's obvious what the very simple, basic intention is: descendants of slaves should get to use the word with impunity, and descendants of slave owners should never get to use the word in any situation ever.

That's what, like 20-30% of the population of the country??


I'm white as can be .... and my ancestors came to the US only three generations ago from Scandinavia. They never owned slaves. (Unless I suppose if you go all the way back to Vikings??)

Or, if you have dark skin from any other of the numerous places in the world where that is common, but you are not descended from slaves.

Etc.


All that said, it's absolutely worthless word. It was invented solely to convey hatred, with no other valid purpose.

It really should be stricken from society in a going-forward sense, while preserving the history.
 



Gopher Teeth said:
It's actually an argument of principle, which there are two in this situation, but the second one is the important one:
  1. If the word is bad it is bad. I hate the word, I don't say it, and believe no one should say it, and would be happy if the word went extinct.
  2. Second principle is we should all be treated equally, which means the same laws and rules for all. We should all be able to drink from the same water fountain. When you rationalize away this principle this is how you get segregation, because that is what it is. The left loves segregation, they just implement it in new forms as much as they can and then try to convince you that it is good.
I hate segregation and its racist mindset, but some love to dress segregation up into a principle of altruism, they rationalize it and convince themselves that treating people differently based upon race is a good thing, it's not. A lot of people have done very bad things through history based on these types of rationalizations. Defeating these segregations, be it physical, mental, or otherwise are important to ultimately defeating the ideas of segregation and its growth. Once you allow segregation in one aspect, there is no way to stop it from spreading.

So your argument is one of a person who loves racial segregation.
Click to expand...
Great post.

Race isn't even a real thing. It has no basis in biology. It's not akin to species and so on.

It was concocted to allow people to justify in their minds making other people be slaves.
 

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Except that it really should say: Do unto others the way they want to be done unto. E.g., it's fine for you to show me an image of a Muslim prophet, but it's not fine to show a Muslim - show some empathy in understanding people are different. Empathy is not segregation.
 

GopherPlaya said:
If you don't say the word, you shouldn't worry about who can say it. So many people are focused on the wrong thing. Don't put yourself in that situation, period. Flom could have gotten that point across without saying the word. To act like he is being unfairly persecuted doesn't make sense. He messed up, faced the consequences, and won't make the same mistake again. No reason to make this any more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
Accepting/not worrying that some can say it will only perpetuate the use of derogatory language and racial slurs. Is that the goal? Or is the goal to end those? If we’re trying to end those then it needs to be unacceptable for all.
 

formerlybis said:
Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Except that it really should say: Do unto others the way they want to be done unto. E.g., it's fine for you to show me an image of a Muslim prophet, but it's not fine to show a Muslim - show some empathy in understanding people are different. Empathy is not segregation.
Click to expand...
So you are saying Muslims can show each other a cartoon of the prophet, but if you do they can cut off your head.
 



When do we get into the topic about "Drag Brunches" and why they are popular? unfortunately, let the woke times roll....
 

Again, white person in relationship with black person may say the n- word. Is this agreed upon? cuz it seems kinda gray.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
He was convicted of physically assaulting someone while attempting to sexually assault them.

That's not enough for you to consider someone a rapist?
Click to expand...
He wasn't convicted. He plead no contest rather than having it drag out many more months and risk losing a he said, she said trial. I have no idea if he was guilty or innocent, but it's understandable why even an innocent person would take the deal.
 

CentralGopher said:
Accepting/not worrying that some can say it will only perpetuate the use of derogatory language and racial slurs. Is that the goal? Or is the goal to end those? If we’re trying to end those then it needs to be unacceptable for all.
Click to expand...
This.
 

howeda7 said:
He wasn't convicted. He plead no contest rather than having it drag out many more months and risk losing a he said, she said trial. I have no idea if he was guilty or innocent, but it's understandable why even an innocent person would take the deal.
Click to expand...
A no contest plea results in a conviction.

Every single person who is accused of a crime faces this identical situation. I don't know if he did it or not either, I just know he's convicted of physically assaulting someone during a sexual assault. While still on probation for that conviction, he broke a no-contact order for harassing a completely different girl.
 

two thoughts:

1. language changes as society changes. there are a lot of words that were used freely when I was growing up that are now seen as improper or wrong. WARNING - EXAMPLES - like "retard" or "cripple."

leading to the second point:

2. if you have having a discussion about social media within an educational setting - and trying to explain to young people that what you post has consequences - how do you get the point across if you can't use specific examples?

i.e. If I tell you "it's not a good idea to use objectionable words" - how is the student supposed to know which words are objectionable? because their idea of objectionable might be very different than mine.

as I understand it, that is what the EP coach was doing - reading a social media post as a specific example of what not to do.

----- and not to make light of a serious subject, but I suddenly have George Carlin in my memory bank doing the "7 words you can't say on TV" routine.....
 


