Traditionally, the average citizen looks at the possible candidates and chooses one whose beliefs and policy preferences line up with their own. The system you suggest would require instead that a citizen become well-informed not only on a wide range of issues, but also on legislative procedure and language, competing amendments, legislative strategy (horse-trading, or voting against one version of a bill with language one favors in order to allow another, better version to pass in its place) &c.
As someone who thinks we already vote too much (county and state judges, county board of supervisors, city council, mayor, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state house and senate, federal house and senate and president, not to mention county, city and state referenda) for the average person to remain well-educated, can you tell me why you think direct citizen involvement in the legislative process itself might produce better outcomes?
So it is actually OK to say that "gangsta thug culture" is a negative influence? Or you can only say it when a person of a different race isn't involved? I thought it was a code word. Is it not a code word when you use it, but is when your debate opponents use it? So many questions.
There's a conversation about "thug culture" in general, and there's a very real effort on the part of Zimmerman's defenders to paint Martin as a thug in order to blame him for getting killed. Context matters.
There's also no evidence that Zimmerman was the kind of person who would shoot a stranger simply because he was a different race. In fact, the evidence I've seen has suggested that Zimmerman was not a racist. Zimmerman's account should not be taken without question. He's the only living witness, but on the other hand, he may go to jail based on whatever the heck happened that day so he does have a motivation to lie. So while his statement should be investigated fully by law enforcement, I do find it basically credible.
I think the biggest problem with conversations about race is the trouble we have communicating about the difference between a person being a racist, and a person performing a racist action. The latter does not imply the former. I don't particularly care if Zimmerman is a racist; I don't think he is, I think calling this a hate crime cheapens the term, and I think it's irrelevant anyway. Most of the conversation I've seen is saying that the police failed to fully investigate the shooting because the victim was black.
What would you suggest that a woman do if somebody tries to rape her? Just take it and try to give a good description to law enforcement? I recognize that you may be one of those liberals with a fetish for gun control, so I doubt we will agree on this. But anyway.
The fraction of rapes in which an unknown assailant jumps out of the bushes and grabs the victim is far smaller than you think. Most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances of the victims, or against a drunk or drugged victim. The idea that giving women guns is a solution to the problem of rape comes totally from this idea that America is an extraordinarily dangerous place and the only way to survive it is with a gun. It's at odds with reality. I don't think gun control laws are constitutional or a solution to the problem, though.
Oh man. Please don't even go there. Read about "Fast and Furious" sometime. blah blah.
I'm aware of Fast and Furious; it sounds like a shitty idea. It wasn't the first operation of its kind, but it appears to have been the biggest. I think more investigation is needed, and I wouldn't be too upset if Holder lost his job, nor if someone with more direct responsibility goes to jail for negligence in the operation's execution. I think the controversy is overblown, and the Obama administration has done far worse.
Well, if we find that "thug culture" promotes the attitude that if somebody disrespects you, you should tackle them and beat them up, then it may be relevant to this case. If Trayvon did that, then it was a mistake that contributed to the tragic outcome. It is possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth, ya know? That still may (or may not) justify his shooting Trayvon based on what was happening right at that moment (was George's head being bashed against concrete? was Trayvon trying to grab his gun?), but it is at least a relevant thought for the living to take to heart in an effort to avoid repeating this incident.
This is what I'm talking about. "Thug culture" is far from the only part of our society that promotes violence against people who disrespect us. We drop bombs on people we think are disrespecting us! Tom Friedman says we had to make Iraq "suck on this." Michael Leeden says we have to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"
I replied to my own comment right after I posted that one. I mistakenly wrote "arrests" when I meant to say "investigations, including possible arrests." The problem is that the police half-assed the investigation, making the supposed lack of probable cause a foregone conclusion.
"Thug" is a word that gets thrown around far more casually when it's being applied to black people. It's used as a shorthand for "blacks behaving badly." When non-black people get called thugs, it's generally warranted; when black people get called thugs, it's because they spoke their minds far more often than for any actually thuggish behavior.
