Founder of Papa John's used the n-word

[laughing dog]

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.

I think it obvious you misinterpreted his post. Perhaps Keith and Co. will confirm that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Why should we care? If people are going to go out of their way to take offense and be cry bullies, that is their fault, not ours. At some point the burden of social condemnation needs to be on the reactionary. Magic words used in non-derogatory context is a good place to start. Perceived use where you didn't even say the magic words is an even better place to start.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Why should we care? If people are going to go out of their way to take offense and be cry bullies, that is their fault, not ours. At some point the burden of social condemnation needs to be on the reactionary. Magic words used in non-derogatory context is a good place to start. Perceived use where you didn't even say the magic words is an even better place to start.

Abracadabra is a magic word, nigger is not. Schattner's use was deragotory in nature - he was whining why someone who died almost 40 years ago got away with saying something deratory about blacks while he did not.

A good place to start is to not excuse this type of behavior with euphemisms and context-free apologia.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So quoting other people saying bad things is wrong? That's interesting.

This could have severe implications on defamation cases.
"He called me an xxx"
"OMG, you said the word xxx"
"OMG, now you said the word xxx. OMG, now I said the word xxx."

From the op:
Underseer: "...That is not in and of itself racist..."

Why the derail?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Jesus Christ, it's Papa Schnatter we're talking about here. It's harder to think of a bigger douchebag. Let him go back and rot playing golf at his mansion.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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

Person B right? I don't think we can conclude anything about person A - other than the fact that they are a Purple People Positor.

aa

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Why should we care? If people are going to go out of their way to take offense and be cry bullies, that is their fault, not ours. At some point the burden of social condemnation needs to be on the reactionary. Magic words used in non-derogatory context is a good place to start. Perceived use where you didn't even say the magic words is an even better place to start.

Well, you can shit in your hand, and tattoo the N-word on the other, and go person to person asking which one is less socially acceptable.

You don't have to care what their answer is.
But then again, you don't really get a vote on whether or not they find one or both hands offensive.

 

[laughing dog]

The main point of the OP is

But if your response to an accusation of racism is to point out that someone else is even more racist, you're racist. If you have to point to a Southerner from an older generation to find an example of someone more racist than you, you're pretty fucking racist.

.

To those of you hung up on how "nigger" was used, do you agree with the OP's point or not?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

"Purple" is objectively measurable. "Racist" generally is not.

A: B is racist.
B: Why are you saying I'm racist because of <x> when you're not objecting to C's <y> which appears more racist than <x>? The implication is that the allegation is driven by other motives than a belief that B is racist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The main point of the OP is

But if your response to an accusation of racism is to point out that someone else is even more racist, you're racist. If you have to point to a Southerner from an older generation to find an example of someone more racist than you, you're pretty fucking racist.

.

To those of you hung up on how "nigger" was used, do you agree with the OP's point or not?

My posts above were not directed at the OP. In the above I was responding to Keith's posts saying that merely saying the word itself regardless of context is wrong. I may have misunderstood him though now reading his later posts. He may have just meant it is taboo, whether or not it should be, and I can't disagree with that. It is taboo.

That said, I do not agree that to point that somebody else said worse than you are accused of makes you yourself racist. It is a diversion perhaps, but it isn't an admission. And that is not to say the PapaJohns guy isn't racist.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

An excellent example of a straw man argument. Decent cut’n’paste job too.


Let’s hope the far Left has the same intolerance for anyone who uses the N-word as they did for Schnatter.

 

[repoman]

I grant the "double standard" of who can and can't say nigger unless it is couched in a discussion of the word. That is because it is not actually a double standard - because different things are different.

But the left has its own things that they say are double standards but are not. Take the "wage gap" for instance.

 

[ZiprHead]

I grant the "double standard" of who can and can't say nigger unless it is couched in a discussion of the word. That is because it is not actually a double standard - because different things are different.

But the left has its own things that they say are double standards but are not. Take the "wage gap" for instance.

Blatant whataboutism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

"Purple" is objectively measurable. "Racist" generally is not.

A: B is racist.
B: Why are you saying I'm racist because of <x> when you're not objecting to C's <y> which appears more racist than <x>? The implication is that the allegation is driven by other motives than a belief that B is racist.

Here is the thing Loren. Was there a Freudian slip? Papa John decided to speak out against the protests during the anthem.

When asked about issues regarding the anthem he blurts about the Colonel and n-words. He didn’t mention the anthem, just the race that apparently was bothering him so much.

 

[fast]

There is an often overlooked distinction between that of a suggestion and that of an implication.

Before I go into that, note there's also a distinction between lexical usage and stipulative usage. The use/mention distinction, for example, is a highly documented topic in philosophy. The point here at the moment is to highlight a small facet about the nature of ambiguity. The English language has a substantively high number of words with multiple uses, and when we tag on the vast number of stipulative usages, there is a lot of room for talking past one another. How a layman may use a particular term, even if alligned with the meaning found in dictionaries, there can yet be distinctions between that and those commonly used elsewhere (e.g. Law, biology, etc.).

I say all of that to say once again what I said with my first sentence above--yet this time with a little more specificity. There is an often overlooked distinction between that of a suggestion and that of a LOGICAL implication. Notice that I'm making it abundantly clear that although I am talking about an implication, I'm not MERELY talking about an implication but rather being quite specific about the field upon which I am using the term, and by "using" of course, I'm not talking about how I used it earlier in the thread.

People sometimes say things that are suggestive of one thing but nevertheless do not logically imply what is being suggested. I won some money today but not nearly as much as you, so maybe you should buy us lunch today. This suggests that I have money, but logically, there is no entailment. It could be that I spent it all and have no money. It could be that I spent none of it and still have more than you because I have lots of money that wasn't won.

I do agree with the notion that a person that is in fact a racist does not change by highlighting the more racially egregious acts of others. For instance: "I am a racist but you're more racist than me therefore I'm not a racist" doesn't hold up.

However, that's not the notion being presented. What's being presented (accusitorily) is more in line with "you're more racist than I" as if that logically implies racism. It does not. "I shot and killed every green alien that landed their ship on my lawn" does not imply (logically imply) that I shot an alien anymore than "you have more money than I do" implies that I even have money.

If you ask me if I like blacks and I say no, that's suggestive (highly suggestive) that I have issues with people of color, but if I happen to like no one, suggestive as it might be, what's lacking is an actual logical implication.

Consider this juxtaposed attitude: excuse me, how will I handle myself if people come back at me as if they think what I did in the past regarding the protest was racist? Why-I'll tell them a thing or two about racism by highlighting the atrocities of the past that are pure unadulterated prime examples of racism in the harshest of extremes.

So, we have to ask ourselves, what was he doing? Was he trying to minimize what he believes was mild racism by highlighting extreme examples of past racism? Even if there is the suggestion, there is no implication. It could be that he does not believe his actions regarding the protest were racist (and his beliefs are more important here than if he actually is). Why? Because we don't know which is true. If he actually believed he was being racist before, then yes (even though still, there's no implication) he's trying to minimize what he believed were prior racist acts, but if he didn't believe that, then suggestive as things might be, there is still not in fact a logical implication that he's a racist by highlighting the racist acts of others compared to the racist acts of his, for (and here's a trivial truism) there are no racist acts of his if there are no racists acts of his.

If he didn't actually believe that his prior acts were racist, then there can be no logical implication that he's a racist by his pointing out that the actions of others were more racist than his. Again, still, if he did believe it, no logical implication exists with such a lack of specificity on his part.

So, the next time someone says he's bitch slapped every wife he's ever had at one time or another, don't forget that he might have always been a bachelor. We can be cautious and wary of his highly suggestive attitude, but logically, we should refrain from going off half cocked and claim he was implying that he's had wives. As used to as we might be at throwing the word "imply" around, in logic, it has a very specialized meaning.

So, speak up regarding how suggestive he was about being a racist as he compared claims of others regarding his purported racism to the racism of people in the past, but don't forget that we cannot logically deduce that he is a racist by the comparison.

I bought 3 bananas and ate 1. How many do you think I have? No. I'm not implying that I have two. Suggesting it, yes. There's a difference.

 

[repoman]

 

[Trausti]

That's okay. Antifa are the good racists. No reason for the media to report or for Underseer to post.

 

[Elixir]

That's okay. Antifa are the good racists. No reason for the media to report or for Underseer to post.

Antifa antifa antifa...
I never met one. Have you? Or do you simply enjoy inventing enemies to rail against?
It must be hell, living as an alt-white minority in perpetual fear of those horrible people who oppose fascism.
They're even STEALING YOUR WORDS!
Shame!
On behalf of reasonable, polite and politically correct people the world over who are not in favor of fascism, I apologize for your excruciating pain.

 

[Trausti]

That's okay. Antifa are the good racists. No reason for the media to report or for Underseer to post.

Antifa antifa antifa...
I never met one. Have you? Or do you simply enjoy inventing enemies to rail against?
It must be hell, living as an alt-white minority in perpetual fear of those horrible people who oppose fascism.
They're even STEALING YOUR WORDS!
Shame!

See. It's okay if Anitfa does it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is it interesting that both conservatives and libertarians are focusing on the n-word as opposed to the actual argument made?