Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Some Slurs Are More Equal Than Others

This evening my kids came running to tell me about this public service announcement they had just seen on TV.


Not Acceptable R-word PSA
Nigger: It's not acceptable to call me a nigger.

Spic: It's not acceptable to call me a spic.

Chink: To call me a chink.

Fag: To call me a fag.

Kike: It's not acceptable to call me a kike.

Retard: And it's not acceptable to call me a retard, or call yourself or your friends retarded when they do something foolish.

The Retard's Friend: The R-word is the same as every minority slur - treat it that way and don't use it.
Not all slurs are created equal. What's missing from this litany of unacceptability is a particular class of popular, contemporary slurs. Redneck, hillbilly, anglo, cracker, pinky, goober, teabagger, wingnut, rethuglican, racist, anti-semite, nazi - the type of slurs that holier-than-thou minority supremacists regularly aim at Whites.

The intent of such slurs is to promote the exclusion and rejection of an exceptional type of "retard", people whose supposed intellectual and developmental disabilities (stupid, lazy, greedy, crazy, evil) qualify them for attack rather than defense. Politically active and racially aware Whites are pathologized and demonized most enthusiastically, but even unconscious, in-born "White privilege" is regarded as excuse enough to vilify Whites.

The description attached to the video:
"Not Acceptable" is a powerful and compelling 30 second television PSA which gives voice to a variety of diverse communities each of whom expresses that it is not acceptable to call them by what were once common words, but are now recognized as offensive slurs. It culminates in actress and self-advocate Lauren Potter from "Glee" stating that it is not acceptable to use the word 'retard' and she and "Glee" co-star Jane Lynch make a call to action to stop using the word and to promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and to make their pledge online at http://r-word.org

The PSA was launched by the Spread the Word to End the Word campaign, an on-going initiative from Special Olympics and Best Buddies to eradicate the derogatory use of the word "retard(ed)" from everyday use and promote the inclusion and acceptance of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

"Not Acceptable" was executive produced by Jim Serpico and Tom Sellitti of New York based Apostle, and shot, produced and edited by Spot On Productions from City Island, NY.

The PSA is supported by several national advocacy organization including the Anti-Defamation League, Special Olympics, Best Buddies, GLAAD, The Hispanic Federation, National Puerto Rican Coalition, The Asian-American Foundation, AbilityPath.org and the NAACP.

*Comments are, as they are in all our videos, moderated for appropriateness. We welcome conversation and dissent, but will not allow comments that do not help move the conversation forward in a productive manner.

Labels: , ,

white

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mangan also did a post about slurs the other day:

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2011/07/future-of-propaganda.html

I had asserted that "racist" was a modern parallel to older terms of abuse used by fascists and communists, such as "parasite" or kulak". When Nazis and Soviets wanted to prepare a section of the populace to be the subject of extreme government action, including mass killing, they knew that they needed the support of large sections of the population. To this end, they issued propaganda to the effect that these groups, whether Jews or landowners, were engaging in various nefarious acts which required action on the part of the government.

Is Mangan not a complete and utter douchebag? Even when he says something nominally pro-White he tethers it to the sufferink of the poor, innocent Jews.

7/07/2011 01:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

"Is Mangan not..."

No he is not. He's amazingly brave, writing under his own name, whereas I used a handle and hide my real name, and you are "Anonymous".

I have nothing to add on "Some Slurs Are More Equal Than Others" because Tanstaafl already nailed it.

7/07/2011 02:56:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Is Mangan not a complete and utter douchebag?"

No. Douchebags are the kind of people who make anonymous comments trying to stir shit. None of us are born knowing there's a stealthy war on. Those few of us who wake up to it wake up in stages.

I find Mangan raising the same sort of topics that interest me, and his take is similar to my own. I would have expressed the bit about parasites and nazis differently, but essentially I agree with the idea he's expressing. Setting their hysterical hyperbole and claims to uniqueness aside, the takeaway of "the sufferink of the poor, innocent jews", is that we should be all the more concerned about the intent and consequences of the slurs they aim at us.

Hell hath no fury like a self-righteous jew.

7/07/2011 03:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Gutless said...

"Is Mangan not a complete and utter douchebag?"

No, but you might be.

7/07/2011 04:29:00 PM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

Institutionalized victimization.