Fndm
short ornery norwegian said:
two thoughts:

1. language changes as society changes. there are a lot of words that were used freely when I was growing up that are now seen as improper or wrong. WARNING - EXAMPLES - like "retard" or "cripple."

leading to the second point:

2. if you have having a discussion about social media within an educational setting - and trying to explain to young people that what you post has consequences - how do you get the point across if you can't use specific examples?

i.e. If I tell you "it's not a good idea to use objectionable words" - how is the student supposed to know which words are objectionable? because their idea of objectionable might be very different than mine.

as I understand it, that is what the EP coach was doing - reading a social media post as a specific example of what not to do.

----- and not to make light of a serious subject, but I suddenly have George Carlin in my memory bank doing the "7 words you can't say on TV" routine.....
Click to expand...
I don't think I've every met someone who had trouble conveying the N word without using it. Flom admitted he was wrong, clearly didn't need to use it and everyone is moving on.
 
Last edited:

jamiche said:
Was Mbakwe convicted of rape, barrister?
Click to expand...
Most Gopher fans celebrated when we kicked-out White & Mbakwe and sabotaged our National Championship Favorite team (although at the time, we didn't realize just how dominant they'd both be). And most Gopher fans celebrated when we kicked-out Haskins and sabotaged that era. And most Gopher fans celebrated when we kicked-out Lynch and sabotaged Pitino's best team.

That's how our fandom is.

I'm against paying for players and turning college FB & BB into a total joke...so if we stink in this NIL era, so be it. But I'm not for kicking-out eligible players & coaches.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
He was convicted of physically assaulting someone while attempting to sexually assault them.

That's not enough for you to consider someone a rapist?
Click to expand...
I just asked the question, barrister. You are our barrister, barrister. You publicly called Trevor Mbakwe a rapist, so I assumed you were very familiar with the intricacies of the situation to make that kind of a statement.
 

EasyThere Pilgrim said:
Most Gopher fans celebrated when we kicked-out White & Mbakwe and sabotaged our National Championship Favorite team (although at the time, we didn't realize just how dominant they'd both be). And most Gopher fans celebrated when we kicked-out Haskins and sabotaged that era. And most Gopher fans celebrated when we kicked-out Lynch and sabotaged Pitino's best team.

That's how our fandom is.

I'm against paying for players and turning college FB & BB into a total joke...so if we stink in this NIL era, so be it. But I'm not for kicking-out eligible players & coaches.
Click to expand...
I think it's great that they are finally getting paid something. Why should everybody else make money off of their talent and hard work? That's unAmerican.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know him at all.

You think there are other words that are more complex than the n-word on when and who can use it under what circumstances? I really don't think you do.

Do you think Leonardo DiCaprio should have to apologize for using it in Django?
Do you think the coach at Eden Prairie should have to apologize?
Do you think an African American rapper should have to apologize for using it?

Now, I'm not disagreeing with however you come down on these questions, I'm just saying that it's a nuanced rationale. The most nuanced analysis has to be given to this word than any other word in the English language.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's nuanced at all, barrister. Given the history of the word, if a white person uses it, regardless of context, it's a racial slur.
 

jamiche said:
I don't think it's nuanced at all, barrister. Given the history of the word, if a white person uses it, regardless of context, it's a racial slur.
Click to expand...
One drop law is back. Jim Crow up in here!
 
Last edited:

jamiche said:
I don't think it's nuanced at all, barrister. Given the history of the word, if a white person uses it, regardless of context, it's a racial slur.
Click to expand...
I’m really impressed that some white folks are arguing about the use of a word that was used as a slur. Almost like some got mad when the word got taken away from them in their preferred context. Most cases just upset about the loss of power (If we can’t use the word in our context, then no one can in any context).
Again for myself it’s pretty easy to just not use the word or have the want to use the word. I also could not care less if the group whom it was used to oppress uses it for themselves. Not much different than the North adopting the word Yankee, but it’s different when a southerner uses it. Lot less oppression and hurt, but similar logic.
 

Gopherfan84 said:
I’m really impressed that some white folks are arguing about the use of a word that was used as a slur. Almost like some got mad when the word got taken away from them in their preferred context. Most cases just upset about the loss of power (If we can’t use the word in our context, then no one can in any context).
Again for myself it’s pretty easy to just not use the word or have the want to use the word. I also could not care less if the group whom it was used to oppress uses it for themselves. Not much different than the North adopting the word Yankee, but it’s different when a southerner uses it. Lot less oppression and hurt, but similar logic.
Click to expand...
It's shocking but potentially generational? I grew up in a two context world with this word, managing the two contexts has never presented a problem for me as a white child or adult.
 
Last edited:

jamiche said:
I just asked the question, barrister. You are our barrister, barrister. You publicly called Trevor Mbakwe a rapist, so I assumed you were very familiar with the intricacies of the situation to make that kind of a statement.
Click to expand...
You should say barrister again.

My job really makes you feel small doesn't it? You can't help but mention it constantly.

Your assumption was correct. Broken clock thing I suppose.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom