In post 304, AniX wrote:The amount of people actually, legitimately bent out of shape and to some degree UPSET AND ANGRY about having to use a different word in a forum game because a different word is hurtful to some people is...pathetic to say the absolute least. You'd think half these people were the ones who wrote the standard definition of lynch in the dictionary, the way they are taking something extremely easy, simple, and inconsequential for them to follow so personally.
In post 648, DeathNote wrote:Yes it is. The opinion is that Lynching has nothing to do with race which is racist as Lynching has everything to do with race.
Do not confuse the United States with the entire world.
maybe don't claim there is literally no history of the word being racially charged when it obviously is?
Like seriously, your claim is incorrect, you have been shown it is incorrect. Yet you continue to argue it.
In post 658, Nero Cain wrote:you guys do know that lynchings happened long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I mean, yes, the word lynch does carry so many racist undertones b/c of how the KKK used lynches for black ppl but I just wanted to point out that it is has been a punishment for ONLY blacks is absolutely false.
Nobody has suggested that ONLY black people have ever been lynched. They are saying that the term lynching has been so irreversibly linked to the systematic murder of black people in the United States that it has overtaken in priority any mundane usage of the term.
There are mundane uses of the Swastika and they extend back far further than the Nazi regime, but you'll have a tough argument in suggesting we should allow swastika avatar even if they aren't the Nazi kind.
In post 658, Nero Cain wrote:you guys do know that lynchings happened long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I mean, yes, the word lynch does carry so many racist undertones b/c of how the KKK used lynches for black ppl but I just wanted to point out that it is has been a punishment for ONLY blacks is absolutely false.
I don't believe this is the claim being made here.
The term has racist undertones and therefore should not be used.
Right, because died has never been a term in any country that was used specifically to refer to a type of systematic murder of minority populations. It never lost its generality. In the United States, lynching has.
Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK!
LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR!
ASEXUAL!
KING SCAR APOLOGIST!
DREAMER OF THE NE0N DREAM (SUPP 2021 LAST PLACE WINNER)!
In post 658, Nero Cain wrote:you guys do know that lynchings happened long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I mean, yes, the word lynch does carry so many racist undertones b/c of how the KKK used lynches for black ppl but I just wanted to point out that it is has been a punishment for ONLY blacks is absolutely false.
Nobody has suggested that ONLY black people have ever been lynched. They are saying that the term lynching has been so irreversibly linked to the systematic murder of black people in the United States that it has overtaken in priority any mundane usage of the term.
There are mundane uses of the Swastika and they extend back far further than the Nazi regime, but you'll have a tough argument in suggesting we should allow swastika avatar even if they aren't the Nazi kind.
In post 658, Nero Cain wrote:you guys do know that lynchings happened long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I mean, yes, the word lynch does carry so many racist undertones b/c of how the KKK used lynches for black ppl but I just wanted to point out that it is has been a punishment for ONLY blacks is absolutely false.
Nobody has suggested that ONLY black people have ever been lynched. They are saying that the term lynching has been so irreversibly linked to the systematic murder of black people in the United States that it has overtaken in priority any mundane usage of the term.
There are mundane uses of the Swastika and they extend back far further than the Nazi regime, but you'll have a tough argument in suggesting we should allow swastika avatar even if they aren't the Nazi kind.
In post 304, AniX wrote:The amount of people actually, legitimately bent out of shape and to some degree UPSET AND ANGRY about having to use a different word in a forum game because a different word is hurtful to some people is...pathetic to say the absolute least. You'd think half these people were the ones who wrote the standard definition of lynch in the dictionary, the way they are taking something extremely easy, simple, and inconsequential for them to follow so personally.
In post 658, Nero Cain wrote:you guys do know that lynchings happened long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I mean, yes, the word lynch does carry so many racist undertones b/c of how the KKK used lynches for black ppl but I just wanted to point out that it is has been a punishment for ONLY blacks is absolutely false.
Nobody has suggested that ONLY black people have ever been lynched. They are saying that the term lynching has been so irreversibly linked to the systematic murder of black people in the United States that it has overtaken in priority any mundane usage of the term.
There are mundane uses of the Swastika and they extend back far further than the Nazi regime, but you'll have a tough argument in suggesting we should allow swastika avatar even if they aren't the Nazi kind.
I have a serious and simple suggestion for a replacement verb: "mobbed". it's one syllable and the word "mob" is already a small part of site culture with "a mob has formed". it doesn't have went overlap with other terminology and it clearly suggests the idea of a large group ganging up on one person.
In post 687, xyzzy wrote:I have a serious and simple suggestion for a replacement verb: "mobbed". it's one syllable and the word "mob" is already a small part of site culture with "a mob has formed". it doesn't have went overlap with other terminology and it clearly suggests the idea of a large group ganging up on one person.
In post 304, AniX wrote:The amount of people actually, legitimately bent out of shape and to some degree UPSET AND ANGRY about having to use a different word in a forum game because a different word is hurtful to some people is...pathetic to say the absolute least. You'd think half these people were the ones who wrote the standard definition of lynch in the dictionary, the way they are taking something extremely easy, simple, and inconsequential for them to follow so personally.
Hence, I am utterly confused by how this word is even supposed to offend anyone.
Because lots of black people died by racists white people.
Also I'm utterly confused as to why you care? Either the word is racist or it isn't, why does it matter to you if it stays or go?
It actually doesn't. I just wanted to understand how a word that doesn't refer to a group of people was racist.
Because it refers, in the United States, specifically to a type of systematic murder of people of a certain race. A dictionary doesn't intend to capture sociopolitical circumstances so it doesn't include that context, but that doesn't mean the context isn't there.
There are plenty of things that don't specifically refer to a group of people but nevertheless carries racial animus with it because of how it was used over years and years.
Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK!
LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR!
ASEXUAL!
KING SCAR APOLOGIST!
DREAMER OF THE NE0N DREAM (SUPP 2021 LAST PLACE WINNER)!
In post 304, AniX wrote:The amount of people actually, legitimately bent out of shape and to some degree UPSET AND ANGRY about having to use a different word in a forum game because a different word is hurtful to some people is...pathetic to say the absolute least. You'd think half these people were the ones who wrote the standard definition of lynch in the dictionary, the way they are taking something extremely easy, simple, and inconsequential for them to follow so personally.
Hence, I am utterly confused by how this word is even supposed to offend anyone.
Because lots of black people died by racists white people.
Also I'm utterly confused as to why you care? Either the word is racist or it isn't, why does it matter to you if it stays or go?
It actually doesn't. I just wanted to understand how a word that doesn't refer to a group of people was racist.
Because it refers, in the United States, specifically to a type of systematic murder of people of a certain race. A dictionary doesn't intend to capture sociopolitical circumstances so it doesn't include that context, but that doesn't mean the context isn't there.
There are plenty of things that don't specifically refer to a group of people but nevertheless carries racial animus with it because of how it was used over years and years.
green shirt thursdays
