it's edited, look at the background behind the guy that says N, then the wide shot doesnt match.

it's a play to parody the south park episode where Wheel of Fortune had N_ggers and Randy Marsh says "Nigger?" The audience guffaws when Pat Sajak reveals the answer is Naggers

hehe

Louic CK is my favorite comedian...

My favorite bit is about showing how retarded political correctness is, and anyone should be able to say any words.

here he explains and shows in joke form nigger, faggot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLrBLxbLxw


He's 100% dead on that anyone should be able to say any word and fuck the political correct movement who wants to redefine words just like '1984's newspeak'

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Dammit, news reporters. You're quoting someone -- say the word! Here, watch...

The cop said, "I fried another nigger".

Rick Perry's hunting club was called Niggerhead.

Okay, how about the fact that they tried to assault him? That makes them bitches. >> ^Fletch:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

Sorry, but the masculine form of "bitch" is not "dick". That's like saying the caucasion form of "nigger" is "whitey". It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the word means to (many, most) women. if that's even possible. If you could come up with a single word that translates "worthless pussy with legs" with an extremely contemptible tone, it could be "bitch". It's less than a dog. It's a baby mama who you wish would just shut the fuck up, get her funbags in the kitchen, and make you some goddamned pancakes. That's my take on it anyway. It doesn't matter what you think it means. It doesn't matter how you intend it. The kiddies nowadays may throw it around like you throw around the f-word (and connotations thereof) in your video titles, but, age-wise, you are no kiddie and should know better. It speaks volumes you are even defending it and the ignorant bitch who started this thread.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

Sorry, but the masculine form of "bitch" is not "dick". That's like saying the caucasion form of "nigger" is "whitey". It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the word means to (many, most) women. if that's even possible. If you could come up with a single word that translates "worthless pussy with legs" with an extremely contemptible tone, it could be "bitch". It's less than a dog. It's a baby mama who you wish would just shut the fuck up, get her funbags in the kitchen, and make you some goddamned pancakes. That's my take on it anyway. It doesn't matter what you think it means. It doesn't matter how you intend it. The kiddies nowadays may throw it around like you throw around the f-word (and connotations thereof) in your video titles, but, age-wise, you are no kiddie and should know better. It speaks volumes you are even defending it and the ignorant bitch who started this thread.

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^chilaxe:
Why do sifters help spread these kinds of messages... Is that really the society you want to live in?

You mean a world in which hateful language is stripped of its power via the magic of comedy? Why yes, I enjoy living in that world very much.
Voldemort. There, I said it, and nothing happened.


No man, they totally were being racist. I can tell.

>> ^chilaxe:

Why do sifters help spread these kinds of messages... Is that really the society you want to live in?


You mean a world in which hateful language is stripped of its power via the magic of comedy? Why yes, I enjoy living in that world very much.

Voldemort. There, I said it, and nothing happened.

>> ^chilaxe:

"In other words, life isn't fair."
Right, that's what I'm arguing. But if Herman Cain was trained to think along the lines of your comment, he'd still be like all the kids he played with growing up: poor, uneducated, and blaming other people and refusing to adopt basic success strategies.

This is also why I'm saying "learn more about liberalism" -- you're doubling down on the idea that baked into my entire spiel above was some sort of resentment-induced self-destructive behavior.

Conservatives fall prey to that pretty easily, IMO. Most lash out at liberals in a pretty accusatory tone, saying their entire lives are being destroyed by taxes, regulation, the national debt and the Fed printing money. They like to talk about how rich they'd be, if only it weren't for taxes, or how it's just not worth it for them to work any harder, because taxes are higher on rich people. They say that any day now they might just "go Galt" and withhold their productivity to punish the creeping socialism that's invading their lives. They say unions are killing factories, immigrants are stealing their jobs, and the minimum wage is why people can't find work. It's not that they're not as creative as that liberal arts major, it's not that they're not as industrious as that Mexican immigrant, it's not that they should've paid more attention in class, it's liberals, immigrants, and government are to blame for all my problems in life.

What you're talking about isn't liberal, it's human nature. People generally wanna blame someone or something else for their problems, whether they're right or not.

What I mean by "life isn't fair" is that people are not always wrong when they feel that way. Some people are right to feel that way.

Just not the people whose biggest concern in life is a millionaire's surtax.

>> ^chilaxe:
Give poor disadvantaged people a break... encourage them to become success-oriented. The first step would be sincerely reading many business books.

Giving poor and disadvantaged people a break is the liberal position. Do what we can to equalize income, and improve the quality and pay of jobs at the bottom of the payscale.

Also, a free quality education, that teaches them not just facts and figures, but teaches them why what they're learning is important.

>> ^chilaxe:
On genes, I'm confused... is liberalism arguing that genetics substantially influence diversity in economic outcomes even to the point of diversity in the evolutionary history of ethnic groups, or is liberalism arguing what most liberal academics argue: we don't care if it's true and we'll break your faith in academia and liberal intellectualism by calling you the worst names in the language.

What, nigger? Oh, you must mean racist.

Let me try and explain. I'm saying liberals think life isn't fair. The real next step to being a liberal is to say "but it should be made as fair as humanly possible."

You believe racism still exists, right? Specifically, racial prejudice, conscious or unconscious, subtle and gross -- we still have that, right? And you also agree that that prejudice against your ethnicity will negatively impact the quality and number of opportunities made to you, right? You also agree that ethnicity isn't something you choose, or can change if you want to, right?