When people throw the word "thug" into a conversation about a young black man getting shot by a neighborhood watch member, they use it to imply that the black guy had it coming. That is why it's racist.
On its own, no. If we weren't having a conversation about this particular incident, I think we could have a very productive conversation on the negative effects of "gangsta thug culture," both in the black community and in society at large (where I agree it is prevalent). I would say yes, it (specifically the violence and macho posturing that sometimes comes with it) is a negative influence on our society.
The problem with bringing it up in this context is that there's no evidence beyond Zimmerman's statements that Martin did anything that could be construed as "thuggish." Bringing up "thuggish" behavior Martin engaged in previously (smoking pot, flipping off a camera, whatever sort of delinquency he got into) smacks of blaming the victim, in my opinion.
Talking about this incident, I'd say that "neighborhood watch," vigilante behavior and gun fetishism have a far more negative influence on our society. Promoting the idea that guns are necessary for self-defense has the effect of turning the prejudices of individuals into actual violence. The NRA promoting the idea that Obama and Holder are going to come take your guns away leads to increased sales for gun manufacturers and retailers, and a lot of those guns are being sold to paranoid racist lunatics, the last people we ought to encourage to arm themselves.
Bringing up "thug culture" is problematic because it's at best a secondary issue in the case at hand, and it's blown way out of proportion to the actual harm it inflicts on society, to the exclusion of more relevant and damaging issues.
You don't see the pattern? The three black people get called thugs because they criticize people, or because they do their jobs. The others are only called thugs when they try to intimidate someone recovering from surgery; otherwise, their name comes up because they called black people thugs, or someone else called black people thugs for something the black people said about them.
If you don't see the pattern, it's because you don't want to. I don't really know what else to say.
There are lots of valid criticisms of black Americans. (Most of them go back to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but I don't think anyone is beyond criticism.) If you just want to talk about "thugs" who run around and beat people up because they think being a thug is great because of rappers on MTV and their parents are terrible for not straightening them out, you're full of shit.
The AC who brought up all this crap doesn't know Martin. We know he smoked pot, flipped off a webcam, put gold on his teeth, and got suspended from school. I grew up with a ton of white kids who acted like that, but nobody ever called them thugs, and nobody ever shot them.
Clearly, liberals are the real racists. Like this liberal:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Barack Obama: he is a thug because he criticized the Supreme Court, he trained ACORN to intimidate (!) banks, he challenged signatures in a primary election. "If Barack Obama had a son, would he be a violent thug like Trayvon Martin?" "Who is the bigger thug: Trayvon Martin or Barack Obama?"
Eric Holder: New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton. Holder is a thug because the DOJ is investigating the S&P for its role in the runup to the 2008 financial crisis.
Al Sharpton: Black kids beat up an old white man (for some reason Sharpton is mentioned), Sharpton was at the White House Easter breakfast (the comments are full of the word "thug"), Trayvon Martin is a thug.
George Bush: Kanye West criticized George Bush and is a thug, George Bush personally called John Ashcroft while he was in the hospital to get him to sign off on illegal wiretapping.
Alberto Gonzalez: Gonzalez went to the hospital to speak to Ashcroft in the aforementioned incident.
Rush Limbaugh: Obama is a thug, Obama is a thug, Obama is a thug, basketball is a thug sport.
When people call Obama and Holder thugs, it is because of (fairly mild) criticisms they voice, or investigations they perform (as, you know, the goddamn Attorney General). Sharpton is a thug, and he spends all his time talking about thugs.
When people call Bush and Gonzalez thugs, they're generally referring to an incident where they tried to force the then-Attorney General to give them a paper trail to cover for doing something illegal, while the AG was in the hospital recovering from surgery (at the time, Gonzalez was White House Counsel). The only time Limbaugh's name is tied to the word "thug" is when he uses it to describe black people.
