Founder of Papa John's used the n-word

[fast]

He didn't use any words to demean anyone and that's the entire point of racial epithets; to demean human beings.

Wait, he used a racial epithet, one which exists to demean people, but he did not use it to demean people... So, what, it doesn't count and he didn't casually use a racial epithet?

The word "nigger" has six letters in it. That's not an example of using the word, "nigger" but rather an example of mentioning the word, "nigger." The distinction is lost on many, and so the disdain for using the term has rolled over to mentioning the word--which goes to explain why so many people opt to mention the term in shorthand (e.g. N-word).

The term was not used in a derogatory manner by that person in the conference call, even if the term is often used in a derogatory manner. Sure, amongst the snowflakes of the world, it's wiser to simply avoid both its use and mention, but just as the appearance of impropriety doesn't imply impropriety, neither does appropriate use dissipate under the faulty notion that there's never an appropriate use.

People and their darn sensibilities. Can't even say "fart" without getting scolded for not saying "passing gas" or some such. I'm getting George Carlin flashbacks on his skit on euphemisms.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Never said he couldn't say 'the magic word.'
He can say it. Clearly, he did say it.
But now he faces the consequences of saying the word.
Which he should face, because there were ways to get the exact same message across without using the word.

Not all that sure that the message was criticizing Sanders, though. Seems more like he's being critical of today's media, holding him responsible for something that people got away with back in the dark ages.

"Modern society" is weak and lame. Some people will have a conniption over anything. He didn't use any words to demean anyone and that's the entire point of racial epithets; to demean human beings.

I'm sorry if my statement in the original post was not plainly worded enough.

If your response to an accusation of racism is to say that someone else was more racist, then you're a racist.

I hope I didn't use too many big words. The usual culprits seem to have completely missed that point from the original post, so I repeated it here.

Look, it seems that the word "racism" triggered all the conservatives and libertarians, who just happen to use the same arguments to take the same positions on the same issues, and caused everyone to stop thinking, so let's talk about something else that doesn't make the conservatives and libertarians, who just happen to use the same arguments to take the same positions on the same issues.

Person A: You're purple.
Person B: Oh yeah? Well person C is much more purple than I am!

Which of the following is true?

1. Person A is purple
2. Person A is not purple

If you are a normal person, you probably use normal logic and figured out that Person B's counterargument is essentially an admission that he is purple, but attempted to deflect using a tu quoque fallacy.

If you are a conservative or libertarian, who just happen to use the same arguments to take the same positions on the same issues, then you conclude that #2 is true, because person C being purple causes person B to stop being purple. That's just how logic works for conservatives and libertarians, who just happen to use the same arguments to take the same positions on the same issues.

Hey, Underseer, you are wrong. You did not make a vague op. Your op was worded quite well and was straightforward. I comprehended it. But it is amazing that conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different) keep focusing on the n-word. You even told them not to. Your painstaking rewording of the op argument might be in vain.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He didn't use any words to demean anyone and that's the entire point of racial epithets; to demean human beings.

Wait, he used a racial epithet, one which exists to demean people, but he did not use it to demean people... So, what, it doesn't count and he didn't casually use a racial epithet?

Yeah, it is stupid to get upset over taboo language when clearly there is no demeaning meant. Freaking out over use of the words just make them more powerful. That's where the magic comes from.

But that's just it. It's taboo language.
It's not just the demeaning that's taboo. It's the word that's taboo.
And, really, however much we may wish that people wouldn't have 'conniptions' over the word, it'd be damned foolish to pretend he could not have known that people might, or would, have just that reaction to the word.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The word "nigger" has six letters in it. That's not an example of using the word, "nigger" but rather an example of mentioning the word, "nigger."

Oh, Jesus fuck.

You used the word nigger. That is EXACTLY an example of using the word nigger. That's what 'using' means. It's the subject of your sentence, rather than an address to an individual, but you did fucking use the fucking word. A word that upsets people. A word that any goddamned adult knows, or should know, or could be reasonably expected to know, is an offensive word all by itself.

Saying that 'the n-bomb has six letters WOULD BE an example of mentioning the word, without actually using the word.

The distinction is lost on many,

Maybe because it's a pretty shit distinction.

The term was not used in a derogatory manner by that person in the conference call, even if the term is often used in a derogatory manner.

Except that USING THE WORD is derogatory.

Sure, amongst the snowflakes of the world, it's wiser to simply avoid both its use and mention, but just as the appearance of impropriety doesn't imply impropriety,

Actually, the appearance of impropriety DOES imply impropriety. It isn't conclusive proof of impropriety, but it does imply it.
If one sees the appearance of impropriety, one could be expected to infer impropriety. It would not be a great illogical leap to suspect impropriety.

neither does appropriate use dissipate under the faulty notion that there's never an appropriate use.

