-- Posted by Rainbow Blight at 9:25 am on Aug. 5, 2008 First, if you haven't seen the episode of South Park called "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" you can watch it here for free.  I say this because it is significant to the topic. The basic summary is that a guy says the word "nigger" on a TV game show and becomes the laughing stock of the whole town.  The guy's son is embarrassed at his father's stupid behavior, so he apologizes to his black friend for his father's stupidity, and that he understands why black people hate the word "nigger" (because it is offensive).  The black guy says that his friend doesn't get it and that white people can never understand the power of the n-word. I'm a Youth Rights-promoting libertarian and there are certain words that, even now, at 21, offend me down to the bone, things like "minor" and "underage" are disgusting words too, used to discriminate against a certain group of people (young people).  I hated being called those things when I was young because I felt discriminated by people.  I was the "nigger" of my time as a youngin', so I think in a way I do kind of empathize with black people with the whole "n-word is forbidden to use" thing because I was discriminated because of something out of their control. So my questions to you: Do you think no white person can ever understand how it feels for a black person to be called a nigger? Do you feel discriminated against (you young people) by older people? And what do you think the message of the episode was?  That white people can never understand the power of the word "nigger?" -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 9:35 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Did you just liken being called underage to being called a nigger? -- Posted by iBritt at 9:36 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:35 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Did you just liken being called underage to being called a nigger? Yep. Um, I really don't mind being called underage....because I am underage? I mean, I don't think 16 year olds should have the same responsibilities as a 21 year old, so I really don't have an issue with it. -- Posted by Rainbow Blight at 9:41 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 9:35 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Did you just liken being called underage to being called a nigger? They're not exactly the same, but they are similar.  Being called underage had a big impact on me when I was younger; even though I was physically younger, I was still mentally more mature so I didn't like being called a name that made me feel inferior which is also what "nigger" does.  Both words can make people feel inferior because of something out of the control.  Do you get what I'm coming from? I'm getting the vibe that no one is going to agree with me at this point.  I'm really surprised by this though. -- Posted by nikki at 10:00 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Being called underage is nothing like being called a nigger. It's saying you are not yet able to do certain things due to your age. It's not racist or anything like that. It's a fact. You are under the required age to do certain things. Nigger, however, is different. It's not a legal technicality, it's a racial slur. -- Posted by jamesish at 10:02 am on Aug. 5, 2008 No. Yes. It was all for comedy and using something current in the news.  They're trying to make money.  I dont care about the rest. -- Posted by Rainbow Blight at 10:07 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 10:00 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Being called underage is nothing like being called a nigger. It's saying you are not yet able to do certain things due to your age. It's not racist or anything like that. It's a fact. You are under the required age to do certain things. Nigger, however, is different. It's not a legal technicality, it's a racial slur. In the past, you were not the required race to do certain things.  How does that differ from today's situation with young people? It's not racist, but it is a loaded word with implications of unimportance.  And don't forget that "colored" used to be a legal technicality as well, but that doesn't mean it didn't offend people back then.  Any discrimination based on factors you don't control is wrong; why do all the intelligent 16-year-olds have to face collective punishment when it's their peers who are making all young people look bad. -- Posted by nikki at 10:20 am on Aug. 5, 2008 It's not discrimination. If you're sixteen, you're not an adult yet. You're too young to vote or whatever. It's not about being discriminated against, it's about not being old enough. There's a difference. I know race used to play a huge factor, but you can't compare that to age. It's not similar in any way. -- Posted by sophos at 11:29 am on Aug. 5, 2008 With such immature and simplistic points of views, the OP has obviously a lot of growing up to do. And that's going to be the least of his problems. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 11:50 am on Aug. 5, 2008 I guess people don't regard being called underage as a sort of terrible slur simply because it is a statement of the "victim's" age relative to specific age requirements for various activities. I also suppose people expect the smartest teens to know they'll grow out of it, and nobody would expect such mature and intelligent specimens to be whiny pussies about it. -- Posted by Rainbow Blight at 12:08 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 10:20 am on Aug. 5, 2008 It's not discrimination. If you're sixteen, you're not an adult yet. You're too young to vote or whatever. It's not about being discriminated against, it's about not being old enough. There's a difference. I know race used to play a huge factor, but you can't compare that to age. It's not similar in any way. Uh, how could you not call it discrimination?  People are losing their civil rights and people like you (and many young people) have pretty much given up trying anything.  The reason why NYRA is not very known because so many kids have been told that they are basically worth enough. It's exactly the same as racial laws before the 1960s. -- Posted by nikki at 2:14 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 It's not, I don't even see how they're connected. People WILL become adults at 18, and then, they can have the rights of an adult. People who are what, 14, should not have the rights to vote or whatever - they are underage for a reason. It's not a loss of civil rights, the reason there is an age of when you become an adult is because the majority of people under that age are NOT mature enough to have the right to vote (and other adult responsibilities). It's not a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of age and maturity, and the fact that those who are "underage" are not capable of adult responsibility in 99% of cases. -- Posted by telomere13 at 2:16 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 I'm going to have to agree with Rainbow Blight in large part.  