They didn't test the shooter for alcohol or narcotics, they didn't collect his clothing as evidence, they didn't look up the call records on the cell phone found at the scene...
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this situation was completely instigated by Martin (or if you're just trolling). According to Martin's girlfriend, who heard the beginning of the interaction between Martin and Zimmerman, Z confronted M, and the cell phone was on the ground, lending credence to the idea that M was defending himself. You seem to trust Z's word, since M smoked pot and flipped off a webcam; I don't believe Z, because I think that there's generally something wrong with someone who drives around his neighborhood with a gun calling 911 all the time.
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Assuming, of course, that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that that's what happened. That's why arrests are generally made in these situations.
"gangsta thug culture" "all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal" "being a gangsta thug is not a s glorious as MTV makes it look" "THUG LIFE YO!"
Reminds me of the time Newt Gingrich called Obama a "food stamp president." No reference to race, but somehow all the racists understand exactly what he's talking about. Look up "dogwhistle" for me.
I'll say it: Zimmerman shouldn't be lynched. He was charged with a crime, and I think it's still possible for him to get a fair trial; as long as that happens, I'll be satisfied. If he's acquitted, there's at least a remote possibility that Florida should change their law, assuming his defense is based on the widely-publicized Stand Your Ground law.
Way to bring up lynching though, it's totally germane, since a vigilante killed a black person.
Well if he's hispanic, then I don't know why it's a news story.
Oh wait, it's because he shot a kid and got away with it.
It became a news story after the 911 recordings were released, and it was revealed the dispatcher told him not to follow the kid; once journalists (presumably liberal) looked into it, they discovered that the police didn't canvass the neighborhood or collect Zimmerman's clothing, or really investigate at all. Zimmerman shot a kid, said "He attacked me first," and the police thought that sounded legit, so they sent him home.
I understand all the factual information you pointed out, I just disagree that black people getting to say "nigger" while white people can't is racist, or important for anything other than historical reasons.
The point I was trying to make is, when you're dealing with a racial slur, the most important thing is the intent of the speaker. I don't think a black person *is* universally OK with being called a "nigger" by another black person. I think if they are friends, or if they share cultural markers that suggest the word isn't being used in a hateful way, it's more likely to be OK. There are, however, black people who are brutally racist toward young black men, and when they say "nigger," I'd bet it comes off the same as if an old white guy had said it.
I don't think "gay" parallels "nigger" at all; it's more like "black," where it can sting in the right context, but it's a generally descriptive word. I'd say "faggot" is the word you're looking for. While it's true that the specific orientation of the speaker doesn't matter a lot, in my experience, gay people are a lot less tolerant of angrily being called "faggot" by an older, conservative religious person than they are of gay allies playfully calling them "faggots." Because perceived intent matters.
I'm not saying this is the way things should be (frankly, I'd be happy for slurs like this to never be spoken again, except in history books), but this is generally the way things are. I certainly understand being frustrated that what appears to be the same behavior is unacceptable for white people, but often OK for black people. What I'm saying is, it's different. The legacy of slavery and segregation and racism in the US is such that the word "nigger" carries different meaning when spoken by a random white person than when spoken by a random black person. The word is designed to carry the weight of centuries of oppression, and it carries it whether you want to or not, regardless of the fact that you aren't racist and haven't done anything to perpetuate that system.
Did you notice that you're attacking the dictionary definition of a word, and not what people mean when they talk about putting the concept behind that word into practice?
Slashdot Mirror
Traditionally, the average citizen looks at the possible candidates and chooses one whose beliefs and policy preferences line up with their own. The system you suggest would require instead that a citizen become well-informed not only on a wide range of issues, but also on legislative procedure and language, competing amendments, legislative strategy (horse-trading, or voting against one version of a bill with language one favors in order to allow another, better version to pass in its place) &c.