Ah.
Appropriate use.

One day on this forum, i posted a comment about politicians being retards. Someone who feels very strongly about protecting disadvantaged children from that word sent me a message. To try to convince me that i should consider 'retard' a taboo word, he asked how i would feel if he referred to my children as 'nigger-lovers.'
I did not get anywhere near as upset about that as he was about 'retard.'
For one, as i told him, the proper conjugation for my kids would be 'niggers,' while i would be the 'nigger-lover.'
And for the other, he'd just told me that it was okay to use 'taboo' words if you're making a point.
SO, i was going to let the retard comment stand, and will probably use it again some day.

Thing is, your opinion that there might be appropriate use for the word does not change the fact that some people WILL insist that there's never an appropriate use.
Such people are a fact of life, no matter how much you consider it to be a faulty notion.
The OP used a taboo word. He offended people.
Some people here think the offended people over reacted.
Those people will say that some people here underreact.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He didn't use any words to demean anyone and that's the entire point of racial epithets; to demean human beings.

Wait, he used a racial epithet, one which exists to demean people, but he did not use it to demean people... So, what, it doesn't count and he didn't casually use a racial epithet?

Yeah, it is stupid to get upset over taboo language when clearly there is no demeaning meant. Freaking out over use of the words just make them more powerful. That's where the magic comes from.

Questioner: What are we doing about the alt-right cuddling up with us?
Papa John: The Colonel said nigger all the time and KFC didn't get protested.
Questioner: ???

 

[prideandfall]

Except that USING THE WORD is derogatory.

wait... if that's the case, wouldn't both the word "niggardly" and the country of Niger pretty much be automatically derogatory?

if you utilize a combination of throat contractions and mouth movements to force air through a compressed tube resulting in a specific sound and that sound is inherent in-and-of-itself without context or rationalization 'derogatory' then haven't you basically just either taken a massive shit all over the concept of language, and/or gone full-blown thought police?

i don't mean this completely hyperbolically though by the nature of the rhetorical it kind of comes across that way, but i have to say that i find the idea of classifying a sound as necessarily derogatory to be sort of horrifying.

 

[laughing dog]

Except that USING THE WORD is derogatory.

wait... if that's the case, wouldn't both the word "niggardly" and the country of Niger pretty much be automatically derogatory?

No, because there is no history of those words being used to demean and degrade a group of people.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Except that USING THE WORD is derogatory.

wait... if that's the case, wouldn't both the word "niggardly" and the country of Niger pretty much be automatically derogatory?

People have had to apologize for causing racial offense when they used the word "niggardly."

 

[laughing dog]

The term was not used in a derogatory manner by that person in the conference call, even if the term is often used in a derogatory manner.

Really? You think
“Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s,” Schnatter allegedly said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash. " is not racially insensitive?

Sure, amongst the snowflakes of the world

Coming from someone who approves of people clearly wasting the time of the police every time they get scared by a black person, that is hilarious. i

 

[fast]

The term was not used in a derogatory manner by that person in the conference call, even if the term is often used in a derogatory manner.

Really? You think
“Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s,” Schnatter allegedly said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash. " is not racially insensitive?

Sure, amongst the snowflakes of the world

Coming from someone who approves of people clearly wasting the time of the police every time they get scared by a black person, that is hilarious. i

I don't think it's true that he was complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash. That's a biased interpretation. Inaccurate word choice. Misleads the reader.

I do think he was racially insensitive overall as he escalated tensions through vivid harsh comparative detail. Remember, he was trying to minimize what he had done by contrasting it to the horrors of yesteryear. In his mind, the worst he made it sound of what others had done, the less significant his part was. He got carried away. He spoke of people being dragged to their deaths.

 

[prideandfall]

Except that USING THE WORD is derogatory.

wait... if that's the case, wouldn't both the word "niggardly" and the country of Niger pretty much be automatically derogatory?

No, because there is no history of those words being used to demean and degrade a group of people.

that doesn't matter, because keith was saying that the specific configuration of air pressure hitting eardrums was in and of itself inherently and necessarily derogatory regardless of the context - or at least, that's what his post sounded like he was saying, which is what i was questioning.

