What is racial insensitivity?

Tanngrisnir said:

That puts you in the same category as Ted "Chunk Style" McCubbins.

Click to expand...

I give up. Who is Ted McCubbins?

SonOfDaedalus said:

I agree but my point is if you’re White it’s much easier not to be offended.

If you’re White just listen to how Blacks feel. If a lot of them are uncomfortable with the word, use another word. What does it cost you?

Also, the NBA and other leagues with collective bargaining are such that the players are partners. Most businesses have employees who produce a product. The owner owns “the means of production.” In the NBA the players are the means of production and the product.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What a load of crap. What's apparently easy is every few years for someone to brand a perfectly innocent word as a "racial profanity" and then for a gaggle of white liberals and gullible blacks to mindlessly join the epiphany of "its offensive" bandwagon. Never mind its a perfectly ordinary word used by everyone in a non-racial context since the invention of modern English...nope its "insensitive" because the moralism inventors NOW say it is.

What is unusual this time around is that the pretext doesn't even pretend to claim the word has an origin in racial connotation (as some wrongly claimed about niggerdly or as a racial slur (nigger, colored, etc.)...nope its just the word "owner" for an "owner" is a cause for an immature and silly emotional meltdown. Never mind those who owned slaves were most often called "Planters" and that their managers were "Overseers" and in segregation "Bosses"...nope lets all decide "owner" is a new profanity.

I fully expect someone to extend the stupidity to complaining about all the other "connections" with slavery: cotton, barns, cabins, servants, plows, gins, and mint julips.

SonOfDaedalus said:

Today I hear some guy on ESPN (Will Cain) complaining about the NBA "owners" issue. It seems some people object to the use of the word "owner" regarding NBA ownership because most of the "owners" are White and the players are Black. It reminds some of slavery and owner/slave relationships.

I'm Black and it doesn't bother me. But I get annoyed by people like Will Cain who complain that some people are too sensitive. They seem to believe they are somehow more enlightened because they are not offended.

But it's easy not to be offended when the alleged insult is aimed at someone else.

Racially insensitive people, or insensitive people in general, are people who refuse to imagine that someone else may feel differently than they do.

If you're White it's no achievement to not be offended by language that reminds people of slavery. Moreover, who cares? So what if they use "governors" or CEO instead of owners? What does it cost you?

Click to expand...

They are more enlightened l, because they don’t get offended. Control your emotions. It’s what separates us from the beasts.

When people start considering what it feels like to grow up in poverty but have 1 political party and mainly one racial demographic call you racist because of the color of your skin, then maybe I will take these new hip words and stupid snowflake nonsense seriously.

Until then anyone pushing this idiocy can [emoji867]

P.S. it’s easier for a white person to not get offended? Do you people not even understand how racist that is? [emoji2359]

The word "owner" is definitely not politically correct today.

For example, there are no more "dog owners."


Most "enlightened" people consider themselves as "Fido's human companion" or "Fido's guardian."


*****


Because there is so much emphasis on ethnicity during this historic transition period in our country's history, it would be a good idea for team owners to use another word. There is no use in giving people another excuse to be upset.

What is racial insensitivity?

Click to expand...

Being white.

Grandpappy said:

I'm a white guy. I'm not a racist. I'm also and old fart, and not a fan of Biden. But I did actually understand what he said when he talked about working with the Dixiecrats. That schit's history, it's over, long gone, but it did happen. I don't understand all the hate about it. I don't know, maybe it's an age related thing.

Click to expand...

Well I'm black and took no offense to what Biden said. There are only 2 types that did white activists and black activists.
I notice on this board there's a lot of broad brushing. Every black person is voting Democrat because they want handouts and every white person is a Trump supporting terrorist.
Thank God this is a very small microcosm...but it is interesting.

Captain Adverse said:

I'm sorry but I disagree. It seems that your argument is if you are Black it is much easier to be offended.

The question would be why, and if so why should anyone encourage these "feelings?"

I'm old enough to have lived in the days when driving through certain States was problematic. Where you could be refused service or relegated to "special but 'equal'" areas if allowed service at all.

My family taught me that words cannot harm us, it is DEEDS that do. To shrug off name calling, and stand up for yourself.

Now, in our current society where "Jim Crow" is but a distant memory for the oldest of us, it seems to me that Black America now holds all the "special privileges" of both Affirmative Action and the Hierarchy of Oppression. Moreover it seems to me as if we are SEEKING to find examples of racism where none actually exist. Anything to perpetuate and protect if not expand our "privileges."

So forgive me if I don't share this idea that simply because someone takes offense it means others must coddle and adapt to what those seekers believe is the new "fair and equitable" privilege owed to us.

Click to expand...

It's just selfevident that if you're White you're less likely to be offended by some referene to slavery. It's less personal to you. Your ancestors weren't slaves. What's so controversial about that?

If you're Jewish you're more likely to be offended by someone wearing a Hitler Halloween costume.

In a civil society, people do their best to accommodate each other. If you want me to call you Shirley, I'll call you Shirley. I'm not going to argue with you that it's not your name and you're not a woman. What's the point?

Using another word other than owner (CEO, managing partner, director) is just not a big deal. And your position is simply a rigid refusal to accommodate others even when it costs you NOTHING. That's the definition of insensitivity.

Yours is not a solution for a civil society.

Moreover, someone can insist there is nothing offensive about using the N-word or calling someone colored. Someone can insist there's nothing wrong with calling a woman you don't know Honey or Sweetie.

I don't see the harm in using a different word if enough people are bothered by it.