As someone who thinks we already vote too much (county and state judges, county board of supervisors, city council, mayor, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state house and senate, federal house and senate and president, not to mention county, city and state referenda) for the average person to remain well-educated, can you tell me why you think direct citizen involvement in the legislative process itself might produce better outcomes?
So it is actually OK to say that "gangsta thug culture" is a negative influence? Or you can only say it when a person of a different race isn't involved? I thought it was a code word. Is it not a code word when you use it, but is when your debate opponents use it? So many questions.
There's a conversation about "thug culture" in general, and there's a very real effort on the part of Zimmerman's defenders to paint Martin as a thug in order to blame him for getting killed. Context matters.
There's also no evidence that Zimmerman was the kind of person who would shoot a stranger simply because he was a different race. In fact, the evidence I've seen has suggested that Zimmerman was not a racist. Zimmerman's account should not be taken without question. He's the only living witness, but on the other hand, he may go to jail based on whatever the heck happened that day so he does have a motivation to lie. So while his statement should be investigated fully by law enforcement, I do find it basically credible.
I think the biggest problem with conversations about race is the trouble we have communicating about the difference between a person being a racist, and a person performing a racist action. The latter does not imply the former. I don't particularly care if Zimmerman is a racist; I don't think he is, I think calling this a hate crime cheapens the term, and I think it's irrelevant anyway. Most of the conversation I've seen is saying that the police failed to fully investigate the shooting because the victim was black.
What would you suggest that a woman do if somebody tries to rape her? Just take it and try to give a good description to law enforcement? I recognize that you may be one of those liberals with a fetish for gun control, so I doubt we will agree on this. But anyway.
The fraction of rapes in which an unknown assailant jumps out of the bushes and grabs the victim is far smaller than you think. Most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances of the victims, or against a drunk or drugged victim. The idea that giving women guns is a solution to the problem of rape comes totally from this idea that America is an extraordinarily dangerous place and the only way to survive it is with a gun. It's at odds with reality. I don't think gun control laws are constitutional or a solution to the problem, though.
Oh man. Please don't even go there. Read about "Fast and Furious" sometime. blah blah.
I'm aware of Fast and Furious; it sounds like a shitty idea. It wasn't the first operation of its kind, but it appears to have been the biggest. I think more investigation is needed, and I wouldn't be too upset if Holder lost his job, nor if someone with more direct responsibility goes to jail for negligence in the operation's execution. I think the controversy is overblown, and the Obama administration has done far worse.
Well, if we find that "thug culture" promotes the attitude that if somebody disrespects you, you should tackle them and beat them up, then it may be relevant to this case. If Trayvon did that, then it was a mistake that contributed to the tragic outcome. It is possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth, ya know? That still may (or may not) justify his shooting Trayvon based on what was happening right at that moment (was George's head being bashed against concrete? was Trayvon trying to grab his gun?), but it is at least a relevant thought for the living to take to heart in an effort to avoid repeating this incident.
This is what I'm talking about. "Thug culture" is far from the only part of our society that promotes violence against people who disrespect us. We drop bombs on people we think are disrespecting us! Tom Friedman says we had to make Iraq "suck on this." Michael Leeden says we have to "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,"
I replied to my own comment right after I posted that one. I mistakenly wrote "arrests" when I meant to say "investigations, including possible arrests." The problem is that the police half-assed the investigation, making the supposed lack of probable cause a foregone conclusion.
I'm not arguing that it's inherently racist, just that it's generally racist, and especially in this case.
"Thug" is a word that gets thrown around far more casually when it's being applied to black people. It's used as a shorthand for "blacks behaving badly." When non-black people get called thugs, it's generally warranted; when black people get called thugs, it's because they spoke their minds far more often than for any actually thuggish behavior.
When people throw the word "thug" into a conversation about a young black man getting shot by a neighborhood watch member, they use it to imply that the black guy had it coming. That is why it's racist.
On its own, no. If we weren't having a conversation about this particular incident, I think we could have a very productive conversation on the negative effects of "gangsta thug culture," both in the black community and in society at large (where I agree it is prevalent). I would say yes, it (specifically the violence and macho posturing that sometimes comes with it) is a negative influence on our society.
