Identifying with a word that is forbidden or frowned upon by modern society?

[Ksa]

^ In that case, calling someone here a drug addict is even worst because it violates his human rights. In fact, calling any person a drug addict or an alcoholic, is not just insulting the person, it is also violating his human rights and is considered discrimination, even if it's true, as drug addiction and alcoholism are disabilities.

If we were to ban the word nigger as per, human rights violation term, we should also ban the expression drug addict, or druggie, when referring to a person.

Brother, by being on this site, you WAVE YOUR RIGHTS. How can we express ourselves otherwise?! And how can we help eachother...if we can't even call a nigger a nigger and a drug addict a drug addict...not in an insulting manner of course...we are all mature, and sensible.

 

[alasdairm]

^ join the dots for me. i agree that addiction is a disease. how is it a violation of human rights to refer to a drug addict as "a drug addict.". is it a human rights violation to refer to somebody with measles as "that guy with measles"?

We are often compelled to say the truth that we cannot say, because being able to get it off our backs is a great relief. For example, it does not happen often for me to be able to bare witness that I like women strictly to fuck them in the mouth without even knowing their name.

my comment was based on the poster's transparent agenda.

willow11 said it well.

alasdair

 

[Felonious Monk]

^ In that case, calling someone here a drug addict is even worst because it violates his human rights. In fact, calling any person a drug addict or an alcoholic, is not just insulting the person, it is also violating his human rights and is considered discrimination, even if it's true, as drug addiction and alcoholism are disabilities.

Um, what? Being a drug addict is not a disability. Having no use of your legs is a disability, using drugs is a choice.

Besides, discrimination against drug addicts is perfectly legal.

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between racial slurs and the term "drug addict" (used in a factual manner), you're just being obtuse.

 

[swilow]

I feel like Droppersneck is rubbing his sweaty palms together in glee by creating a thread laden with the word 'nigger'. But, it is perfectly reasonable to have an etymological discussion on a word. Its the way it gets used that is a problem.

^ In that case, calling someone here a drug addict is even worst because it violates his human rights. In fact, calling any person a drug addict or an alcoholic, is not just insulting the person, it is also violating his human rights and is considered discrimination, even if it's true, as drug addiction and alcoholism are disabilities.

You wrote this as a follow-up to my post but I van't tell what you are talking about. TBH, I would consider it an insult to be called a "junky" even though I am a currently sober "drug addict". I would consider it an insult because a term like junky is used to make a host of bullshit assumptions about the moral character of a drug addict. It dehumanises people. A term like drug addict is a pretty apt description of aspects of my behaviour.

To be honest, I would rather not be described as anything but if I were to be, I'd rather it be something neutral like "Fellow" or "Dearie" or even "Bald piece of shit". Actually not that. I think that many drug addicts got there through some poor choices amongst other things. I've yet to meet anyone of any race that had any involvement in selecting their own heritage. You should not discriminate against people for things they have no choice in, such as race, sexuality, gender, nationality, etc. The only things a person should be held to account for are their actions. Calling a black person nigger does not allow this, it automatically judges them not indivually but as a (non existent) collective.

Brother, by being on this site, you WAVE YOUR RIGHTS. How can we express ourselves otherwise?! And how can we help eachother...if we can't even call a nigger a nigger and a drug addict a drug addict...not in an insulting manner of course...we are all mature, and sensible.

Yes, you do waive your rights to freedom of speech on Bluelight. I can accept that. The benefit I derive from bluelight outweighs the transgression on my freedom. I'm sure that such words can be used in non-insulting ways. There was a very odd, brief period where the Lounge was called "Rollin' and niggaz being gay" maybe 8-9 years ago. I was really really against this. I just thought how this would appear to black and homosexual drug users clicking on this website for the first time, seeing that nonsense and instantly leaving. It was a joke, with no insult intended, and yet it was a really poor idea. The whole point of bluelight is to get as many drug users using drugs safely. For some people, the use of certain terms is insulting regardless of the context because these terms encode an historical truth whereby these people lived lives of suffering and shitness.

 

[Jabberwocky]

does it make you feel better or worse when the specific word is banished by way of force or does it make you feel more accepted by society?

If someone called me a 'wop' or a 'guido' because of my Italian ethnicity, and the the NSA was like, "you can't say that" to the perpetrator and started water boarding the guy, I'd feel bad for the guy getting waterboarded. I mean, we should treat people nice n' stuff but social justice warriors shouldn't get all torture-like, you know?

 

[spacejunk]

I think that people with 25,000+ posts in a forum of which they disagree with the rules, have far too much time on their hands.

 

[Ksa]

Um, what? Being a drug addict is not a disability. Having no use of your legs is a disability, using drugs is a choice.

That's what you think, or at least, not in Canada, here it is:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/padt_pdda_eng.pdf

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and perceived disability 4. Disability includes a previous or existing dependence on alcohol or a drug 5. Further, the Act also prohibits discrimination based on the actual or perceived possibility that an individual may develop a drug or alcohol dependency in the future

dependent drug users have a disability and are therefore afforded protection under human rights law.

