Palingate just got better, the baby daddy

[Spensed]

The history of language is that it evolves through popular usage and as it evolves those alterations are recorded in places like dictionaries and encyclopedias and various reference books that address etymology.

Yes, but that, as they say, is only part of the story.

As usage changes, so dictionaries and encyclopedias are updated. The dictionary is just a static snapshot of an often moving target. Valuable, if you've never seen the subject matter before. But not necessarily authoritative or correct, if you know it's just taken from one angle or is otherwise inaccurate.

Obviously, the relationship between static record and usage flows both ways. But ultimately usage is king. You can teach the dictionary definitions of "may" and "can" or "shall" and "will" all you want. But, if the distinction disappears in usage, it's the dictionary that ends up being inaccurate and gets changed. Ask the French trying to stop English usage in their language.

Now your own experience of how redneck is used may be different from mine. But I suspect it's not in the sense that, although you may not like it, if you hear someone called a redneck, it has nothing like the offensive impact of a racial or sexual slur. If I'm wrong, then maybe the usage of the term is more bifurcated than I would have thought. But that doesn't change the more benign usage for those who know and use the word in that way.

I haven't checked whether someone's already linked this. But the Wikipedia definition seems a reasonable, if not necessarily wholly accurate point of reference. If you look at that, you simply don't find only the limited prescription that you're trying to impose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

I don't think anyone's denying the word has a pejorative edge to it. It just doesn't have the offensive weight and significance for some that it seems to have for you.

 

[NickCole]

^^

Well that's pretty funny because the source you cite confirms exactly what I've been saying.

MODERN USAGE: Redneck has two general uses: first, as a pejorative used by outsiders, and, second, as a term used by members within that group. To outsiders, it is generally a term for white people of Southern or Appalachian rural poor backgrounds — or more loosely, rural poor to working-class people of rural extraction. (Appalachia also includes large parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and other states.)...

Generally, there is a continuum from the stereotypical redneck (a derisive term) to the country person; yet there are differences. In contrast to country people, stereotypical rednecks tend not to attend church, or do so infrequently. They also tend to use alcohol and gamble more than their church-going neighbors. Further, "politically apathetic" may describe some members of this group. Until the late 1970s they tended toward populism and were solidly behind the Democratic party, but have supported Republicans since the Carter presidency.[citation needed] Many celebrities like Jeff Foxworthy and Larry The Cable Guy embrace the redneck label. It is used both as a term of pride and as a derogatory epithet, sometimes to paint country people and/or their lifestyle as being lower class.

Your site also confirms what I've posted about the historical background of the word.

Thanks for providing evidence for how accurate I've been!

 

[Spensed]

If you think I was challenging the accuracy of your historical background of the word, then you missed my point.

What I was challenging was your use of that historical background to prescribe the word's modern usage.

As I said in my previous post:

I don't think anyone's denying the word has a pejorative edge to it. It just doesn't have the offensive weight and significance for some that it seems to have for you.

 

[NickCole]

As I said in my previous post:

I don't think anyone's denying the word has a pejorative edge to it. It just doesn't have the offensive weight and significance for some that it seems to have for you.

No doubt people who use the word "nigger" with the intent to dismiss and denigrate would say the same thing to people who object to their using it that way. A shrug and "Oh I don't mean anything by it" is easy to picture because I've seen it.

 

[Spensed]

No doubt people who use the word "nigger" with the intent to dismiss and denigrate would say the same thing to people who object to their using it that way. A shrug and "Oh I don't mean anything by it" is easy to picture.

Not so. That's why the discussion has been about the one word and not the other.

 

[andysayshi]

What a convoluted discussion!

Something that strikes me on all internet forums, not just this one, is the general lack of respect people offer others. The anonymity of the internet provides us all with a bravado we would never have in the real world.

It strikes me as strange that people aligned with the Democrats, who so strongly represent the "common man", and aim to provide real help to all citizens with universal health care, lowering of middle-class taxes, and "real change", should be so quick to jump on the "redneck" bandwagon, and malign those whose socio-economic circumstances don't provide them with the education or opportunity with which to defend or improve themselves.