I mean, I don't completely agree with the comparison, but the counterarguments are all far less convincing.   Honestly, I've always said that there are much better measures than age.  The problem is that parents whose kids didn't become independent earlier would end up resenting their kids, and "adults" who aren't as mature as a typical twelve-year-old would have very little incentive for supporting those measures. (Not to mention that most adults are stupider than some twelve-year-olds) -- Posted by hithere at 5:21 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 2:14 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 People who are what, 14, should not have the rights to vote or whatever Yeah, well, that's just your opinion. It is discrimination. m-w: "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit". The favor here is the right to vote, and the basis is the individual's age. If "maturity"(retarded word) tests were given to determine ability to vote, I would consider that individual merit. But age isn't merit. You may call it logical discrimination, but it still is discrimination. -- Posted by nikki at 2:08 am on Aug. 6, 2008 It is logical discrimination. And it's not in the same league as discriminating by race. It's not feasible to give every person in this country a maturity test every time an election of some sorts comes around. Being "underage" isn't discrimination. There needs to be laws surrounding certain things, and just because you happen to be considered a "minor" with regards to a certain law, it doesn't mean your being discriminated against as a person. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 am on Aug. 6, 2008 Quote: from hithere at 8:21 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 2:14 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 People who are what, 14, should not have the rights to vote or whatever Yeah, well, that's just your opinion. It is discrimination. m-w: "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit". The favor here is the right to vote, and the basis is the individual's age. If "maturity"(retarded word) tests were given to determine ability to vote, I would consider that individual merit. But age isn't merit. You may call it logical discrimination, but it still is discrimination. But "logical discrimination" doesn't have any teeth. I could use that phrase to describe not letting convicted pedophiles run a daycare center. -- Posted by hithere at 11:42 am on Aug. 6, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 2:08 am on Aug. 6, 2008 There needs to be laws surrounding certain things, and just because you happen to be considered a "minor" with regards to a certain law, it doesn't mean your being discriminated against as a person. You seem to be ignoring the point that Blight made earlier. You (and I, and many others, of course) believe that there needs to be laws surrounding age; in the past many believed that there needed to be laws surrounding race. I get the idea that, in terms of statistics that you and I personally value, discrimination by age makes a lot more sense than discrimination by race. But: 1. there are/were motives for both types of discrimination, strong enough that governments don't/didn't ensure rights to the groups of people in question. Governments in the past believed race discrimination was justified; governments in the present (and you) believe that age discrimination is justified. Both bases of discrimination are concerning aspects that an individual cannot affect. They're completely similar (except for the fact that one's age can change, which is an excellent point but a different argument nonetheless) so I don't really see how you can argue that one is "being discriminated against as a person" and the other isn't. 2. there must have been some black people who were not "mature "enough for certain rights, just as there are some minors who are "mature" enough for those same rights. So in neither case is it completely justified to bring in an absolute, because somebody will get what they don't deserve or not get what they do deserve. We can only argue that one is more justified than the other. Anyways, I agree that calling somebody a nigger is different than calling somebody black (which seems to me to be on the same level as calling somebody underage or a minor). In your opinion, if a slur became popular to refer to minors, would it be as bad as a racial slur? -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 9:25 pm on Aug. 7, 2008 1) Yeah, we're all human 2) Now that i think about it, yeah, I guess. A little 3) I think the point of the episode was to expose america's preference to put blame and scrutiny typical white american when it comes to race, as opposed to taking whatever problems that face its underpriviledged minorites (blacks in this case) on the institution, which really is the only party that can really make a difference. See, by scruitinizing the don imus' of this world, we're ignoring a solution to problems that racism stems from. -- Posted by Bizilbur at 1:09 am on Aug. 8, 2008 White people were discriminated and oppressed for centuries. Pollack, wops, bohunk, pikey, etc, all used to carry the same connotation as nigger. They didn't last of course, but they existed. So yes, white people can understand, just maybe not so much today. Few people alive today can understand how it felt for someone to be called a nigger at the turn of the century. But don't forget the gooks, spics, pakis. Age discrimination is discrimination in the classical sense because citizens of the United States (or respective countries) are being denied basic rights based on a characteristic of their birth, i.e. the timing. Yes, these people will eventually be given rights, but it makes no difference. The laws of a country are supposed to protect all citizen's rights regardless of the characteristics of their birth, not picking and choosing who and when deserve these rights. You feel a need to deny the basic tenants of modern civilization because you know no other way in which to run the system. Ignorance and fear of change is not an excuse to oppress.