Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
No, this is what happens when everyone assumes they know what everyone else REALLY means and expect for their personal assumptions to become rules for proscription in grammar. Not for me.
KCM issues?
- Thread starter Xcaliber
- Start date
No, this is what happens when everyone assumes they know what everyone else REALLY means and expect for their personal assumptions to become rules for proscription in grammar. Not for me.
Just from the peanut gallery here, but umm, you're making it worse.
Just sayin'!
Let's just leave it alone and move forward.
I dunno. The people assuming it a racial slur are if ya ask me. Thug isn't racist. Neither is corn row homie in my book.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I disagree with you.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
First time for everything!
Nark
Macho Superpilot
This is exactly what happens when the PC crowd gets to hold the torch.
You beat around the bush and assume things instead of having enough balls to ask, perhaps a tougher question, in order to remove the doubt.
A spade is a spade, a hoe is not a spade.
@jtrain609 I'm not taking the piss, but you know that because colloquialism's are something your well versed in right?
You beat around the bush and assume things instead of having enough balls to ask, perhaps a tougher question, in order to remove the doubt.
A spade is a spade, a hoe is not a spade.
@jtrain609 I'm not taking the piss, but you know that because colloquialism's are something your well versed in right?
I humbly disagree.
And this is why, @Nark.
It's not a matter of politically correct speech, which is largely a paper tiger constructed so columnists with approaching deadlines and nothing to talk about can crank about SEO'd "outrage o' the day" articles.
We, the royal we, use loaded language because it separates the messenger from rational thought like:
Some of us called that into question instead which is what happens when we attempt to have a Socratic discussion on the topic, but you can't have a discussion built on logic and ration if you're not bringing knowledge to it.
It would almost be like a lecture on Pythagorean mathematics where someone walks in the room and says, "Math is for nerds, whoops, I didn't mean nerds as in geeks, I meant that candy popular with pre-teens in the 1980 that came in a variety of flavors" and expecting not to be challenged on it.
As the webmaster, I want you guys to challenge one another one ideas or when something doesn't pass the smell test. But approach it from the perspective that you seek a better understanding instead "The sky is purple! What?! You're challenging me on that?! PC POLICE!"
It turns out his outrage at the "thugs" was misplaced. We shouldn't celebrate that as much as we should ask "Why in the world, when there was an article written about an event where all the information was there, did you ignore that and assume?"
That's what interests me more than anything else.
If there was an airplane accident and I said, "Must be a regional. They're all a bunch of talentless assclowns like @jtrain609". I would expect you to challenge me on the statement, especially if it wasn't a regional that was involved in the event in question. Challenging me on that wouldn't have anything to do with the fabled "political correctness" police.
Do you agree? Please, I'd love to hear your perspective on what, specifically, I wrote.
And this is why, @Nark.
It's not a matter of politically correct speech, which is largely a paper tiger constructed so columnists with approaching deadlines and nothing to talk about can crank about SEO'd "outrage o' the day" articles.
We, the royal we, use loaded language because it separates the messenger from rational thought like:
- How many FAA inspectors have corn rows? Didn't read the article.
- How many FAA are thugs? Again, didn't read the article.
- What does having seen a couple "corn rowed thugs" attacking a bus driver have to do with the article in question? Didn't read the article.
Some of us called that into question instead which is what happens when we attempt to have a Socratic discussion on the topic, but you can't have a discussion built on logic and ration if you're not bringing knowledge to it.
It would almost be like a lecture on Pythagorean mathematics where someone walks in the room and says, "Math is for nerds, whoops, I didn't mean nerds as in geeks, I meant that candy popular with pre-teens in the 1980 that came in a variety of flavors" and expecting not to be challenged on it.
As the webmaster, I want you guys to challenge one another one ideas or when something doesn't pass the smell test. But approach it from the perspective that you seek a better understanding instead "The sky is purple! What?! You're challenging me on that?! PC POLICE!"
It turns out his outrage at the "thugs" was misplaced. We shouldn't celebrate that as much as we should ask "Why in the world, when there was an article written about an event where all the information was there, did you ignore that and assume?"
That's what interests me more than anything else.
If there was an airplane accident and I said, "Must be a regional. They're all a bunch of talentless assclowns like @jtrain609". I would expect you to challenge me on the statement, especially if it wasn't a regional that was involved in the event in question. Challenging me on that wouldn't have anything to do with the fabled "political correctness" police.
Do you agree? Please, I'd love to hear your perspective on what, specifically, I wrote.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
You're and yes, I am.
But some colloquialisms are intended to cloak a larger topic.
And this is simple; use the phrase in a sentence. Would using this phrase at work get you fired? It's probably got some other meaning behind it if it would. Would you call your boss a corn rowed homie?
No?
Probably not appropriate.
Did we actually read what I wrote or are we internetting the debate?
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
You happened to reference the wrong governmental agency twice in comparison to the post that was being criticized. Just meant to clear up any confusion with that. TSA was the target of that particular phrase. Everything else you said as usual is correct.
Jtrain for whatever reason decided to add words to the argument that never existed and thus helped him make the issue into a racial thing. That is just as dishonest/illogical as the original post by jwp_145.
To be honest knowing the requirements for TSA hiring I would say it was more of a "Classist" statement rather than racist.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
Well...he is a talentless assclown... #realtalk
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Well hey, isn't this all just dandy.
Look. Just like that other thread about the Japanese woman who crashed a Cessna where someone went on the rant about teaching a Chinese woman once, after it was re-iterated the woman in question was not Chinese. When this was pointed out, it quickly turned into "Oh, I was just talking about foreign people, the fact I said 'Chinese' wasn't suggesting this girl was Chinese". Just call it what it is. We're not retarded, anyone can read that first post in question in this thread and know damn well what was being implied. "Corn-rowed homies", uh huh, sure you meant white people.
I'm not offended by the comment. Hell, I cleared out a comedy club talking about White Privilege the other night. But I am offended when people try to back pedal and pull one over on the rest of us to try and make us look bad for "jumping to conclusions". Call it what it is.
Look. Just like that other thread about the Japanese woman who crashed a Cessna where someone went on the rant about teaching a Chinese woman once, after it was re-iterated the woman in question was not Chinese. When this was pointed out, it quickly turned into "Oh, I was just talking about foreign people, the fact I said 'Chinese' wasn't suggesting this girl was Chinese". Just call it what it is. We're not retarded, anyone can read that first post in question in this thread and know damn well what was being implied. "Corn-rowed homies", uh huh, sure you meant white people.
I'm not offended by the comment. Hell, I cleared out a comedy club talking about White Privilege the other night. But I am offended when people try to back pedal and pull one over on the rest of us to try and make us look bad for "jumping to conclusions". Call it what it is.
Last edited:
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
This may be an age thing. But I would be willing to bet that younger folk, like my self, who grew up in a very large and diverse urban city would not view "corned row homies" as racist.
It would very simply be describing "thugs" or "gangsters" or "ghetto people" or "•". These people can be any skin color, because they are. The TSA seems to attract this type of class of people unfortunately. So its not an incorrect statement.
No need to bring race into this.
It would very simply be describing "thugs" or "gangsters" or "ghetto people" or "•". These people can be any skin color, because they are. The TSA seems to attract this type of class of people unfortunately. So its not an incorrect statement.
No need to bring race into this.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Soul Brotha'
Off to go do Black guy stuff
Scotch is great!
So are eggs. Man. Soft scrambled, delicious!
Soul Brotha'
Off to go do Black guy stuff
Never been an egg man. That's because my old man could burn/destroy/mutilate any egg. Scared my brother and me. Now great fish, I could love forever. Also bacon.