You can't post images from a site called fugly.com, and malign the accent of southern US citizens, without accepting the fact that you are showing prejudice for those people. Yes, Levi calls himself a "redneck". But Levi is an 18 year old jock kid from a school that can't afford to buy books, in a town of 9000 people in Alaska. Perhaps, methinks, he hasn't been given the same opportunities, in both education or economic provisions, that many of us posting on an international gay-oriented Politics Forum have been given.

Ownership of a prejudiced name is also subjective. If I call myself, or all of us in this Forum, a fag, it's a name that we own and accept because of history and aggressive pride. (I've seen numerous threads here that have chastised JUBbers for using the term fag at all!) But if Ann Coulter uses that word, most of us will be disgusted at her bias and prejudice. I'm a white Australian, and if I call an aboriginal Australian a "coon" or an "abo", my friends would be disgusted with me. But the aboriginal friends I have call themselves those things frequently. The black American friends I have use "nigger" as a term of endearment, as does 50 Cent and his equivalents. But if a white gentleman from Alabama uses the term, he is presumed a bigot.

You can hypothesize the degree and severity of prejudiced labels for generations, but the ultimate result will always end up the same: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Sorry about the biblical reference.)

Forget this personal bullshit about Palin's family. I know it's delicious, and it's recognition of the fact that abstinence-only education doesn't work, but REPUBLICANS DON"T CARE! You don't win elections by focussing on negatives, and the Obama fans here should know that - it's exactly why Hillary is not the nominee today.

It doesn't matter if Levi is a redneck, or if Palin's daughter is pregnant. These things are POSITIVES to the people who will vote for McCain/Palin. If you seriously want Obama to win, focus on the real issues: that Palin is an inexperienced and flawed politician, that her record is one of lies and inaccuracies, as is McCains, McCain's economic policy is flawed, Obama's provides real tax relief where McCain's does not. McCain has a clear record of pandering to lobbyists and corporations. while Obama's record is seeking government transparency and accountability.

These are the real issues, and you are sniping about trivialities. Please, keep your head in the game.

 

[robertstar]

You went from claiming you didn't say what you did say---you are falsely defining redneck to prove your point, after retreating from it when I called you on it.

For the love of all that’s holy learn to read.

The two statements you quoted

And you’re seriously trying to accuse me of making a straw man argument? I must have missed all these posts where I claim that every poor white person in America is a redneck. This latest twist in your argument just continues to further my point, you’re using the term redneck as a derogatory one and claiming that, that’s ok because it’s not as bad as using a word like nigger in a derogatory fashion.

And

It moves from being a talking point to a valid point when you make comments that poor white people should always want to better themselves and if they’re happy with who and where they are then they’re just ignorant.

Having read both of those statements multiple times I’ve missed the ‘all poor white people are rednecks’ statement. You’re attempting to apply statements that don’t exist to me because you have nothing of any significance or relevance to add to the discussion.

When you said you'd defend bigotry/discrimination against Klansmen and Neo-Nazis.

Again for the love of all that’s holy learn to read. What I actually said was

Basically when/if JUB uses offensive and bigoted stereotypes and views to attack the KKK or Neo-Nazi’s I’ll be happy to point out the hypocrisy of answering bigotry with bigotry. It is one thing to say that what they’re doing is wrong and another to say what they’re doing is wrong and follow it with racist and bigoted comments of your own.

I did not, as you claim (So how does 'redneck' or 'klansman' fit this category?) , say that Klansman was a term of discrimination or bigotry but that if JUB were to answer bigotry and discrimination from the KKK or Neo-Nazi’s with bigotry and discrimination I would be more than happy to point out the hypocrisy.

You have reading issues. Saying what they ought to do, bettering and fixing their lives, is not at odds with the "never said that's not fine" line---they can do what they want, it's their right and freedom, but they can still be criticized.

I have reading issues?

If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

That comment was in response to me wondering how anyone who didn't fit your perfect ideal could be happy with their lives. You've been incredibly judgmental throughout this thread refusing to believe that not everyone views their lives as broken and in need of fixing just because you say they should is at odds with ‘that’s fine’ line.

You don't know what you were talking about when you made the sarcastic comment, because it was exactly right. You don't know, because you don't live here, you don't live around them and with them, so you can make your claims without any shred of evidence. How easy for you.

