We do disagree. I would suggest you're confusing racist humor with racial humor.

Racist humor means you are attempting to convey an idea about one race's superiority over another. Racial humor is topical humor that concerns race, which includes mocking racism. There's a difference.

Another example of racial humor that's not racist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ

He's expressing his opinion that it's BS to tip toe around the "N-word" by using that phrase instead or others that are similar, just say it and be done with it, and that words don't mean what they traditionally mean depending on the context. He never expresses any idea that one race is better than another despite basing a bit around a racial slur.

Another favorite of mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWdVwt2deY4

The whole bit centered around Randal, the village idiot, not realizing a term was a racial slur, and suddenly realizes his grandmother was actually pretty racist. There's a litany of racial slurs in that bit, but never once was the bit expressing the idea that one race is superior to another. It even has Randal accusing Dante of being racist because Dante told him not to attempt to reclaim the racial slur against black people because he's white.

It's hilarious, racial, but NOT racist.

One last tip, if I'm frustrated, and I hyperbolically saying I'm going to kill someone, and you correct me, don't be surprised if it changes to literal*.

* That's a joke.

You tell me how this is racist...

Actual racist: "Black people can't be leaders."
Obama overhears it and responds: "Yeah, f'ing Obama!"

I'm pretty sure that despite Obama "playing around with" language that could be construed as racist, what he said would not be considered racist by pretty much anyone. It would be pretty damn funny actually because clearly Obama wouldn't sincerely say that about himself, nor black people, and it also pokes fun at that racist statement by pointing out there's a black person who is President of the United States, so clearly black people can be leaders.

Change Obama to David Duke, and yeah, it's now probably racist, and it's not funny at all.

Or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gHz-l40FNQ

Louis CK is saying that in response to Patrice O'Neal's factual account for the origin of a racial slur against Jewish people. Louis CK was very good friends with the late O'Neal, and he's not racist. O'Neal knew that. If you listen to the video, as soon as Louis CK starts his bit before anything that's faux-racist comes out, everyone is immediately laughing, including O'Neal, because they know he's about to insincerely say something horrifically racist to the face of a black person that had he been sincere, it would have been absolutely horrifying, but that's the point - he's absolutely not sincere. That's why it's absolutely hilarious and not racist because everybody knows Louis CK doesn't actually mean that at all.

Intent and context means a lot. When you take that context away, (other things said in that conversation, who is saying it, your knowledge about what they believe, previous conversations that might be references, etc.), the words can appear to be extremely racist, even when they're not.

How do I react when someone jokes about something that involves race? It completely depends on the context, and what I interpret the intent of it is. If I'm joking around generally with my friends like the above, and they say something like, "You know why black people smell? So blind people can hate them, too." We're in a situation we're joking, we already have had actual sincere conversations about race, I know he isn't racist, I know he actually believes that's 100% not true. How do I react? If I found the joke funny, I'd laugh because I'm taking it to mean he's making fun of what some racists believe because I know for a fact he doesn't believe that.

My father-in-law is a different story, because I know the guy, I know he's like a 5-6 on the racist scale, so I don't know if he actually believes black people generally stink or not, and generally inclined to believe he actually believes most or all black people smell. At the very least, I'm uneasy. I'm certainly not going to laugh at it. I'd probably show some kind of disapproval at the least. Completely different context because now, and here's the key, that may have been intended as an actual racist statement about black people. Once you go there, that's not funny.

So, if you consider me slightly racist because I make ironic racist statements as jokes, which I mean as mocking towards racists themselves, rock on. But you better be consistent in your outrage when someone exaggerates they're gonna kill someone when they get frustrated over something insignificant as an example. After all, that's playing around with words that are murderous and violent, so they must be a psychopath or homicidal!

Please note, that was sarcasm.

Personally, I'm done putting up with the trolls...all two of them now. I see not the slightest reason to listen to either one anymore, as I've never once seen them add anything of value to a conversation. Insults, logical fallacies, and racial slurs...but nothing of value.