The problem with bringing it up in this context is that there's no evidence beyond Zimmerman's statements that Martin did anything that could be construed as "thuggish." Bringing up "thuggish" behavior Martin engaged in previously (smoking pot, flipping off a camera, whatever sort of delinquency he got into) smacks of blaming the victim, in my opinion.
Talking about this incident, I'd say that "neighborhood watch," vigilante behavior and gun fetishism have a far more negative influence on our society. Promoting the idea that guns are necessary for self-defense has the effect of turning the prejudices of individuals into actual violence. The NRA promoting the idea that Obama and Holder are going to come take your guns away leads to increased sales for gun manufacturers and retailers, and a lot of those guns are being sold to paranoid racist lunatics, the last people we ought to encourage to arm themselves.
Bringing up "thug culture" is problematic because it's at best a secondary issue in the case at hand, and it's blown way out of proportion to the actual harm it inflicts on society, to the exclusion of more relevant and damaging issues.
You don't see the pattern? The three black people get called thugs because they criticize people, or because they do their jobs. The others are only called thugs when they try to intimidate someone recovering from surgery; otherwise, their name comes up because they called black people thugs, or someone else called black people thugs for something the black people said about them.
If you don't see the pattern, it's because you don't want to. I don't really know what else to say.
There are lots of valid criticisms of black Americans. (Most of them go back to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but I don't think anyone is beyond criticism.) If you just want to talk about "thugs" who run around and beat people up because they think being a thug is great because of rappers on MTV and their parents are terrible for not straightening them out, you're full of shit.
The AC who brought up all this crap doesn't know Martin. We know he smoked pot, flipped off a webcam, put gold on his teeth, and got suspended from school. I grew up with a ton of white kids who acted like that, but nobody ever called them thugs, and nobody ever shot them.
Clearly, liberals are the real racists. Like this liberal:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy
Barack Obama: he is a thug because he criticized the Supreme Court, he trained ACORN to intimidate (!) banks, he challenged signatures in a primary election. "If Barack Obama had a son, would he be a violent thug like Trayvon Martin?" "Who is the bigger thug: Trayvon Martin or Barack Obama?"
Eric Holder: New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton. Holder is a thug because the DOJ is investigating the S&P for its role in the runup to the 2008 financial crisis.
Al Sharpton: Black kids beat up an old white man (for some reason Sharpton is mentioned), Sharpton was at the White House Easter breakfast (the comments are full of the word "thug"), Trayvon Martin is a thug.
George Bush: Kanye West criticized George Bush and is a thug, George Bush personally called John Ashcroft while he was in the hospital to get him to sign off on illegal wiretapping.
Alberto Gonzalez: Gonzalez went to the hospital to speak to Ashcroft in the aforementioned incident.
Rush Limbaugh: Obama is a thug, Obama is a thug, Obama is a thug, basketball is a thug sport.
When people call Obama and Holder thugs, it is because of (fairly mild) criticisms they voice, or investigations they perform (as, you know, the goddamn Attorney General). Sharpton is a thug, and he spends all his time talking about thugs.
When people call Bush and Gonzalez thugs, they're generally referring to an incident where they tried to force the then-Attorney General to give them a paper trail to cover for doing something illegal, while the AG was in the hospital recovering from surgery (at the time, Gonzalez was White House Counsel). The only time Limbaugh's name is tied to the word "thug" is when he uses it to describe black people.
They didn't test the shooter for alcohol or narcotics, they didn't collect his clothing as evidence, they didn't look up the call records on the cell phone found at the scene...