We're back to one of your favourite 'I have nothing to add' arguments. Rather than make a point you just attempt to dismiss anything/one you don’t agree with. I don’t need an in depth knowledge of American life to know that people who are happy, regardless of race, finances or any other factor don’t need to better themselves or ‘fix’ their lives. You on the other hand seem to believe that anyone who doesn’t fit your set ideal of what an American should be needs to be fixed and bettered regardless of if they’re happy. Life isn’t an endless pursuit of wealth or social standing, it’s a pursuit of happiness and the two (happiness and wealth) aren’t mutually exclusive concepts, you don't need one to achieve the other.

It's not discrimination---redneck is not a class distinction.

It’s a social distinction, formed on class and race.

The idea that it has to be a class distinction (and in part it is) for it to be discrimination is faulty logic at its absolute height.

That's a hasty generalization, accusing religions of mocking each other. The only discrimination that is of any real concern is when it is done by government or should have government intervention to protect harm or inequality. Freedom of speech again. Rednecks have all the legal rights afforded to everyone (except gays), they even had Dubya in office for 8 years, and if they so choose to remain a redneck all their life, then they can, but that doesn't make them safe from criticism or ridicule (hence the humor/satire tag).

So racism is obsolete because black men and women can be black their entire lives and have the same opportunities as everyone else?

I get your message loud and clear. The term "redneck" is offensive when a black person uses it. I don't even need to ask you if you would've gotten upset if a white person said it because I already know the answer.

And you’re back to playing the race card because when all else fails just cry racism and then the white man will run scared.

Your race is irrelevant. Deal with it.

The religions? How does one religion mock another? Stick out its tongue? PEOPLE mock people.

The selective way in which you attempt to separate groups into people is interesting. You’ll happily point and laugh at rednecks as a whole group and have no problem with races being grouped together but when someone groups religions together you take exception. I assume this is because you had nothing to add and couldn’t find a way to shoehorn your race in to your response.

 

[robertstar]

Ignoring your trollish baiting of questioning my ability to read and purposely ignoring what I'm saying, the parts in italic are my point: "redneck" in the first, "poor white people" in the second. That's equivocation---you are falsely defining redneck as "poor white people".

Firstly you really can’t be indignant about me questioning your literacy when you’ve already done it to me ‘You have reading issues'

Secondly congratulations, you’ve connected two unconnected statements dealing with different points and responding to different comments to make the point you want. Very impressive. Next you'll prove that 2+2=5.

First, nothing's holy. Second, KKK and Neo-Nazis are a collection of people categorized by what they believe, redneck is a cultural distinction categorized by how they live---both of which are preventable and by choice.

Christians is also a group of people categorised by what they believe that doesn’t automatically make it a term of discrimination. Having said that your post has the faint ring of back peddling about it since it has nothing to do with point being made.

People can be fine with being homeless, but I'd still think they should get a home.

Which is lovely for you but not relevant to the point being made.

The point being made was that you’ve been incredibly judgmental to people who have the nerve to be happy with their lives and don’t view them as broken just because they don’t fit with your ideal of what they should be. Someone not wanting to shape their lives to your ideals and beliefs does not make them ignorant as you’ve claimed.

You don't even know what a redneck is, so you are going to presume that they are all happy with their lives? "If ignorance is bliss..."

I'm just going to repeat what I actually said so you can try replying again.

We're back to one of your favourite 'I have nothing to add' arguments. Rather than make a point you just attempt to dismiss anything/one you don’t agree with. I don’t need an in depth knowledge of American life to know that people who are happy, regardless of race, finances or any other factor don’t need to better themselves or ‘fix’ their lives. You on the other hand seem to believe that anyone who doesn’t fit your set ideal of what an American should be needs to be fixed and bettered regardless of if they’re happy. Life isn’t an endless pursuit of wealth or social standing, it’s a pursuit of happiness and the two (happiness and wealth) aren’t mutually exclusive concepts, you don't need one to achieve the other.

Note that I did not suggest that everyone is happy with their lives.

It's a distinction on the basis of culture, they live the way they wish to live. And I never once said that it has to be a class distinction for there to be discrimination; though I did say that the only discrimination that matters on a political forum and from a political perspective is political discrimination, ie discrimination that government causes or should intervene to prevent. Satire/humor? That's a discrimination outside of the domain of government.

