Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Then, pray tell me, what are you whining over? You wrote "anger speech is not hate speech," but it doesn't matter, because hate speech is free speech, and NO ONE should be penalized for it... Not Sterling, not Bundy, and now, not Copeland.

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Tolerance is winning, bud, and it aint even close.

^^^ Quoted from a thread regarding self righteous intollerance of a word. I feel that obvious connection deserves a shout out here.

The irony is dripping...

Tolerance is winning...Just not with everybody.

as much as you guys dont like it, its true. Society will no longer tolerate public racism or bigotry.

I know, I know....very sad day for some of you.

Please stop insinuating everybody but you is a bigot.

Only you get it.

If you met me you would see how ridiculous your assertions are.

When the shoe fits....

I think some of you guys are missing the point. He said this.

"I believe I did use the N-word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse [sic]," Copeland said in the email to his fellow police commissioners, part of which he forwarded to O'Toole. "For this, I do not apologize. He meets and exceeds my criteria for such."

That goes far beyond just using the word. He's actually defining what he means by saying it. I realize that a few sentences there isn't an essay on what that word means to him but I think, if we really think like adults, we know what he's saying. It's not just anger. He said this in a response to the controversy after thinking about it. This is part of a prepared response.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: FlyersFan

He has a right to his private conversation...but he doesn't have immunity to consequences.

It is up to the voters in that area what they want to do, if they decide he should resign then he should resign.

I personally would push for his resignation, because people need to learn that outdated racist views will not be tolerated anymore.

Uh, you mean oudated 'white' racist views, correct???

Views don't get outdated. They get misconstrued.

a reply to: iosolomon

Then, pray tell me, what are you whining over?

Ummm, nothing....

You wrote "anger speech is not hate speech,

No, i didnt. Pretty sure you are confused.

but it doesn't matter, because hate speech is free speech,

Yes, it is....

and NO ONE should be penalized for it... Not Sterling, not Bundy, and now, not Copeland.

Legally, they absolutely should not be. And they arent. So it has nothing to do with free speech.

Again, I think you are confused.

I was not going to comment on this thread but I might as well.

I grew up in a black community, I went t school where whites were thw minority.
I could freely walk down the hall and say "what's up my n****" with no worries in the world.
Yet if another white person did this all hell broke loose.
How can it be ok for one and not all?
Why should it be ok for one and not all?
I would say that many of the "progressive" posters on this thread are actually anything but progressive.
Take a moment and think about what you are saying.
Do you actually believe that is is ok for one race to use this word in any context with out another race being able to use it in any context?
That's kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

a reply to: captaintyinknots

the only thing that I can see is that you are either deliberately perverting my words to try and make a point, or are totally lost on what I said.

You mean exactly what you did to me ?

Claiming twice I supported the bigot.

I read your words. You seem to think your opinion is more valuable than others.

You can't have it both ways. The word is OK for everybody or nobody.

Your double standard has failed.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I was not going to comment on this thread but I might as well.

I grew up in a black community, I went t school where whites were thw minority.
I could freely walk down the hall and say "what's up my n****" with no worries in the world.
Yet if another white person did this all hell broke loose.
How can it be ok for one and not all?
Why should it be ok for one and not all?
I would say that many of the "progressive" posters on this thread are actually anything but progressive.
Take a moment and think about what you are saying.
Do you actually believe that is is ok for one race to use this word in any context with out another race being able to use it in any context?
That's kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

Ask a 5th grader right?

Common sense ain't so common anymore?

So simple yet apparently so confusing.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Alright. I see that you like to play games.

You said this,

tell me any other context in which calling someone a "Fu^%ing Ni&&er" can be taken.

Hence, you are whining. You are whining that the "n" word can only be taken as hate speech and/or racist. What does that matter?

Copeland has the right to say it. And he shouldn't be getting any backlash for it. Granted, you have the "free speech" to backlash, but your backlash is tantamount to saying "you don't have free speech, Copeland." In other words, you are attempting to suppress the right to use hate speech.

Now, if that is not what you are doing, then tell me, what are you trying to accomplish? And you shouldn't call someone ignorant or confused when it is you who doesn't understand the First Amendment, except for what "black" Brother tells you.

The waitress should mind her own business unless a contract murder was being discussed..is nothing private anymore. That is the principal here in my mind.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Claiming twice I supported the bigot.

Care to quote where I said that? You guys sure to lie a lot.

I said you are defending his use of the word. Which you are.

I read your words. You seem to think your opinion is more valuable than others.

If you say so.....
So what you are really saying is that you have some sort of issue with me. Hmm. watch as I lose sleep over it.

You can't have it both ways. The word is OK for everybody or nobody.

Again, go back and read what ive said. I said, flat out, that I dont like when ANYBODY uses the word.

Again, why do you feel the need to lie?

We can agree to disagree.

If calling me a liar makes you feel superior...I can live with it.

Honestly, it's nothing personal with you. I had fun arguing with you.

It was kind of like playing chess with a chicken.

Even though you got creamed you still strutted around like you won.

You just don't see that much anymore.

Seriously, no hard feelings. We just will have to agree to disagree.

We know though. We know the history of the N-word and how it was such a derogatory in exclusionary word, I think starting in the 1800s. That word carries so much hatred and rage and insensitivity and exclusion and insult. We know how hateful that word is.

No body should say it.

But you can't say, well "they", whomever they are, are saying it so what's the deal? Why can't I say it too?