 

[ZiprHead]

And Papa John has resigned.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except that USING THE WORD is derogatory.

wait... if that's the case, wouldn't both the word "niggardly" and the country of Niger pretty much be automatically derogatory?

if you utilize a combination of throat contractions and mouth movements to force air through a compressed tube resulting in a specific sound and that sound is inherent in-and-of-itself without context or rationalization 'derogatory' then haven't you basically just either taken a massive shit all over the concept of language, and/or gone full-blown thought police?

i don't mean this completely hyperbolically though by the nature of the rhetorical it kind of comes across that way, but i have to say that i find the idea of classifying a sound as necessarily derogatory to be sort of horrifying.

People have heard those sounds and been offended. Of course, they weren't offended by 'those sounds' exactly, as much as when they heard it, their brains interpreted those sounds into offensive words.

When my son was 5, we got out of the car and i asked him, 'did you lock that door?' Kinda clipped off the verb. Came out "D'ju lock"

Guy on the sidewalk srarted giving me a whole ration of shit for racism. Turned out, he thought i was telling the kid to put the Jew-lock on the door.

So, it's not THE SOUND that offebds, it's what the listener's brains do with it.
And some will always find it offensive.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

And Papa John has resigned.

From everything: the PJ board, and the U of Louisville Board of Trustees. I wonder what else he'll resign from. I wonder what job SCROTUS will give him.

 

[ZiprHead]

And Papa John has resigned.

From everything: the PJ board, and the U of Louisville Board of Trustees. I wonder what else he'll resign from. I wonder what job SCROTUS will give him.

Whitehouse Head Chef.

Maybe he should just lay back on all the wealth he got from his exploited employees and shut the hell up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder what else he'll resign from. I wonder what job SCROTUS will give him.

Not a job.

FFvC is busy trying to find the boundaries of his pardon power.

If they let Papa John back into the business, they can offer a Pardon Pizza Special. Order two Large meat-lovers during any NFL game, while the national anthem is playing, and receive a free Presidential Pardon, good anywhere in the United States, useful for any federal crime or any accusation of racism that reaches the national media.

Offer void in Hawaii; for Crooked Hillary; or any White House employee who was fired by tweet.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maybe he should just lay back on all the wealth he got from his exploited employees and shut the hell up.

Bingo! That is actually what is going on here. Papa John's is suffering huge financial losses while competitors such as Domino's are experiencing financial gains. Part of this has to do with smart marketing strategies, advertising, not just expansion. This guy already resigned as CEO after saying something stupid, but that wasn't really why he resigned, it was more like it was just additional bad marketing and unpopularity thrown on top of the financial mismanagement. Likewise, this is just more of the same. The absurd things he says is just an out and a way to ease public perception. He will still be owner making big bucks, but just won't be the chairman and he shouldn't be. A good businessman has to not say stupid things in public but moreover has to have some good strategies and leadership in making the bucks. So now, yeah, he has to sit back and let some other people take the reins on the business. He's still a gazillionaire and will make money off of others' labor and gross pizza.

 

[laughing dog]

No, because there is no history of those words being used to demean and degrade a group of people.

that doesn't matter, because keith was saying that the specific configuration of air pressure hitting eardrums was in and of itself inherently and necessarily derogatory regardless of the context - or at least, that's what his post sounded like he was saying, which is what i was questioning.

Your interpretation fits if one is in a vacuum. We aren't. The word has a historical context.

 

[prideandfall]

No, because there is no history of those words being used to demean and degrade a group of people.

that doesn't matter, because keith was saying that the specific configuration of air pressure hitting eardrums was in and of itself inherently and necessarily derogatory regardless of the context - or at least, that's what his post sounded like he was saying, which is what i was questioning.

Your interpretation fits if one is in a vacuum. We aren't. The word has a historical context.

which is irrelevant to the broader philosophical question of whether or not a sound can be made in your throat without it being necessarily and inherently derogatory.
that's why i asked what keith meant, because his post i was replying to seemed to me like he was suggesting that making the throat noise was the same thing as shouting that word at someone, which if that is the case i find absurd.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your interpretation fits if one is in a vacuum. We aren't. The word has a historical context.

which is irrelevant to the broader philosophical question of whether or not a sound can be made in your throat without it being necessarily and inherently derogatory.
that's why i asked what keith meant, because his post i was replying to seemed to me like he was suggesting that making the throat noise was the same thing as shouting that word at someone, which if that is the case i find absurd.

In Papa John's context, it wasn't harmless. He was asked specifically about how his NFL comments have harmed the company (they lost the sponsorship deal with the NFL), and his response was that the Colonel said the n-word all the time and KFC was fine. He clearly has no idea that he, himself is harming the brand. He inserted politics into his brand and it hurt them. And his defense was The Colonel said the n-word.