In a fair society, race shouldn't factor into the type and quality of opportunities people have in life. So for fairness's sake, we should try to discourage people from holding racial prejudice, because it's not fair to deny people an opportunity on the basis of their skin color.

In a market-driven society like ours, this means you should be hiring people based solely on their ability to do the job, not some unrelated characteristic (white, black, man, woman, gay, straight, etc.).

So the problem here is that while it's possible to make some sort of scientific observations about a link between ethnicity and intellectual capability, it's not really a question we should be terribly interested in as a society. And if someone does come up with some sort of empirical analysis validating one of those prejudices we're fighting against, it's morally wrong to then hand that kind of loaded gun over to the people who want to use that to justify denying opportunities to people on the basis of race.

In other words, that kind of study is rightfully controversial. The problem isn't the study itself, per se, it's how the wider world will use it. Racists will latch onto it as justification for their prejudices, just like they might cling to quotes from Bill Cosby.

None of that is a concern about the study of human genetics itself, it's a concern about the ways in which society might use that information.

I have a topo map of a nearby upstate NY quad from the 1920 survey that features a town called Nigger Hill. It was a bit surprising to discover a few years ago and I've always wondered about the history of that location. Maybe I'll take a trip out there now that I'm living here again. It's only about half an hour away.

I live in a small south Ga town and we have shit like that around here.

There is a bridge south of town goes over the Withlacoochee River and it's actually called "Nigger Bridge" it even has a historical plaque on it with "Nigger Bridge" engraved in brass on it.

2 years ago the town was going to bring it to a vote to remove the historical plaque and rename it, but the blacks actually petitioned to keep it. As it was historical, the name was used and there was no need in hiding it, that hiding historical racism only covers it up, that it should stay out as a reminder of our past.

So the county commisioners voted to keep it, and to this day you can ride out to it and see the sign and the historical plaque engraved on "Nigger Bridge" that overlooks the Withlacoochee river in this part of Ga.

And of course for those that don't know Withlacoochee turns into the Suwannee river

>> ^hpqp:

How many times does it need to be said: it is not about the words themselves but the way in which they are used. Hey, "Jude" just means "Jew" in German, but depending on how it was used in mid-20th century Europe it could mean life or death (yes, I totally went there).
I find it sad - and perhaps a little worrisome - that @dystopianfuturetoday's comment is seen by some as expressing the wish to suppress freedom of speech. Watching one's words in context is not censorship or "oppression", it's a sign of intelligence and responsibility. While I am completely free to comment on a criminal act as "typical of niggers", refer to a miser as being "such a Jew", or call a woman who has had several partners a "slut/whore", it would only illustrate stupidity and narrowmindedness on my part, while continuing to keep alive ethnic/sexist stereotypes.
_{Personally, I try to keep my expletives universal. Asshole, shithead, dumbfuck, peabrain, bigot, religitard, idiot, etc.}


Just pointing out...I never really thought it was suppressing my freedom of speech I just think it's one of those platitudes that sounds nice and then falls kinda flat because the world is shades of grey.

How many times does it need to be said: it is not about the words themselves but the way in which they are used. Hey, "Jude" just means "Jew" in German, but depending on how it was used in mid-20th century Europe it could mean life or death (yes, I totally went there).

I find it sad - and perhaps a little worrisome - that @dystopianfuturetoday's comment is seen by some as expressing the wish to suppress freedom of speech. Watching one's words in context is not censorship or "oppression", it's a sign of intelligence and responsibility. While I am completely free to comment on a criminal act as "typical of niggers", refer to a miser as being "such a Jew", or call a woman who has had several partners a "slut/whore", it would only illustrate stupidity and narrowmindedness on my part, while continuing to keep alive ethnic/sexist stereotypes.

_{Personally, I try to keep my expletives universal. Asshole, shithead, dumbfuck, peabrain, bigot, religitard, idiot, etc.}

Ah yes, we can't have a nuanced approach to anything can we?

All we can have are two camps screaming at each other across a divide.
"You can't use faggot!! Ever!!"
"Fuck you! stop oppressing my right to be a dick!"

The word faggot actually means a bundle of twigs. That's it, no more no less.

Context is everything. I will frequently describe things as "gay". It's not grown-up or mature, but I don't particularly want to spend my life being grown-up and mature all the time.

Now, there's a world of difference between me calling a friend "gay" when he pussies out of something (yeah, that term too*), and holding up a sign that says "god hates fags". One is affectionate (not that affectionate! ), the other is hateful.

"Cunt" is considered just about the most pejorative term in the english language, but it's frequently used a term of endearment where I grew up (west of ireland, we swear. a lot.) See black guys calling each other nigger.

Again, context. I would never call someone I didn't know a "cunt" or a "fag" as an insult, and if I saw someone doing it, I'd call them on it.

* if I can use "cock" as a swear, I fail to see why I can't use "pussy".

Too fucking sad.

As for using faggot. I'm torn on it. I'm not sure the benefits of having it as part of my vocabulary actually outweigh the chance I offend or hurt somebody. You might say its their fault they are offended, but if you've spent a fair amount of your life having the word faggot thrown at you with hateful intent then I'd say its their right to be offended whether you really intend to offend them or not. After all the word does reference the burning of homosexuals alive.

I'm also torn on whether we should really use words to such an extent that they lose all meaning. Faggot is a pretty horrid word and you might say its a good thing for its meaning to be diluted, but perhaps we should preserve its power, no matter how distasteful, as a reminder if nothing else of the history of hate directed at homosexuality. I have much the same opinion of the word nigger.

Personally I am making an effort to cut these words out of my vocab.