seriously? OmniNegro?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:11 am

I was refuting Frank's idea that, hypothetically, if I were to use the name OmniQueer, that would then be offensive. It certainly could be, but it isn't necessarily.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:24 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:There are valid reasons to use the word "Negro" in your handle. Maybe you feel that overcoming and confronting racism is an important part of who you are and what you want to do online. But it's like putting "Queer" in your handle. It's offensive, and if you aren't doing it to offend for the purpose of a broader conversation on prejudice, you're either a clueless asshole or a deliberate troll. There is no option four.

-Username17
That's not entirely true...
(says someone who identifies as a variety of queer)

Prak, that's one of the options he listed... offending for the purpose of a broader conversation. When used for linguistic reappropriation the point is to be provocative. Hopefully I need not connect the dots between provocation and offense.

It is necessarily offensive because to some non-negligible amount of people the term 'queer' is offensive.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:00 am

No, reappropriation is not about creating a broader conversation, it's about taking a word and being proud of it, rather than allowing it to harm.

Post by **fbmf** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:03 pm

Cynic wrote:I was also the one who sent fbmf the pm about filter-dodging.

Wasn't just you.

Game On,
fbmf

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:20 pm

Funny, I had no really problem with his handle, I had a real big problem with all the dumb shit he was saying and pretty much being proud about so ignorant. Then makes a rant, but doesn't want to have a discussion when people brought up evidence. He pretty much just stuck his fingers in his ears and was "LA LA LA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:20 pm

Am I the only one that pictured OmniNegro as a terribly racist, jive-talking supervillain from the 1960s?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:27 pm

I confused him with TurboNegro and wondered if he was in fact referring to a band.

Post by **fbmf** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:32 pm

Ancient History wrote:Am I the only one that pictured OmniNegro as a terribly racist, jive-talking supervillain from the 1960s?

Uncle Ruckus (no relation) is who I was picturing.

Game On,
fbmf

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:05 pm

Nah, Uncle Ruckus would never use a handle that didn't sound really, really negative unless he just used UncleRuckus. (I am resisting the urge to go and register that username...)

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:46 pm

fbmf wrote:
Cynic wrote:I was also the one who sent fbmf the pm about filter-dodging.
Wasn't just you.

Game On,
fbmf

Damn my grandstanding as "savior of the day" just vanished.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:16 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:No, reappropriation is not about creating a broader conversation, it's about taking a word and being proud of it, rather than allowing it to harm.

Some people wish to defuse the words entirely, yes, but I wouldn't necessarily claim they are in the majority--most sensitive souls seem like they just want these words to go away. That's because in addition to outright bigots there's also people are reclaiming these words in order to take it to their ideological opponents, not because they want to spare everyone's feelings. Let's be real here: there's plenty of shock artists and activists out there who use the n-bomb and other slurs not because they now believe those words are and should be inoffensive but because those words have a an elaborate and painful history that should not be forgotten. It very much can be about a refusal to let their political opponents hide behind "I don't see color" bullshit or act like everything is OK now because Sandra Bullock took in a black dude in that one movie. That can make Joe Blow nervous and maybe even feel a bit bad about himself, so people don't like that either. These words are loaded with meaning and act as if it's everyone else's responsibility to fuckin' read your mind and/or assume that every thing you say always has the most mild of intentions all the time is some crazy pollyanna bullshit. It's a generous attitude, sure, but it's also a really good way to chump yourself if you're not careful.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:33 pm

Uncle Ruckus is my Favorite Character.

-Username17

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:50 pm

Deep in my warm, sheltered cocoon of (mostly) white male privilege, I do sometimes privately mourn the fact that some of our best consonant combinations have been reserved for words that I can't say very often. Pretty much any word with two Gs in the middle hits me as fun to say--the N bomb really does roll off the tongue. I feel much the same way about [EDITED], and in retrospect I think saying the words dank and nugs was more fun than actually smoking the marijuana.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:33 pm

Reappropriation has mostly worked for the lgbt crowd.