Requiring an employee in, or an applicant for, a safety-sensitive position 3 to undergoing as a condition of employment may be acceptable, given that alcohol testing can measure impairment at the time of the test, but only if the employer accommodates the needs of those who test positive and who are determined to be dependent on alcohol.

You can't even give someone a drug test if you can't accommodate his rehab in case he tests positive! LOL Canada vs. biggots, Canada puts it right in their asshole.

 

[Felonious Monk]

^Wow. That's actually incredible. IMO it might go a little far with the disability qualification, but definitely better than the treatment drug users receive in the U.S.

 

[Ksa]

^Wow. That's actually incredible. IMO it might go a little far with the disability qualification, but definitely better than the treatment drug users receive in the U.S.

Lol check, to even administer a drug test, the employer must prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the test will measure impairment at the time of the job, and not previous impairment. Like, THC tests aren't even allowed because users who were impaired from it 2 weeks ago can test positive today and it wouldn't mean anything, other than the fact that the person uses drugs, and you can't say, I'm firing this guy because he used...that's as good as saying I'm firing him because he's a nigger.

If the test is positive, the employer must accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship, meaning rehab + groups + re-integration into the job site. The employee's absence should be known of as a vacation and any mention about drugs or rehab would render the employer liable for human rights violations against the employee. If the employee denies his/her addiction, the employer is still has a duty to accommodate because denial is a symptom of addiction.

Also, if during a job reference, the employer states that the employee was fired for being an idiot, a slacker and a know nothing, the employer is not liable in court of law in any way, because of the privileged conversation. However, if the employer mentions that the employee drank, used drugs or was fired for having drugs in his possession, all privileges are lost and the employer is liable in court of law for violating the employee's human rights. If the employee is able to prove that he did not get the job because of that bad reference (which is really not hard), the previous employer will pay damages, which can be a lot.

Straight in the asshole.

 

[swilow]

^I'm confused at to how this relates to the topic....?

and you can't say, I'm firing this guy because he used...that's as good as saying I'm firing him because he's a nigger.

If it were legal (it is explicitly illegal to fire a drug addict, what employer wouldn't find multiple other performance reasons that correspond), given that using drugs is criminal behaviour, I see a distinct difference between discrimination against blacks and drug addicts.

 

[Ksa]

^I'm confused at to how this relates to the topic....?



If it were legal (it is explicitly illegal to fire a drug addict, what employer wouldn't find multiple other performance reasons that correspond), given that using drugs is criminal behaviour, I see a distinct difference between discrimination against blacks and drug addicts.

Drug dependency is a prohibited ground of discrimination. That means there is no difference. It's like saying that it's ok to discriminate against blacks, because, unlike mentally handicapped, blacks commit crimes in the ghetto. That would really not be helping your case brother! LOL

 

[swilow]

Drug dependency is a prohibited ground of discrimination. That means there is no difference. It's like saying that it's ok to discriminate against blacks, because, unlike mentally handicapped, blacks commit crimes in the ghetto.

That blacks commit crimes in the ghetto is a racist stereotype. Drug use itself is actually a crime in most of the world. It should't be, IMO, but it is. Being a criminal often raises a red flag in terms of employment. I get that.

That blacks allegedly commit crime at higher rates has little to do with race and everything to do with social standing, education, poverty and the racist attitudes of the white majority. In all parts of the world where there is poverty contrasted with the resource-rich, you have crime. Ethnicity does not mean shit. Hence, it shouldn't be discriminated against.

This is not the topic of this thread... or is it? I don't know, the OP made about as much effort as he normally does when posting on the can. :D

That would really not be helping your case brother! LOL

What case? All I am saying is that no words should be prohibited, but use of assaultive language has implicit consequences that should also not be prohibited. If you want to demean people through use of language, have at it but be prepared for a response.

I may be dense, but I have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about for the most part. This doesn't feel like part of this topic, a topic which is not really about anything in particular; as such, I can't see much more value in discussing this with you. No offense, but you don't express your points in a way I understand.

 

[One Thousand Words]

If simply being offended is the basis for being correct there would be a lot of homosexuals doing it wrong

 

[alasdairm]

ksa, nothing you've added here supports your claim that simply calling a drug addict a drug addict violates their human rights.

what you have written seems to support your claim that you can't discriminate based on dependency but that's a different thing altogether.

alasdair

 

[sigmond]

OP, this is a well known phenomenon known as reclaiming or defanging a slur. "Redneck" and "geek" are two examples I can think of in recent times. I've often wondered what makes the difference between a derogatory slur that gets defanged, and one that never quite loses its bite. I'm guessing this has something to do with the othering symbolized by the word, and just how real and pervasive it is. When the rift between one group of people and another is so deep that they have very little normal and friendly social interaction, and all members of the group who get the slur suffer in very real ways that the users of the slur don't (and don't relate to), then the word will remain like nails on a chalkboard to those who have it applied to them. For a slur to be defang-able, there has to be a critical mass of people to whom the slur doesn't apply, who think and act like othering that particular group of people is silly.