Whites need not apply.

7/07/2011 05:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You forgot honkey man!

Spics are such a lame addition to the victim pantheon, lol.

"Spic"? Oh you poor, poor dear you. How dare we shorten "Hispanic" down to one syllable?

Svigor

7/07/2011 05:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brings to mind the fact that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You can say "black" and convey "nigger" easily with tone of voice and emphasis. You can do something similar even with text:

All these MEXICANS need to go back home. All these BLACKS need to live on their own dime. All these JEWS need to open Israel's borders.

SVIGOR

7/07/2011 05:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Not appropriate" and "not acceptable" How many times do we hear these words when what they really mean is not PC.

7/07/2011 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Brings to mind the fact that it's not what you say, it's how you say it."

Calling them what they call themselves is enough to freak them out, especially "the jews".

7/07/2011 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous The Anti-White Narrative said...

This is a fascinating bit of propaganda to exclude all the diverse white Americans from eligibility for such protections (we're not a "minority").

It is an implicit example of The Anti-White Narrative which includes slurs, stereotypes, and hate caricatures.

We recommend attacking the person slurring the diverse white Americans by denouncing them for their supremacy claim ("I have the power over you to name you goyim, gringo, white boy, or round eyes, and you have nothing to say about it.") and by denouncing them as bullying (the new "you're a racist" word).

This applies to the producer and actors in the propaganda piece because it names us as ineligible for protection. The woman actor is already a member of a protected class, and so is the child.

The Anti-White Narrative seeks to silence us by name-calling. It works pretty well, too.

Check out our 21-year-old syllabus on these points at:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/

7/08/2011 07:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Cameron said...

Nazi's a slur?

And to think of all the times I've taken it as a compliment.

7/08/2011 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Attackback said...

A technical word or two may be helpful with understanding how the PSA is part of The Anti-White Narrative. It is a version of what we call the Victimless Majority Stereotype, and it has been promoted by ADL at least since 1989 when we first became aware of the malignant link of "minority status" with "needs protection from slurs." We wrote about it at:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/stereo9.htm

The Victimless Majority Stereotype is a bullying stereotype promoted by malicious supremacists who argue that members of the diverse white American ethnic and kinship groups are not victimized by hate speech or hate crimes or, alternatively, that being in the majority is an adequate shield from the pain of hate speech.

One version of this stereotype is known as Bergen's Lie as expressed by letter from ADL that the San Francisco Chronicle printed on 3/18/98, a portion of which follows:

"Clearly, every minority group which has felt the pain and outrage of bias-motivated violence needs to speak out to demand better attention to and education about the problem of intolerance in our city and our society."

Her supremacist limitation of pain and outrage to members of minority groups is an incitement of hatred toward all the diverse white American peoples.

Attacking Back -- Righteous Gentile

It does no good to express shock about ADL's hate speech, unless we attackback the speakers or publishers of such supremacy and bullying. "Righteous Gentile" is this same kind of hate speech because it ssilently labels all others as "Evil Gentiles."

We would automatically attackback against the "Gentile" part, but the implicit supremacy and the bullying embedded in "Righteous Gentile" required a chastising email message to the president of the company in Colorado that owns the San Jose Mercury News with blind copies to lots of writers and editors. You can see this sample attackback at:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g13.htm

Anyway, you get the idea. Silent slurs are as deadly as open slurs, and need attackback when possible.
.

7/08/2011 12:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just posting to see if blogger's acting up for me here, too. Over the last week I'm no longer able to use Name/URL anywhere on blogger (here, Mangan's, Sailer's), and now my comments are disappearing. I had four comments appear and then disappear at Mangan's earlier today.

Svigor

7/09/2011 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

There are at least two white victim classes: women and gays. Thats more than half the white population - wouldnt that make the rest of the remaining whites a minority?

7/09/2011 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Often slurs are based on shortening or mispronouncing a more usual word for a group.

It's no more strange to say spic is a slur than to say chink is a slur or that hebe is a slur.

Svigor, you must know that chink and hebe are considered slurs!

It would make more sense is you explained why you think it's a good thing to use the slur spic, than to pretend it isn't a slur.

7/10/2011 03:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another example of a slur which came from shortening and/or mispronouncing words is calling an Irish person a mick.