And you’re wrong.

When discrimination is used a political weapon (as it was in this thread) it becomes a political issue. If this had no political relevance it wouldn’t/shouldn’t have been posted in a politics forum.

Now you're just changing the argument and doing whatever you can to claim a victory. You've been doing that for a while. This is your initial argument: "Replace the redneck slurs in here with racial slurs directed at the Obama's and the people laughing and joking would be outraged." And you've been running around in circles, wasting a lot of bandwidth and time, to try and find a way to make that sentence true.

Firstly you made this comment to inspire my comment regarding racism being obsolete

Rednecks have all the legal rights afforded to everyone (except gays), they even had Dubya in office for 8 years, and if they so choose to remain a redneck all their life, then they can, but that doesn't make them safe from criticism or ridicule (hence the humor/satire tag).

This brings up the question of how I’m changing the argument when its in response to comments you’ve made. And in reality I’ve spent the bulk of this thread explaining why I believe that discrimination is discrimination regardless of the group being targeted, which was the backbone of my original point - racism is no more or less acceptable than any other kind of discrimination and that there's no reason why outrage should follow racism and not any and every other kind of bigotry.

And you only need to glance at the reactions I got when I suggested Obama should be called ‘darky’ in another thread to see the truth in my original statement.

 

[Spensed]

What a convoluted discussion!

Something that strikes me on all internet forums, not just this one, is the general lack of respect people offer others. The anonymity of the internet provides us all with a bravado we would never have in the real world.

It strikes me as strange that people aligned with the Democrats, who so strongly represent the "common man", and aim to provide real help to all citizens with universal health care, lowering of middle-class taxes, and "real change", should be so quick to jump on the "redneck" bandwagon, and malign those whose socio-economic circumstances don't provide them with the education or opportunity with which to defend or improve themselves.

You can't post images from a site called fugly.com, and malign the accent of southern US citizens, without accepting the fact that you are showing prejudice for those people. Yes, Levi calls himself a "redneck". But Levi is an 18 year old jock kid from a school that can't afford to buy books, in a town of 9000 people in Alaska. Perhaps, methinks, he hasn't been given the same opportunities, in both education or economic provisions, that many of us posting on an international gay-oriented Politics Forum have been given.

Ownership of a prejudiced name is also subjective. If I call myself, or all of us in this Forum, a fag, it's a name that we own and accept because of history and aggressive pride. (I've seen numerous threads here that have chastised JUBbers for using the term fag at all!) But if Ann Coulter uses that word, most of us will be disgusted at her bias and prejudice. I'm a white Australian, and if I call an aboriginal Australian a "coon" or an "abo", my friends would be disgusted with me. But the aboriginal friends I have call themselves those things frequently. The black American friends I have use "nigger" as a term of endearment, as does 50 Cent and his equivalents. But if a white gentleman from Alabama uses the term, he is presumed a bigot.

You can hypothesize the degree and severity of prejudiced labels for generations, but the ultimate result will always end up the same: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Sorry about the biblical reference.)

Forget this personal bullshit about Palin's family. I know it's delicious, and it's recognition of the fact that abstinence-only education doesn't work, but REPUBLICANS DON"T CARE! You don't win elections by focussing on negatives, and the Obama fans here should know that - it's exactly why Hillary is not the nominee today.

It doesn't matter if Levi is a redneck, or if Palin's daughter is pregnant. These things are POSITIVES to the people who will vote for McCain/Palin. If you seriously want Obama to win, focus on the real issues: that Palin is an inexperienced and flawed politician, that her record is one of lies and inaccuracies, as is McCains, McCain's economic policy is flawed, Obama's provides real tax relief where McCain's does not. McCain has a clear record of pandering to lobbyists and corporations. while Obama's record is seeking government transparency and accountability.

These are the real issues, and you are sniping about trivialities. Please, keep your head in the game.

Fun to play Miss Hall Monitor.

The redneck discussion is convoluted and trivial, compared with the other issues out there, but clearly has some interest to the people engaged in it. It doesn't prented to be to only issue involved. And there are hundreds of other threads out there on other matters.