i used to be befuddled by this phenomenon but understand it a little better now. still consider it ridiculous at times and a good example would be the 'slutwalk'. perhaps its just me but if someone were to tell me they were participating in a 'slutwalk' and i had no prior knowledge of the event, a rally to support rape victims wouldn't be something i would deduce.

you mentioned 'geek' which i consider complimentary, another one is 'weird'. i do not identify as weird but have been referred to as weird many times. i disagree with the assertion, although i remember sandy lerner mentioning that she was considered weird until she became rich, and now that she is rich she is considered 'eccentric!!' one day i shall enter the pantheon of the eccentrics!! (enter latin phrase)

Sigmond, this is getting off the OP's topic and more into deconstruction, but I have noticed that the use of "humans" in non-technical discourse, where most speakers would use "people", very often carries the implication of "We're just another species of animal, and one that could stand to be a lot more humble."

yea i also see it used to conjure up the image of unity or universality. you might see a billboard containing pictures of people from several different races and religions with a phrase like "We Are All HUMAN". cause after all you have to consistently remind 'humans' that they're 'human'.

 

[Ksa]

ksa, nothing you've added here supports your claim that simply calling a drug addict a drug addict violates their human rights.

what you have written seems to support your claim that you can't discriminate based on dependency but that's a different thing altogether.

alasdair

We can do a test, come to Canada attend one of my lectures, stand up and call me a drug addict. We'll take the slander case to court and see how it goes.

Lol.

That blacks allegedly commit crime at higher rates has little to do with race and everything to do with social standing, education, poverty and the racist attitudes of the white majority. In all parts of the world where there is poverty contrasted with the resource-rich, you have crime.

Yes but that's the same thing with drug addicts, Michael Jackson got his drugs from his doctor so technically he never committed a crime. Poor people commit crimes because they're poor yes. Just like race, drug dependency goes beyond social ranks and can affect anyone.

 

[alasdairm]

We can do a test, come to Canada attend one of my lectures, stand up and call me a drug addict. We'll take the slander case to court and see how it goes.

Lol.

are you, indeed, a drug addict? you can't defame somebody if what you are saying about them is true.

you've made a claim and, so far, have failed to back it up. you'll forgive me for starting to think that you're just making stuff up?

alasdair

 

[swilow]

Yes but that's the same thing with drug addicts, Michael Jackson got his drugs from his doctor so technically he never committed a crime. Poor people commit crimes because they're poor yes. Just like race, drug dependency goes beyond social ranks and can affect anyone.

Michael Jackson did not commit a crime but his doctor did. That's not really my point though. My point was what you selected not to respond to.

A drug addict is a person addicted to drugs.

A 'nigger' is a derogatory term for people with black skin.

The former is a clear, concise use of language. You can choose to be offended by anything though, but the intent behind it is clarity. The latter is a blanket term to dehumanise individuals and represents a specific social assumption about that person.

Is it problematic for me to call you a shoe-wearer, if indeed you are wearing shoes?

On the other hand (foot), it is problematic if I call you a faggot because you are wearing high heels. When you use language to objectify and dehumanise another, you are negating their value without proper cause.

Shit, I cannot even tell if I've made less than half a point here.... Semantic discussions are fruitless. There is a reason why some language is taboo and I agree with it. I would never agree with criminalising language though.

 

[Ksa]

Michael Jackson did not commit a crime but his doctor did. That's not really my point though. My point was what you selected not to respond to.

A drug addict is a person addicted to drugs.

A 'nigger' is a derogatory term for people with black skin.

The former is a clear, concise use of language. You can choose to be offended by anything though, but the intent behind it is clarity. The latter is a blanket term to dehumanise individuals and represents a specific social assumption about that person.

Is it problematic for me to call you a shoe-wearer, if indeed you are wearing shoes?

On the other hand (foot), it is problematic if I call you a faggot because you are wearing high heels. When you use language to objectify and dehumanise another, you are negating their value without proper cause.

Shit, I cannot even tell if I've made less than half a point here.... Semantic discussions are fruitless. There is a reason why some language is taboo and I agree with it. I would never agree with criminalising language though.

We agree with eachother but we're somehow arguing, funny...yes, it's dehumanizing to call a man in high heels a faggot, and it's also dehumanizing to call a guy doing drugs a drug addict because in Canada, both sexual orientation and drug dependency are prohibited grounds of discrimination.

are you, indeed, a drug addict? you can't defame somebody if what you are saying about them is true.

you've made a claim and, so far, have failed to back it up. you'll forgive me for starting to think that you're just making stuff up?

alasdair

Since denial is a symptom of drug addiction, it doesn't matter if I deny or not your accusation. By simply making it you have violated my human rights and I can use all resources to get back at you very successfully. Dude just don't come to Canada if you hate it.

 

[alasdairm]

By simply making it you have violated my human rights...

you have not shown (can not show?) how this is true.

you seem to be conflating calling a drug addict a drug addict with discriminating against somebody because they're an addict. you've also subtly moved the goalposts - there is a difference between "a guy doing drugs" and "a drug addict".

i'm asking you a simple thing - explain how simply calling a drug addict (not a guy doing drugs) a drug addict violates anybody's human rights?

...just don't come to Canada if you hate it.

hate what? who said anything about hate?

alasdair