We're not that stupid.

I interact with black people all day long, some of them I do business with and some of them are close friends. I never use that word, even if they do (or more correctly their friends and family members do) and I never feel like I got the raw end of the deal because I'm not "allowed" to say it.

Grow up peeps.

a reply to: iosolomon

Hence, you are whining. You are whining that the "n" word can only be taken as hate speech and/or racist. What does that matter?

It was a request. Can you give me another way that specific statement can be taken? Id love to hear it.

Why is it that you all feel the need to try and attack those who hold a different view from you, and to lie about it while you are at it?

Copeland has the right to say it.

Yes he does, and no one is stopping him.

And he shouldn't be getting any backlash for it.

Sorry, thats not the way it works. EVERYONE has the right to free speech. Including those who would call him out on it. Their freedom of expression is just as valid as his.

Granted, you have the "free speech" to backlash, but your backlash is tantamount to saying "you don't have free speech, Copeland."

Bull. He can run down the street yelling about hating Ni@@ers all he wants.

In other words, you are attempting to suppress the right to use hate speech.

Again, what a load of crap.

He is free to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

Now, if that is not what you are doing, then tell me, what are you trying to accomplish?

Me? Im trying to have a conversation with a bunch of people that seem to harbor a lot of anger. Well, that, and inform you all that the town has every right to express themselves, just as he does (but that doesnt seem to matter to some of you).

And you shouldn't call someone ignorant or confused when it is you who doesn't understand the First Amendment, except for what "black" Brother tells you.

Geez, man, you just made me laugh so hard that I spit tea everywhere. Are you really telling me that I dont understand the first amendment when YOU are the one claiming it has anything to do with this? Are you all this dense?

Please, take a basic constitutional class. Itll serve you well.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Tolerance is winning, bud, and it aint even close.

^^^ Quoted from a thread regarding self righteous intollerance of a word. I feel that obvious connection deserves a shout out here.

Self righteous?



Its takes an interesting mindset to call the social rejection of racism self-righteous...

You're misleading this argument. I'm not debating the rejection of racism, I'm debating the definition of racism and, more importantly, who has the right to make a universal claim as to what racism is. Clearly it is a personally subjective concept, but that is even more to the reason why we must have a centrist, universal definition of it for this discussion to be even remotely productive. You're in what I would consider the hyper-sensitive camp for the definition, ready to slap anything found offensive by anyone related to race as being "racism." I'm on the other end of the spectrum, as I don't believe racism should ever be defined based off of words, but actions (and this includes actions that negatively impact a minorities rights and privleges, such as refusal to serve, etc.) define racism and racist BEHAVIOR.

a reply to: whyamIhere

If calling me a liar makes you feel superior...I can live with it.

Im not calling you a liar. I am pointing out the fact that you are lying about what I have said. Its either that, or you are totally lost on what I have said. No other way about it.

Even though you got creamed you still strutted around like you won.

Im still waiting from a single logical argument for your side....hard to win against those who refuse to debate honestly....so whatever works for ya, kiddo. So far all your side of this topic has is "well black people say it" and a total lack of understanding of both free speech and privacy. Thats literally it.

a reply to: Quadrivium
I forgot to mention this was while I was in high school, late '80's early '90's.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Tolerance is winning, bud, and it aint even close.

^^^ Quoted from a thread regarding self righteous intollerance of a word. I feel that obvious connection deserves a shout out here.

Self righteous?



Its takes an interesting mindset to call the social rejection of racism self-righteous...

You're misleading this argument. I'm not debating the rejection of racism, I'm debating the definition of racism and, more importantly, who has the right to make a universal claim as to what racism is. Clearly it is a personally subjective concept, but that is even more to the reason why we must have a centrist, universal definition of it for this discussion to be even remotely productive. You're in what I would consider the hyper-sensitive camp for the definition, ready to slap anything found offensive by anyone related to race as being "racism." I'm on the other end of the spectrum, as I don't believe racism should ever be defined based off of words, but actions (and this includes actions that negatively impact a minorities rights and privleges, such as refusal to serve, etc.) define racism and racist BEHAVIOR.

Actually, what I have said all along (though I have slipped into the blanket term racism for my own laziness) is that this was hate speak (which it was), and that, while it his right to say it, it is also other peoples right to react.

Thats the exact position I have held this entire time. If that is "hyper-sensitive", so be it.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Almost 20 pages of Word Police in action...

Now it's the context....Judged by who.

I would submit if you don't like a word don't say that word.

But, to tell one segment of society they can't use a word. Does that sound fair ?

To say it's about context. Judged exactly by who....YOU ?

This word Police crap is the final assault of a failed agenda.

Is there anyone that wants to claim the have never used a racial slur ?

Speak up ?

Because....I don't believe you.

Wow. You're still in here beating the drum for using the old "why is it fair that black people can call one another the n-word" argument? It's not about the word, it's about the intent. What part don't you get?

Speaking of disbelief, I still don't believe that all of this deflection is anything more than an attempt to defend a public official who happens to be a bigot. None of what you're saying detracts from the fact that this man said this word with racist intent does it?

Can you honestly say that he wasn't using it in a derogatory fashion? Why else would he have used it? Does he just go around referring to every random black person he meets that way?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thats literally the entirety of the defensive side of this thread.

"well black people say it so I should too", (which, again, psychologically says a LOT), or they fall back to a total misunderstanding of both privacy and the first amendment.