The Batlord |
03-04-2015 04:58 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulflower
(Post 1560227)
You argued quite strongly that it was not a racial slur.
|
Yeah, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1560082)
But it's not necessarily a racial slur. I think it's been replaced with "congoid", but I'm pretty sure that's purely a name change just so it doesn't sound offensive, and therefore means the exact same thing. If you want to interpret negroid as racist then I can't do anything about that, but that doesn't mean you get to judge others for not sharing your particular views on language.
|
Notice my word choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1560110)
So if it's not racist then it's still potentially a perfectly valid scientific term. So why shouldn't it be usable? Lot's of things about science offend people, but that doesn't mean that it should bow to social pressure.
|
Clearly referencing it as a scientific term and not commenting on its different historical usages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulflower
(Post 1560071)
Negroid is a racial slur. I really hope and pray the Batlord was joking with that....
|
Oh look. You're conveniently denying that it's a scientific term. Unless of course you're just not communicating clearly your intent with specific word choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth in order to discredit my moral integrity and ignoring all the times when I made clear that I wasn't speaking of its non-scientific usages. That's called an " ad hominem" logical fallacy and it's bull****.
|