I'll be treating them just like I do Fox News, and Sarah Palin. Let them starve for attention.

As a Canadian of Asian descent, I just want to back up Colbert, here. If satire is "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues," then I think he knocked this one out of the park. A lot of folks don't see "Redskins" as an offensive term because they grew up with it being everywhere; exaggerating and applying the same idea to the Asian population really highlights how ridiculous the name of this foundation is, but only because Western culture has only just recently started to agree that phrases like "Ching chong ding dong", "orientals" (unless you're Rob Ford), "gook", "slant", "chink", etc, are actually really offensive. If a pro sports team came up with the name "Vancouver Chinamen" or "Detroit Negroes" today (coupled with stereotypical logos) there would be a massive and immediate outrage. The only reason the Redskins have gotten away with their name is that the team was named long enough ago that the racial slur was widely acceptable to the non-First Nations public.

And really, this parallels racial awareness in North America; although racism is still very much a thing for people of all races, the First Nations population is still being outstandingly and horribly marginalized with very little support or attention being paid to them or their (still appallingly denied) rights. Here in Canada (in which we boast great racial and cultural diversity, the "cultural mixed salad" vs the US "melting pot"), we still haven't done anything to amend the fact that when we got here we took brutal advantage of a trusting and helpful culture, booted them out to the worst parts of the country and stranded them there.

My high school mascot growing up was the "Grand River Renegade"

Effectively native chief. When I was in my third year of high school, there was talk about changing it to something else because it was deemed offensive.

I honestly, to this day, can't understand why that was offensive. The reason we had a native renegade as our mascot? Because it was freaking badass! It wasn't mocking the first nationers in any way, shape, or form. If anything, in my mind, it was actually a way of showing support, going "Dude, your ancestors were awesome enough that we're making it our mascot."

Now, the term redskin, yeah, I can see that as offensive, it does seem to fall under the racial slur side of things. But just because that's what the mascot of the team is, it doesn't specifically mean anything disrespectful to whatever it's representing (although again, granted, the name may need a change.)

The fact that race is the central topic in this discussion is exemplary of how far off the mark it is from identifying the real issue.
Just because the buffoon perpetrating this cultural misbehavior was white, and was slinging racial slurs in complete ignorance, doesn't mean it's an issue OF race. He's racist, and he's an asshole, but the cultural element is the problem, not one fools personal behavior.

The entire "locker room culture" perpetuates bullying and inequality well beyond racial borders, and encourages the ego-centric narcissism that's the real root of the problem. Eliminating racial slurs here is about as useful as making the forest fire no longer produce smoke. You have to smother the blaze with a blanket of individual humility and accountability to extinguish the problem at its source.

(Is it me, or are my analogies getting worse?)

Seconded.

If your "Thats racist!!!" comment requires the qualifier "because he's black", you're wrong. You're an asshole and you're just wrong.

TBH i didn't even notice the slip-up, because unlike "epithet", "epitaph" is not part of my vocabulary and i just immediately understood him.

but why in god's name would anyone let private locker room exchanges damper their faith in our nation's progression towards equality for all?
There are so many many hateful & bigoted actions committed every day, and you want to soapbox about some guy playing it loose with offensible language...

Just to take it a little bit too far, which of these men is letting skin color more strongly influence the judgements they're making?

Edit: full disclosure i have no idea who any of these people are, what rumors they are talking about, or what is a football

Edit2: just saw the voicemail message LOL HOLY SHIT it is 4chan worthy! racial slurs aside it is the most verbally abusive thing i've seen in a long time (but i still don't know them, so thats just how it feels to me). if i got a message half that severe, i would probably shit myself on the spot (but im not a big tough footballist)

Reminds me of the awkward teacher a few years back. Has the word evolved since then? Or is it all in the delivery?

http://videosift.com/video/news-report-of-teacher-suspended-for-racial-slur-clueless-guy-digs-deeper-hole

It looked to me like he was just looking to shut up some pussies trying to sound hard. That's a good thing.
This new Angry Black (old HS Character, not a racial slur) should have asked Howard to set up a boxing/mixed martial arts match so there would be no assault, I bet ICP would still have balked.
I always leave the ICP show after Ms. Potato Dick and Gunt. Irritating Clown Posers never did anything for me. C-C-C-YEAH!