It's far easier to reappropriate words when the community is much larger. The percentage of the lgbt population compared to the black population is much larger. Also, it's rather hard to accept the reappropriation of terms when the people who try to reappropriate them are typically labelled as part of the criminal fringe.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:19 am

Cynic wrote:Reappropriation has mostly worked for the lgbt crowd.

It's far easier to reappropriate words when the community is much larger. The percentage of the lgbt population compared to the black population is much larger. Also, it's rather hard to accept the reappropriation of terms when the people who try to reappropriate them are typically labelled as part of the criminal fringe.

I'm surprised by this, I was under the impression that in the states about 13% of the population was african-american and less than 10% of the population was LGBT. Are my numbers wrong, are LGBTs represented in a better position to reappropriate words or is it something else?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:38 am

Juton wrote:
Cynic wrote:Reappropriation has mostly worked for the lgbt crowd.

It's far easier to reappropriate words when the community is much larger. The percentage of the lgbt population compared to the black population is much larger. Also, it's rather hard to accept the reappropriation of terms when the people who try to reappropriate them are typically labelled as part of the criminal fringe.
I'm surprised by this, I was under the impression that in the states about 13% of the population was african-american and less than 10% of the population was LGBT. Are my numbers wrong, are LGBTs represented in a better position to reappropriate words or is it something else?

It may help that by saying LGBT, you're looking at more than just gays, but also bisexuals and all manner of transgenders.

I don't really use the term queer out of any desire to reappropriate, I think that's been quite successful, but rather because "genderqueer" seems to be the best term for my identity, especially because the mundane meaning of queer is weird or odd, and that's a perfect way to describe the areas of gender identity that don't concern themselves with the ends of the spectrum.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:49 am

That was supposed to be minority population rather than black. That's kind of a rather bad freudian slip there. I was actually thinking of something along the lines of reappropration of a word like Raghead or Sand [EDITED]. I really can't see myself embracing either of those words as someone who has been called them. It's harder for me to embrace them since I don't really belong to either of the minorities that these terms are usually levied at.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:49 am

I guess you could argue that the re-appropriation of gay slurs has become less controversial than racial slurs but if that were true--and god knows I have no clue how you could begin to prove it--I suspect that population is much less important than perceived unity* and, perversely, the fact that many people think that gays are way icky and should not even be talked about it. I mean, lots of people actually want to use the ol' n-bomb and are offended by the idea that they may not do so because of their skin color. Whereas with teh gayz people are warding things off with cries of "Pause" and "No homo." FFS, people want to ignore gays so badly that they'd rather deny people the right to visit hospitalized partners than admit that these relationships exist at all. This means a lot of gays are confident they can win a lot of battles just by managing to create a dialogue at all, because many of their opponents don't even want to play ball.

*Oops, forgot to back that part up; I meant that the black community, particularly among activists are more famously divided on the subject of re-appropriation than gays are.

OmniaNigrum · Post by **OmniaNigrum** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:22 am

Since people will not let it die, I must come back and bother to defend myself. Yes. I am the one who used the terrible word you guys decided is bad simply because you want to decide that. No one listened to me without interpreting everything I said in an extreme and simply horrible way. Everyone save a few presumed I intended offense. That is simply not the case.

I previously used the handle OmniNegro because I was young and did not have a good enough understanding of Latin at the time. The only reason I continued using the handle was that like anything, I got accustomed to using it and saw no reason for decent people to be offended without bothering to ask why I chose that. I still have e-mail addresses and logins all over the Internet using that. I never intended offense. And I apologize to the few that were actually offended. The majority however I believe simply *CHOSE* to be offended.

As such, I am now CHOOSING to be offended at the usage of the handle "BarrelOfCocks" as it is clear to me this is a handle that supports cock-fighting and perhaps other cruelties to animals. It is well known that on cargo ships two roosters are thrown into a barrel to fight to the death. The survivor is usually mutilated beyond hope of survival, but the bets placed are still paid off when the mutilated animal manages to fully kill the other cock.