Likewise with the Palin family issues. They're important for an number of obvious reasons and if, for example, the current buzz about an affair proves correct it could sink her. But, as the Republican do, it makes sense for some folk ot focus in that area, while point out her lack of qualifications, while others focus on the positive side of the Democratic messge.

 

[andysayshi]

Fun to play Miss Hall Monitor.

Hardly called for. But not surprising in a discussion whose primary thrust is the defense of stereotyping and name calling.

 

[andysayshi]

That's my point.

 

[andysayshi]

This thread really is argument for the sake of argument. Whatever floats yer boats!

 

[Spensed]

This thread really is argument for the sake of argument.....

No it is n't.

 

[NickCole]

Well, it was a humor/satire thread, until someone decided to act offended and redefine terms inapplicable to his own culture and country.

The definitions he used are the definitions commonly agreed to by the most current reference sources.

You can make up your own definitions to words but what you want to be true doesn't trump the reality of common societal agreement.

Where are your links to prove your definition is commonly held? Spenced posted a link to Wiki, a currently updated reference site anybody can contribute to, which supports the definition referenced by me and robertstar. Oxford English Dictionary, the gold standard of language and etymology, and other regularly updated dictionaries and encylopedias, echo the same definitions. Is there an ICO7 reference site we don't know about that's secretly The Definitive Word on modern idiom and language usage? Love to see a link to it.

 

[andysayshi]

No it is n't.

That's not argument, it's contradiction!

 

[Spensed]

Spenced posted a link to Wiki, a currently updated reference site anybody can contribute to, which supports the definition referenced by me and robertstar.

As previously indicated, the Wikipedia article may, or may not, support your version of the history of the word. But it doesn't confirm only your limited prescription for its contemporary usage.

I've also already pointed out to you, and you have not refuted, that redneck is freely used in the media, comedy and common parlance with little or no offense being taken. The "N" word isn't permitted except in the most specific circumstances. The fact that people are even having this discussion, whereas there wouldn't be an possibility of a similar debate about the "N" word should have alerted you to the distinction.

My earlier post, additionally, mentioned the shortcomings of relying on a snapshot dictiornary definition of a dynamic linguistic usage that your own experience tells you is wrong. Any lexicographer will tell you that a dictionary starts to go out of date as soon as it's printed. How a word is used is ultimately what matters.

However, since you refer to the OED, it defines redneck as follows:

1. U.S. a. A member of the white rural labouring class of the southern States; one whose attributes are considered characteristic of this class; freq., a reactionary.
Originally, and still often, derogatory, but now also used with more sympathy for the aspiratons of the rural American"

b. attrib. or as adj.

It cites various example of the word's usage, including "1976 Time Sept. 47/1 That was the point Carter was attempting to make....when he called himself 'basically a redneck' "

[I'm quoting from my copy. But you can confirm online, if you have a subscription, or maybe via a library. The quote is from the full version, not the concise, etc.]

The Webster Dictionary definition is consistent with the OED:

Main Entry:
red·neck Pronunciation: \ˈred-ˌnek\ Function: noun Date: 1830

1 sometimes disparaging : a white member of the Southern rural laboring class

2 often disparaging : a person whose behavior and opinions are similar to those attributed to rednecks

— redneck also red·necked \-ˌnekt\ adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redneck

The OED talks about "still often, derogatory, but now also used with more sympathy for the aspiratons of the rural American". While Websters talks about "sometimes disparaging" or "often disparaging", which also suggests that, sometimes or less often, there is no disparagement.

So that takes me to my previously posted conclusion. You'll doubtless let me know, if you want me to say it again. No promises mind you.

Originally Posted by Spensed

I don't think anyone's denying the word has a pejorative edge to it. It just doesn't have the offensive weight and significance for some that it seems to have for you.

 

[Spensed]

That's not argument, it's contradiction!

No it isn't.

 

[RandomAccess]

This thread really is argument for the sake of argument. Whatever floats yer boats!

No it is n't.

That's not argument, it's contradiction!

No it isn't.

Now that's funny!

 

[White Eagle]

If going to the bathroom at night requires shoes and a flashlight, you might be a redneck.