This video is meaningless without time stamps. I've heard it was taken 4 hours after the event, more than enough time for Zimmerman to clean up. Is there no record of anyone anywhere treating his injuries?

-----
Please enjoy the Evil Zimmerman Theory, based on the idea that Zimmerman planned to corner and execute a minority, which is the radical left's consensus:

1) Zimmerman sees the target (Martin) and decides to directly confront him.

2) To cover his ass, Zimmerman calls 911, creating audio evidence of the encounter. Because his judge father is so beloved that every single cop on the force will hide or distort all forensic evidence in his favor, he's not worried. Also, because he "owns" the police, Zimmerman doesn't care if they catch him in the act (or beat him to the target).

3) Without knowing 100% if Martin himself is armed (or working solo), lone vigilante Zimmerman walks/runs within audio range (20-50 feet?) of Martin and starts yelling racial slurs to get Martin to attack him. He yells the slurs with confidence, since the 911 operator will scrub any lines from Martin like, "Mister don't shoot!" or "I'm unarmed!"

4) Zimmerman has lied to 911 about being lost, he knows exactly where he is, and he knows when he confronts Martin, it will be in a place Martin has nowhere to run. Zimmerman also knows that even if there was an escape route, instead of running away, Martin will take the bait and attack him.

5) Before all this Zimmerman has drawn his gun and put in his pocket (or already has it there). He says some more things to get Martin to attack, and Martin charges him. Zimmerman has to very carefully time this. Shoot too soon (outside of 25 feet) and it looks like what it is, a planned hit. Wait too long and Martin will get the drop on him, beat the shit out of him and probably kill him in an adrenalin-filled rage, with or without taking his gun away.

6) Zimmerman gets lucky and shoots Martin once around 10 feet. Even though he has "diplomatic immunity" through owning the local police through family ties, he doesn't bother emptying his gun into the fallen Martin to end the slightest possiblilty that Martin might pull through and testify against him.

7) Zimmerman has no idea how many witnesses--if any--heard or saw the ruckus or possibly even filmed it. He doesn't care: the police are backing him up. He flops around in the grass and whacks his head a few times, drawing blood, but just enough that a backup alibi about a scuffle could go either way. He knows his father will lie for him, but the lies do have to be consistent.

-------------------------------

The Evil Zimmerman Theory will remain theory until the forensic evidence about shooting distances/angles/et al. is released.

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>> ^Porksandwich:

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.
There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.
There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.
If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?
What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?
How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?
We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.
Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-
killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).
I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.
Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.

There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.

There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.

If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?

What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?

How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?

We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.

Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).

I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.

Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

So, he used a racial slur? Maybe, can't be sure, but sounds like he did.

Does that mean he's racist? Maybe.

If he's racist, does that mean he was motivated by racism to shoot the kid? Maybe.

Does that, in any way, undermine his self-defense motive? Maybe.

Now we're getting somewhere...

I grew up and am living again in the deep south, and even here (where "coon" was first used as a racial slur) it would probably be considered old-timey. I definitely heard it when I was a kid, but I doubt I've heard the word used in anything but a facetious manner in 20+ years.
>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^direpickle:
I have trouble imagining an under-30 Hispanic-man using that word. Isn't it kind of... really really outdated?

No.

Admittedly I live in the Midwest, and there's going to be a lot of regional variation in the pejoratives of choice, but I've never heard anyone born in the second half of the 20th century use that word.
Edit: Okay, that's an exaggeration, and I really mean people being born after like... 1960 or so. But still. The Oldentimes called, Mr. Zimmerman. They want their word back.

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.