If there was any decency or balance of fair enforcement of the rules, then those who literally bragged about registering this vile and clearly offensive username should have their account deleted as mine was. No protests should be heard, as I was also denied a defense.

You say I asked to have my account deleted? I sure did. But only *IF* ...
You know what? Look for yourself.
I screenshot things like this.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/05xwd62r731bt ... %20002.jpg

Read that before you continue to judge me for my choice of handle. I never made *ANY* racist statements. I never insulted anyone who did not insult me first. And I never said half the shit you guys keep insisting I said.

Get this one thing through your thick skulls. I said I do not trust statistics published by the US government. I never said I think all statistics are plain and simple BS. I just think the things accounted for by those statistics do not count half the things I consider relevant, and they count things that have exactly nothing to do with the subjects I have discussed.

*Edited for the typos.* Twice now.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:32 am

OmniaNigrum wrote:*Edited for the typo.*

There was more than one typo. Also a bunch of grammar mistakes. 2/5 would edit again.

On a substantive note, don't tell a moderator to delete your account if [some very subjective thing] is true. Obviously you thought it was true, even though you are completely wrong.

When a moderator comes to you with a problem, you can either defend yourself, or tell the moderator to ban you, you can't do both.

OmniaNigrum · Post by **OmniaNigrum** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:41 am

Fair enough Kaelik. I realize my mistake in thinking I would be taken seriously.
By the way, I do not really find BarrelOfCocks to be offensive. It is just an example of how quickly this judgmental bullshit can destroy good posters by sheer ignorance.

If I bothered to check every nickname on this site via translations such as Google Translate, I am certain every other nickname could be interpreted as an offensive one. If you cannot fight me with words without a moderator, then please do ignore me. I will not seek you out.

Also, Well done Prak Anima. You managed to defend homosexuals in a way that is succinct and actually relevant. I too use queer as a word for weird. Just as I previously used Negro as a word for the color black, but not the race. It seems clear to me that this is unacceptable here though, since people are too quick to beg a mod to fight off the vile racist rather than to try to bother to understand if offense was actually meant.

What would you guys do if I put in my signiture that I live in Montenegro? You know, the nation? It means black mountain. So I guess Wikipedia is also being racist by having an article about it saying just that?

And the entire nation must all be racist by your view. Stay indoors. The whole fucking world is full of racist scum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:45 am

OmniaNigrum wrote:As such, I am now CHOOSING to be offended at the usage of the handle "BarrelOfCocks" as it is clear to me this is a handle that supports cock-fighting and perhaps other cruelties to animals. It is well known that on cargo ships two roosters are thrown into a barrel to fight to the death. The survivor is usually mutilated beyond hope of survival, but the bets placed are still paid off when the mutilated animal manages to fully kill the other cock.

You are really grasping at straws here.

I was originally going to ask why people where still perseverating on your username, and continuing to post on this thread instead of letting it sink into obscurity, mainly because the point was made and you had left, and I felt people were beating a dead horse. I thought, "hey, the guys gone, what's left to complain about? His friend(?) Essence more or less shut up, so that's that."

But then you came back and reintroduced another world of hilarity. Honestly, I have to thank you. After a hard days work at the polls, I needed a good laugh.

OmniaNigrum · Post by **OmniaNigrum** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:50 am

You are most welcome Shrapnel. I hope every serious subject is a good source of laughs for you if that is what you actually want from the world. (No sarcasm intended. I actually wish the best for you.)

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:52 am

But Omni, you still haven't changed your willful no prideful ignorance.

OmniaNigrum · Post by **OmniaNigrum** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:55 am

Since I have been accused of basically everything short of denying the moon landing, and theorizing that aliens control my PC, you will have to be a bit more specific in your statement Leress. Thank you.