Even if the Irish person has a surname which starts with that sound, shortening his or her name down to one syllable would still be a slur or a dig, depending on how it was said.

Maybe using ethnic slurs against Jews, Hispanics, Chinese and/or Irish people is a good thing.

But don't act like the slurs used to refer to these groups are any less slurs than the slurs used against other groups just because their slurs are based on the principle of corrupting how their names are pronounced.

That's silly and diverts from the more serious question of whether Hebrews should be called Hebes, Chinese should be called Chinks, Hispanics should be called Spics...

7/10/2011 03:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nazi's a slur?

And to think of all the times I've taken it as a compliment.


Cameron,

I think you're playing dumb.

Can't you tell by how the word Nazi is used that it's currently being used as a pejorative 99.9% of the time?

Perhaps with some people they really are committed to bringing back Hitler's freedom filled utopia, so calling them a Nazi isn't really a slur but just a description.

It's like if there was a Jew who was directly involved in killing Jesus, it wouldn't be a slur to call him a Christ killer, instead just being a simple description of the individual.

7/10/2011 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

A slur can be either intended or perceived, or both.

The people who produced this video are posturing and preening only against particular slurs. Based on the organizations backing them, it's safe to say they're not opposed to slurs in general. They're not universalists. At best they're a coalition of particularists.

Morality, for them, is defined by what's good for them, even while they lecture us that morality, for us, must be what's good for everybody. Under such conditions the them wins and the us loses.

Rather than reacting to their manipulative, particularist guilt-tripping by clinging ever more tightly to a doomed and misguided universalism, the only sane counter is to find a particularist moral outrage of our own. It's not difficult. It's right there in the us-them thinking they cling to themselves while they pathologize and demonize it in us. They're spelling it out every time they self-righteously share their visceral fear and loathing for "racists".

7/11/2011 09:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Call them what they ARE, anti-white. Repeat it every time they turn around. If they can't answer or go nuts, at least more whites might hear it too.

7/11/2011 09:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tan, check out this link. You might consider analyzing and expanding this thinking.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=29784

It's about ...

The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism

Gregor

7/11/2011 07:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott said...

Why is the mother dressed like a retard?

7/12/2011 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Hoffman writes:

"The concept of goyim harboring never-to-be-dispelled prejudice toward Judaics is a troglodyte dogma taught to bochurim (yeshiva boys). They are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that any opposition to the religion of Judaism is irrational (based on no legitimate grievance) and ineradicable, the assumption being that all opposition to Judaism reflects a hereditary gentile predisposition toward hatred of the Holy People."

Hoffman is in that class of jewish critic/apologists who dissembles about the nature of the problem, pretending that the dividing line between jews and non-jews is mostly, if not entirely, religious in nature. Hoffman himself downplays the genetic ("ineradicable" "hereditary") component, though it actually helps explain the behavior of not only of himself and other similar jewish critic/apologists, but jews and the problem in general as well.

Here's an anti-White comment of his that I bookmarked a while back.

I would state Hoffman's paragraph above more concisely, without his jargon and uncalled-for qualifications:

The concept of non-jews harboring hatred toward "the jews" is a dogma jews preach to everyone. We are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that any conflict whatsoever between "the jews" and anyone else is created entirely by the non-jews, based on ineradicable hereditary moral or mental defects in the non-jews.

Here and elsewhere I put quotes around "the jews" to emphasize that this is their term for themselves. During nearly any discussion of jew/non-jew conflicts the jewish side inevitably mockingly refers to "the joooos", or some such equivalent, as if it is a term created by their boogeymen "the anti-semites". The conflicts, these days, more often than not have nothing to do with religion - except perhaps under a broad definition that includes the doctrine of the infallibility of "the jews".

7/12/2011 01:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here and elsewhere I put quotes around "the jews" to emphasize that this is their term for themselves. During nearly any discussion of jew/non-jew conflicts the jewish side inevitably mockingly refers to "the joooos", or some such equivalent, as if it is a term created by their boogeymen "the anti-semites".

Excellent point.

7/13/2011 12:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 100 years from today, will it really matter to the population in 2111 whether you, personally, used a described "slur" today?

Say what you mean, and mean what you say -- end of story!

7/14/2011 06:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home