Which they certainly don't have. The New Black Panther Party is approximately as dangerous as (and not as well-organized as) the Hutaree Militia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree#Michigan_Militia_and_the_Hutaree)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this situation was completely instigated by Martin (or if you're just trolling). According to Martin's girlfriend, who heard the beginning of the interaction between Martin and Zimmerman, Z confronted M, and the cell phone was on the ground, lending credence to the idea that M was defending himself. You seem to trust Z's word, since M smoked pot and flipped off a webcam; I don't believe Z, because I think that there's generally something wrong with someone who drives around his neighborhood with a gun calling 911 all the time.
Sorry, investigations, including possible arrests. Got distracted.
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Assuming, of course, that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that that's what happened. That's why arrests are generally made in these situations.
Please perform the following searches:
"barack obama" thug
"eric holder" thug
"al sharpton" thug
"george bush" thug
"alberto gonzalez" thug
"rush limbaugh" thug
Let me know if you see any patterns.
"gangsta thug culture"
"all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal"
"being a gangsta thug is not a s glorious as MTV makes it look"
"THUG LIFE YO!"
Reminds me of the time Newt Gingrich called Obama a "food stamp president." No reference to race, but somehow all the racists understand exactly what he's talking about. Look up "dogwhistle" for me.
So apparently it's not easy to railroad somebody, even if he appears obviously guilty. And OJ even killed white people!
The parent comment is chock-full of racist non sequiturs.
I'll say it: Zimmerman shouldn't be lynched. He was charged with a crime, and I think it's still possible for him to get a fair trial; as long as that happens, I'll be satisfied. If he's acquitted, there's at least a remote possibility that Florida should change their law, assuming his defense is based on the widely-publicized Stand Your Ground law.
Way to bring up lynching though, it's totally germane, since a vigilante killed a black person.
Wait-
Well if he's hispanic, then I don't know why it's a news story.
Oh wait, it's because he shot a kid and got away with it.
It became a news story after the 911 recordings were released, and it was revealed the dispatcher told him not to follow the kid; once journalists (presumably liberal) looked into it, they discovered that the police didn't canvass the neighborhood or collect Zimmerman's clothing, or really investigate at all. Zimmerman shot a kid, said "He attacked me first," and the police thought that sounded legit, so they sent him home.
OJ sure as fuck got charged with murder. Wanna try again? Or are you just listing all the black people you can think of?
Also, Zimmerman didn't get charged with a hate crime, so nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about.
I understand all the factual information you pointed out, I just disagree that black people getting to say "nigger" while white people can't is racist, or important for anything other than historical reasons.
The point I was trying to make is, when you're dealing with a racial slur, the most important thing is the intent of the speaker. I don't think a black person *is* universally OK with being called a "nigger" by another black person. I think if they are friends, or if they share cultural markers that suggest the word isn't being used in a hateful way, it's more likely to be OK. There are, however, black people who are brutally racist toward young black men, and when they say "nigger," I'd bet it comes off the same as if an old white guy had said it.
I don't think "gay" parallels "nigger" at all; it's more like "black," where it can sting in the right context, but it's a generally descriptive word. I'd say "faggot" is the word you're looking for. While it's true that the specific orientation of the speaker doesn't matter a lot, in my experience, gay people are a lot less tolerant of angrily being called "faggot" by an older, conservative religious person than they are of gay allies playfully calling them "faggots." Because perceived intent matters.
I'm not saying this is the way things should be (frankly, I'd be happy for slurs like this to never be spoken again, except in history books), but this is generally the way things are. I certainly understand being frustrated that what appears to be the same behavior is unacceptable for white people, but often OK for black people. What I'm saying is, it's different. The legacy of slavery and segregation and racism in the US is such that the word "nigger" carries different meaning when spoken by a random white person than when spoken by a random black person. The word is designed to carry the weight of centuries of oppression, and it carries it whether you want to or not, regardless of the fact that you aren't racist and haven't done anything to perpetuate that system.
So why do you want to say "nigger?"
Abraham Lincoln, a white man, set them free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ZG1-o9KWc
Did you notice that you're attacking the dictionary definition of a word, and not what people mean when they talk about putting the concept behind that word into practice?