/abs/ - Absurdism

You are Sisyphus, this board is your boulder.


New Reply×
Name
Subject
Speak!
Junk Max 5 files10MB total
Tegaki
Dots
Don't Bump
[New Reply]


ERISIAN zine


1450247874128.png
(117.2KB, 206x256)
If I'm sisyphus then where the fuck's my rock nigga I'm fiending for that shit
Go to the central train station, out to the left, two block and then on the right. Their prices are a bit high but the quality is worth it.
If you followed the directions correctly, you should see a pair of shoes thrown over a powerline.
1418739048102_rainews_20141216144738646.jpg
(748.2KB, 2599x1957)
Make up your own rock
It's /abs/urdism, there's no one rock, there are only made up rocks.
Replies: >>120
Crack-cocaine-2-grams.jpeg
(599.3KB, 1536x1549)
>>119
I can't just cook up my own rock bro I'll get arrested.
135638086061.jpg
(603.8KB, 1600x1200)
Just get a job.
The use of the n-word, a racial slur directed at Black people, is a complex and deeply contentious issue that touches on themes of racism, historical trauma, and cultural sensitivity. This essay will explore the reasons why the n-word should not be used, focusing on its historical context, the harm it causes, and the importance of respectful and inclusive language.

Historical Context

The n-word has a long and painful history rooted in the transatlantic slave trade and the subsequent enslavement of Africans in the Americas. It was used to dehumanize and oppress Black people, reducing them to the status of property rather than human beings. The word was a tool of oppression, used to justify the brutal treatment and exploitation of enslaved people. Even after the abolition of slavery, the n-word continued to be used as a means of maintaining racial hierarchy and discrimination.

Psychological and Emotional Harm

The use of the n-word inflicts significant psychological and emotional harm on Black individuals. It serves as a reminder of the historical and ongoing racism that Black people have endured. The word can evoke feelings of anger, sadness, and humiliation, and it can trigger traumatic memories of racial violence and discrimination. For many Black people, hearing the n-word can be a deeply painful and distressing experience, regardless of the context in which it is used.

Cultural Appropriation and Misuse

One of the arguments often used to justify the use of the n-word is that it has been reclaimed by some members of the Black community as a term of endearment or empowerment. However, this reclamation is complex and nuanced. The word's meaning and impact can vary widely depending on who is using it and in what context. When non-Black people use the n-word, it is often seen as cultural appropriation and a disrespectful appropriation of Black culture. It can also be perceived as a form of microaggression, where the user may not intend harm but still causes offense and discomfort.

Legal and Professional Consequences

The use of the n-word can have serious legal and professional consequences. In many workplaces, schools, and public spaces, the use of racial slurs is prohibited and can result in disciplinary action, including suspension, termination, or legal action. The word is widely recognized as offensive and derogatory, and its use can damage reputations, relationships, and careers. In a professional setting, using the n-word can create a hostile work environment, leading to decreased productivity, morale, and job satisfaction.

Conclusion

The n-word is a deeply offensive and harmful racial slur that has a long history of oppression and discrimination. Its use causes significant psychological and emotional harm, perpetuates cultural appropriation, and can have serious legal and professional consequences. Promoting inclusive language and raising awareness about the harmful effects of the word are essential steps in creating a more respectful and equitable society. By avoiding the use of the n-word and encouraging others to do the same, we can contribute to a culture of respect, understanding, and inclusion.
Replies: >>1662 >>1663
Natural Rights theory posits that certain rights are inherent to human beings and exist independently of government or societal recognition. These rights are often described as universal, inalienable, and self-evident. Prominent philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have contributed significantly to this discourse, asserting that individuals possess rights simply by virtue of being human.
    1. Inherent Nature of Rights: According to Natural Rights theorists, rights are not granted by governments; rather, they exist inherently within individuals. When a right is defined too narrowly—such as specifying conditions under which it can be exercised—it may lead to situations where individuals cannot fully realize their natural entitlements. For example, if freedom of speech is defined only within certain contexts (e.g., public forums), then expressions outside those contexts may be unjustly suppressed.
    2. Universal Application: The universality of Natural Rights implies that these rights should apply equally to all individuals without exception. However, when rights are codified with specific definitions or limitations, it creates a hierarchy where some individuals may find their rights recognized while others do not (e.g. marriage). This undermines the principle that all humans possess equal dignity and worth.
    3. Potential for Abuse: A strict definition of rights can lead to governmental overreach or abuse of power. If authorities define what constitutes a legitimate exercise of a right, they will selectively enforce these definitions against marginalized groups or dissenters. This dynamic illustrates how defining a right can serve as a mechanism for its denial (e.g. slavery).
    4. Philosophical Implications: Philosophically speaking, if one accepts that rights are natural and pre-existing societal constructs, then any attempt to define them must be approached with caution. Over-definition risks imposing artificial constraints on what should be an expansive understanding of human freedom and autonomy.
    5. Practical Consequences: In practice, the implications of this phrase manifest in various social justice movements where activists argue against restrictive laws that limit fundamental freedoms (e.g., voting rights). These movements highlight how overly defined legal frameworks can disenfranchise entire populations by creating barriers based on arbitrary criteria.
In summary, “the right defined is the right denied” serves as a cautionary reminder about the potential pitfalls associated with rigidly defining natural rights. It emphasizes the need for flexibility and inclusivity in recognizing individual freedoms so that they remain accessible and meaningful for everyone.
Replies: >>1663
>>1660
CONCLUSION:
Here's five things you need to know. If I'm Sisyphus then my rock is that I keep encountering these internet era small language model essays that abruptly end with CONCLUSION. What sort of style guide are these niggers working off of? When I read old print magazines every other article does not end with
>CONCLUSION
<CONCLUSION
>CONCLUSION
<CONCLUSION
>CONCLUSION
What did the internet mean by this?
>>1660
>>1661
I did not read these posts. AI are trained on racist liberalist garbage and therefore your wastepost echoes that same racism.
[New Reply]
8 replies | 4 files
Astral projecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

- news - rules - faq - stats -
jschan+chaos 1.7.3
-><-