Nigger! or not...

Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can offend you without your permission.":rolleyes:

Yeah, SAM, I recognized the quote. Although my recollection goes like this: "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent." I just wondered how it applied to you personally... :rolleyes:
 
You're right that was a misquote. Consider it changed to

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"
 
No one can offend you without your permission.

Pretty much. It seems that blacks are up in arms when people say 'nigger', even when it's used in a non-derogatory fashion.

If a nigger came up and so 'Yo, wassup you part cracker part dot head." I'd just LOL. The black community is just wayyy to sensitive, almost to the point of insanity.
 
Then if it's painful and derogatory, why is it used amongst the 'gangsta' community as an affectionate term?

Seems like total hyposcrisy to me, whites can't say the word, but it's OK for 'gangstas' to use it, that sounds like racism, against whites.

its contextual i guess, their friends using the word doesn't remind them of it. chapelle did a segment on blacks calling each other nigger, and what it suggested was they only really use it when the dude is a character of poor repute, or has screwed something up. hanging out with my ruder friends, cunt is a term of affection. so maybe its like that too.
 
It's purely contextual: ISTR a court case in the UK where a journalist successfully sued a politician for calling hima "hack".
But between journalists - who know exactly what it entails to be a journalist - use the word among themselves freely.
Much like the word "geek" or "nerd".
Used by an outsider it's an insult, by an insider it's not.
 
How about...make an original movie instead of a remake.

Jackson is a WWI Aviation FREAK. Make a Red Baron movie, or Frank Luke Movie(to get the american's to see it), hell even an Albert Ball movie would make as much money as a damnnnnbusters remake. That sucks.

If he wants some controversy he could open up the depiction of swastika's on U.S planes in WWI, for discussion, to cause controversy and uproar for "press buzz" purposes.
 
It's purely contextual: ISTR a court case in the UK where a journalist successfully sued a politician for calling hima "hack".
But between journalists - who know exactly what it entails to be a journalist - use the word among themselves freely.
Much like the word "geek" or "nerd".
Used by an outsider it's an insult, by an insider it's not.

Basically summed it all up right there.

I cannot stand the people that are so bent on political correctness. If equality truly existed, racial words would not matter, or at least be no worse than most curse words. Even when nigger is used in an insider or outsider context, to me, it is a sign of ignorance on the white man's or the black man's part.

I really would encourage the movie makers to go ahead with the name.
 
No one can offend you without your permission.

I've been on that works training course as well.
Like a lot of what you hear in corpocracy, it's bull****
Whatever Human resources practitioner thought that one up was never a subject of bullying, that's for sure.

In fact, no-one can offend you with your permission.
Otherwise you'd just not give them permission wouldn't you.

As for calling the dog nigger, of course they shouldn't.
It would be creatively wrong.
Art needs to engage and envelop you.
As soon as you heard the word nigger, it would jar your senses.
Unless you have a good reason to do that deliberately, it would be bad art.

There is another thread on here at the moment which has the same answer, but a different question.
It asks why male Greek statues have small willies.

Why not have big ones?
Same answer. Bad art.
 
Last edited:
Basically summed it all up right there.

I cannot stand the people that are so bent on political correctness. If equality truly existed, racial words would not matter, or at least be no worse than most curse words. Even when nigger is used in an insider or outsider context, to me, it is a sign of ignorance on the white man's or the black man's part.

I really would encourage the movie makers to go ahead with the name.

funny, I thought that's what I posted like 25 posts ago.:rolleyes:

this clique shits gettin' old folks...

bring back the brainz
 
Screw political correctness.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is willing to climb into an airplane and risk his life to strike a blow against some bunch of tyrannical friggin' lunatics, he can call his dog any God damn thing he pleases, and if you're going to tell his story then tell it right - "warts " & all - or don't bother.

Fuck Peter Jackson in any event.

And what about all those black men and women who took the same risks and made the same sacrifices in the same wars against the same bunch of tyrannical lunatics (not to mention our 'own' tyrannical leaders)? Wars that had nothing directly to do with 'the black man' generally; doesn't that earn 'the black man' the right not to have the word 'nigger' thrown into his face NOW especially as it's so long after the fact.

Just keep sticking the knife in the same old wounds why don't you?

"Yeah nigger you're good enough to fight my wars with me but not good enough to get respect for it or share in the medals or the pensions?"

This kind of hypocrisy makes me want to spit.

So political correctness my arse; it's about doing the right thing right here right now. :mad:

And the RAF can go stuff itself.
 
And what about all those black men and women who took the same risks and made the same sacrifices in the same wars against the same bunch of tyrannical lunatics (not to mention our 'own' tyrannical leaders)? Wars that had nothing directly to do with 'the black man' generally; doesn't that earn 'the black man' the right not to have the word 'nigger' thrown into his face NOW especially as it's so long after the fact.

Just keep sticking the knife in the same old wounds why don't you?

"Yeah nigger you're good enough to fight my wars with me but not good enough to get respect for it or share in the medals or the pensions?"

This kind of hypocrisy makes me want to spit.

So political correctness my arse; it's about doing the right thing right here right now. :mad:

And the RAF can go stuff itself.

You can't and should not change history. If that was the dog's name then that was the dog's name. Changing the name doesn't change the reality.
 
I saw the original movie years ago--the reason Gibson called the dog Nigger was because it was a black labrador. Personally, I think it's PCBS to change the name.:rolleyes:
 
i think, though i hav not read the thread but i get the gist of it, that the name should be changed to something like Negron. i know someone named Negro and i thought that was pretty funny but in this case it is such a small thing, name of a dog, that it hardly matters. So why cause controversy? consider it creative license and be done with it.
 
I am not black, so I cannot know in my gut what impact the use of the word would have in this historical context.

As far as I can tell - and I have examined my thoughts and actions closely on this point for many decades - I am not racially prejudiced. (I am culturally prejudiced, but that's a different thing.)

With those two points in mind I would retain the word. At the end of the day it's a film. If a character in a film describes Scotsmen as ****ing ****-faced sheep shaggers, it would not occur to me that this was a slight on Scotsmen: it is just a character in a film.

On the flip side, Cutsie Marie said "You can't and should not change history." Cutsie, I have some bad news for you. They make films for entertainment, not historical accuracy.
 
Why not just write the dog out of the film or never mention its name ? How significant a role could the fucking dog have played? It'd name became the code word for the attack? So don't have the characters use a code word. They can call it "the attack" or "the operation" something similar and the dog "boy," "good boy" or "bad dog!"

It is, I presume, historical fiction and in that genre things get written out all the time. In fact, even if it were a documentary, things get written out. Would people have been upset if Oliver Stone had not mentioned the name of Alexander the Great's favorite horse (Bucephalus) in the movie about him? The only artistic reason to include it is that it suggests something potentially vile about the man who owned that dog.
 
Why not just write the dog out of the film or never mention its name ? The only artistic reason to include it is that it suggests something potentially vile about the man who owned that dog.
The dog had been run down by a car on the day of the attack. Gibson left instructions on when it was to be buried. This was to coincide with the time of the attack. He expected to die at that time. It is important because it illustrates that the leader of the mission saw it as a suicide mission. The high casualty rates justified that view.
 
Back
Top