Double Standard
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Some people think it's okay for other races to say white slurs just not for white people to say other races slurs because minority groups were and are more oppressed with the slurs while white people were and are not affected by their slurs. Some think because white surs describe them as the oppressors and not the oppressed that they are not offensive for other races to say. What does anyone think?
Comments on Question
I'm a big believer in calling a spade a spade.
Using the N-word haphazardly is not cool. But calling a black person who sells out his or her community to the "white plantation owner" an "Uncle Tom" is not only OK, it's good. Of course, the term Uncle Tom can also be applied to other groups of people.
Here's a though experiment to ponder:
Let's travel back in time 500 years and imagine a region in Africa. One day a sailing ship carrying Europeans appears. The white visitors quickly set out to enslave the people, turning the region into a colony. Their rule is brutal. (See the infamous King Leopold as an example.)
Mired in misery and fear, the people tell each other of their hatred for white people. They use a word comparable to the N-word to describe them.
Would you call that appropriate? Would you consider those people racist?
It depends on how you define racism, of course. But I would not find that behavior in the least.
If black people in the U.S. vent against the white population, I'm generally OK with that, too. However, if they targeted me personally, I would try to establish a dialogue and convince them that I'm on their side.
The people who are oppressing the black community in the U.S. are the same people who are oppressing just about all U.S. citizens. American Indian Movement leader Russell Means said it well when he pointed out that, after destroying Native American civilization, white people put themselves on reservations, locked up in cities and suburbs controlled by the same government that screwed the Indians.
Answers
4No one has the right to insult at any time, it is not a consequence of logic but of what should be written in our hearts.
This is not a logical issue, per se. Nobody has a “right” not to be insulted. For example, the old saying “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” But if you want to get along with people, it is my experience that insulting them is not the path to follow.
All of which is a long way to say that I do not see this as a logical discussion point, but one of psychology and social graces.
This is really a question about moral / human decency. Saying hurtful things about someone or calling them names is not a kind thing to do. There is a social element to this as you imply: it is socially unacceptable for people to "punch down" but socially acceptable for people to "punch up."* The reasoning is as follows—those who are privileged either deserve or can handle a little "emotional dismantling." Unfortunately, this is not the case given known suicide and mental illness rates such as depression. The idea of taking other people down to build up another group is socially and emotionally destructive.
* There is an exception to comedy when the humor is good-natured and not hateful or bitter.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
This doesn't exactly address the question, but there is a good reasoning technique promoted by Alan Dershowitz and others called "the shoe on the other foot" test. If the shoe were on the other foot, what would you think then? What would you be saying?
This test can help clear the smoke that tends to gather around these issues and help thinkers get to an objective standard.