quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
Aside from the speech and context isssues I will say that it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. My family owned 50+ Papa John’s pizzas and John Schnatter was a raging assholes to deal with.

Then why did they buy 50 stores? PJ does have rigid rules for their franchises and one that rankles many is being forced to buy every item from the PJ commissary, even when it could be bought locally cheaper. I know several PJ franchise owners and they are all successful by following the program.

Because we owned the franchise rights to the entire region. This was international BTW. It has nothing to do with the business model it has to do with how he behaves personally. As soon as a good offer was made we sold the whole lot. We made a ton of money so I’m not saying that PJ wasn’t good for us...this is just about the man’s behavior. Schnatter just loves treating people like shit. It’s his MO. And yes I have met the guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
I think there is a deeper point about all this:
Why should anyone get upset about any word ?

I'm of Irish-American heritage. I can't think of any word, no matter how disparaging, that would really be "offensive" to me. It might make me laugh, and it might signal to me that your are a hostile idiot, but it certainly wouldn't really "offend" me.

My wife is Chinese. I know lots of Chinese people. A guarantee you that none of them is really offended by being called "Oriental" and they would all just laugh at your ignorance if you called them a "Chink".

Black people demonstrate every day that they are REALLY not offended by the N word. It is all just a power play by the Liberal Left and an excuse to claim a self-congratulatory moral high ground and intimidate others.


Also, if you really do offend an Irishman, we'll just keek yar fooging arse and laugh about it!

Sorry, I am offended if someone calls me a kike, or makes a comment that I 'Jewed them' out of something. The word is a reflection of a sentiment that Jews are inferior, much like the word nigger is a sentiment that blacks are inferior. Sure, it's not the word itself, but the word is an expression of something.

I also think when you say 'black people demonstrate every day. .' that is an unrealistic generalization. Yes, we see the thug types with the rap music, etc. . how about all of the black people in my office, or the parents of those kids on my sons sports team. His coach. My doctor. I think these folks are more of the majority, and are indeed offended by the word.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
I also think when you say 'black people demonstrate every day. .' that is an unrealistic generalization. Yes, we see the thug types with the rap music, etc. . how about all of the black people in my office, or the parents of those kids on my sons sports team. His coach. My doctor. I think these folks are more of the majority, and are indeed offended by the word.

Time and again I've seen a marked difference, both in the military and civilian worlds, in the behavior of individual black persons. When around a majority of whites there'll be one type of behavior, but when in a group of other blacks there's a reversion to thuggish talk and behavior. Even guys I thought I knew well. Not all, of course, but I've experienced it enough to believe the stereotype until proven otherwise.

 
The context of the times and the offended population matters. I have never used the "n" word, never will because I consider it offensive, regardless of how it is taken.
 
When I was growing up in East Texas in the 1950's, deep South, Black folks were still referred to, and self-referred to, as "colored". Along came the civil rights folks who said colored was offensive (did they ask the colored?), and we should use the term "Negro" instead, which morphed into Black, African-American, People of Color, etc. At the time, most of the "colored" folk I had contact with (which was many) said they actually preferred being referred to as colored, instead of the new term, which they considered offensive. And they told me so. Change is gradual. Who knows how to refer to any race/mixed race/gender nowadays? Some of the newer words are considered offensive by those being called that. Change is gradual. I just try to adapt and use what I know, which may be a decade or two out of date, but I've never had anyone take offense because I use words like that in a genuine and friendly manner. I take corrections easily, at least for that person. The next person might consider it offensive.
 

I work in the city of Milwaukee, and trust me, there are many people around here the word describes perfectly. Sorry if that offends anyone, but as far as I'm concerned it's just another word in the arsenal of epithets available to describe shitty people.

On the other hand, I also understand on an intellectual level why the word has such loaded meaning and why black people feel they can use it in a way that is totally unacceptable for others.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

Sorry, I am offended if someone calls me a kike, or makes a comment that I 'Jewed them' out of something. The word is a reflection of a sentiment that Jews are inferior, .....

Well, I can't control how anyone feels.
But I feel pretty lucky that my Dad drilled the old saying into my head "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

I just regard insults as things that reflect on the inferiority of the insulter, not something that I should feel inferior about. It seems like this is a much more successful and psychologically healthy outlook.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
I also think when you say 'black people demonstrate every day. .' that is an unrealistic generalization. Yes, we see the thug types with the rap music, etc. . how about all of the black people in my office, or the parents of those kids on my sons sports team. His coach. My doctor. I think these folks are more of the majority, and are indeed offended by the word.

Time and again I've seen a marked difference, both in the military and civilian worlds, in the behavior of individual black persons. When around a majority of whites there'll be one type of behavior, but when in a group of other blacks there's a reversion to thuggish talk and behavior. Even guys I thought I knew well. Not all, of course, but I've experienced it enough to believe the stereotype until proven otherwise.

I’ve witness this many times as well on the PD.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Time and again I've seen a marked difference, both in the military and civilian worlds, in the behavior of individual black persons. When around a majority of whites there'll be one type of behavior, but when in a group of other blacks there's a reversion to thuggish talk and behavior. Even guys I thought I knew well. Not all, of course, but I've experienced it enough to believe the stereotype until proven otherwise.

The same could be said of men being more likely to engage in locker room banter when not in mixed company.

Use whatever word you like:

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology. 

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane. 

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.

Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.

Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.

Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.

Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.

Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.

Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.

Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:

If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.

N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Haveme1or2:
Look up the true meaning. (If it hasn't been changed)
I know allot of "N's" they aren't all black.

I was raised by an old white leo .... I'm as racist as they come.

I remember the too when it didn't mention race, but, it has been changed.

IMHO... I think it is 'effing stupid when I see news personalities say "N-word".

Just say it.... AKA Sam Kinison.

The MSM is driving 90 percent of the foolishness we have to live with every day!

quote:

Originally posted by SuhlShooter:
IMHO... I think it is 'effing stupid when I see news personalities say "N-word".

Just say it.... AKA Sam Kinison.

The MSM is driving 90 percent of the foolishness we have to live with every day!

Louis CK has a good take on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