 

[robertstar]

First, it is obvious you were coating the opening of your post with it. You should be more subtle. Second, that was the equivocation you were doing. So, you shouldn't question my reading skills when I can easily see the inconsistency of the definition of terms in your post. Otherwise, why would you mention the more broad group unless it had something to do with the topic.

Firstly please learn to correctly use the word equivocation.

Secondly please stop trying to make 2+2=5.

Your argument is that the word ‘redneck’ appeared in the same post as the phrase ‘poor white people’ so obviously that’s secret code for all poor white people are rednecks. You fail to grasp that the two statements exist within two separate responses to a related but not the same topic. I have for example also used the words Christians and religions in the same post (see I just did it then) does this also mean that all religious people are Christians? Of course this is a completely irrelevant turn in this discussion because rather than actually stay connected to one single point you’ve (once again) decided to spin a debate off into a completely unrelated point.

Well, you keep jumping from point to point, which is why I took it back to where it began---that's not backpedaling.

Factually incorrect statement but playing fast and loose with facts is all part of your style.

What you fail to grasp is that discrimination is discrimination. The discrimination does not become more acceptable if it is based on a choice someone has made. I believe I’ve said that before. I’ve probably also said that religious discrimination is not more acceptable than racial discrimination because someone can chose their religion but not their race. The same is also true for social class, social group, social surrounding or anything else you want to throw out there - it doesn’t become more acceptable if it is based on a choice someone has made.

Having said that the reasons I pointed to back-pedalling on your part is because you throw random unconnected statements out there in a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks fashion. There’s no real thread of consistency to your posts and they seem completely unrelated to half of what you post. Your comment regarding the KKK and Neo-Nazi’s being a choice people make came after I’d just disproved your accusation that I’d claimed Klansman was a term of discrimination. Maybe you just wanted to have the last word.

Uh huh. That wasn't the initial point, but one you came up with for a rhetorical victory. There you go with a gross assumption that they are happy... but then later in your post you say you never said that. You also seem to think that I have a single standard, and everyone must meet it... which isn't the case at all.

I’m tempted to leave my response at just that since I feel like I’ve dealt with this kind of completely inaccurate and twisted response from you far too many times. And on the whole I’m going to give into that temptation, just re-read what feel like the endless responses I’ve given to you on this subject. I do however want to add this, your trying to slip random words into my sentences that don’t exist, presumably so you can try and make some ‘stop equivocating’ post. At no point did I claim to be making the original point, I was repeating a point that I had previously made and since everyone has made about fifty points during this thread you really shouldn’t have trouble grasping that.

But you imply it.

I really don’t.

I very rarely feel the need to imply anything, I’ve found the majority of people here don’t pick up on it when I do imply something so it tends to just be easier to say it instead.

Don't see how this is true, since the 'humor/satire' tag was used.

A humour/satire tag doesn’t remove politics from the equation nor does it remove discrimination.

Your argument is one of limiting the freedom of speech, as it has nothing to do with politics or policy. It's for a shangri-la notion, no different than my desire for people to stop using superfluous 'u's in their spelling or for people to stop supporting the Paparazzi. It is still not analogous, and in fact insulting on multiple accounts, to try and equate someone's race with someone's lack of sophistication.

Which isn’t what I’m doing.

I’m not relating someone’s race to sophistication.

What I’m actually doing is saying that discrimination should not work on a sliding scale. It shouldn’t be more or less accept to discriminate against someone because you’re doing it on ground x rather than ground z.

You've failed to answer my question. Several times. Would this thread have bothered you if a white person made it? What if Sarah Palin did an interview and referred to Levi as a redneck? I ask, again, is it a race-inclusive word? Who's allowed to say it?

How many times do I need to write - you’re race is irrelevant before the message sinks in? In case you haven’t noticed you aren’t the only person who posted in this thread nor are you the only person to have used the term redneck in a derogatory fashion during this thread. Once again you’re trying to use your race as a shield to bat away criticism of you, perhaps believing that if you accuse me of racism enough times it’ll come true and I’ll start burning crosses outside your house.

What group? I'm talking about one person.

And you used the word redneck (and all of its stereotypes) to do so.

This is more of the ‘its not discrimination because I was only doing it to one person’ argument.