N***er is undoubtedly one of the dirtiest, most despicable words in the English language. The only time I really ever encounter it is in print form: old prose, social commentary articles, or generic morons online.
I have been fortunate enough to have never witnessed the world being used in a direct, personal, derogatory manner against someone. I do think I've seen it be used in jest, in fraternal terms amongst young men and women of color, but even that kind of use always made me feel uneasy.
I had never actually mouthed this word myself in my life (I have all my wonderful childhood teachers to thank, who instilled some decency in me through those years) until sometime last year. I can still remember the occasion, since I debated in my mind for a good 30 seconds whether I should say the word or not. You see, I was quoting a tongue and cheek passage from "Breakfast of Champions" by Kurt Vonnegut that I found very powerful. But even when I was direct quoting a literary passage, I had to think hard about whether I wanted to go through with this. This was the word -- the word I wasn't supposed to say, ever.
In the end I went through with it, quoting the passage to my fellow Vonnegut-fan friend. As soon as the word left my mouth, I felt uneasy and sick to my stomach, which I guess must be a good thing. I honestly don't think I can say this word again, even when quoting a book. It just feels terribly wrong even in this literary context when it's transplanted to my own vocal chords.
He came to work for him when the agency was right on the edge of the Nigger part of town. A Nigger was a human being who was black.
A word is a word; it in itself holds no weight or value. Its weight is what is given to the ones who use it, and only implied to those who hear it.
Your dislike of the word "nigger"; is because of how heavy you value the word. Yet, those who use it regularly (especially in African American ghetto culture) put no weight on the word. The issue isn't the word, it's the amount of weight you place on it.
In and around where I grew up in sub/urban Ohio, the word nigger and it's related forms were not altogether that uncommon; my suburban high school was primarily white and it certainly wasn't common there, but amongst my friends from Toledo (some of whom were black), it was a common greeting and term of endearment. I can hardly tell you how many times I've heard phrases like "nigga you crazy" exchanged, even to this day when I go back and visit old friends.
That being said, the word must certainly be treated with caution in a public space, for it has been used to subjugate and harm many. I agree with wei2coolman to a degree; these words only have what power we give them, but in communication, power determination comes from multiple parties. It would be selfish to insist that a word like "nigger" hold no weight over a stranger whose experiences one is unfamiliar with.
Doesn't everyone have some colour on them? even white people are actually just shades of pink and olive etc. The whole people "of colour" thing is too PC for me. Just say black.
If you didn't use it in the way that is full of hate, why were you sick to your stomach? To be sick of words without their meaning is to be as superficial as those who ban their use.
I believe that its a racial slur that should not be used, but then I see black people calling each other that in a friendly way. I can understand to some degree the logic that using it in that way takes away its power. However, when they get uber offended when a white person uses it, that gives the "power" of the word right back, which is really confusing.
Wow, so much fear of a word. I think mattbarry is right on you not growing up around black people ( ofcourse could be wrong). What's the big deal honestly?
When you're quoting directly from a text in front of people I don't understand your fear in saying nigger. What, do you think people are going to berate you for choosing to read word-for-word instead of substituting it with "negro" or "N-word"? I'm sure they wouldn't care one bit and would probably think more into it if you were to substitute the word.
It's just a word, until recently we had chocolate here called "neekerin suukko" that translates to "niggers kiss". Then they changed the name to just "kiss".
Funny thing is that there is a Swedish cookie called (translated) Nigger Ball. This is since it is black and the word had no negative meaning at the time of naming.
Since we are now a days politically correct it was renamed and only people aged 60+ call it by the old name. Now it would translate to Coco Ball, even though some variants doesn't use coco...
On April 01 2013 08:54 Yurie wrote: Funny thing is that there is a Swedish cookie called (translated) Nigger Ball. This is since it is black and the word had no negative meaning at the time of naming.
Since we are now a days politically correct it was renamed and only people aged 60+ call it by the old name. Now it would translate to Coco Ball, even though some variants doesn't use coco...
I still call it a negerboll sometimes, I think it's ridiculous to make a big deal out of it.
On April 01 2013 08:25 MCDayC wrote: I do like how Wax doing it basically gave permission for the next 2 to do it
I just posted because I like Nas
I like Nas, but I was not a fan of that album. As always seems to be an issue with him, the production is so forgettable and bland that I loose any desire to revisit his great lyrics.
See the issue here is trying to separate what is the de-sensitizing of the word in modern society, and how you should appropriately respond to the word.
As I have said on this forum before a couple of times, the word nigger still stands apart from every single other word in the language as its existence was solely created to bring down the status of Black people.
No other word - pardon my language - Jew, faggot, fuck, or whatever else you can think of has this kind of negative history attached to it; there is always something more to the word, or it was twisted to mean something else and that stuck over time.
Not nigger.
I dislike people using the word because people who do use it really don't understand the gravity of the word. They seem to throw it about with excuses such as, "a word only has as much power as you give it." Well, yes, that's how words work, and I'm not saying that we should give the word this sacred power. In fact, you are seeing now that Black people are trying to "reclaim" this word as their own. It's happening a lot in the last couple decades, and I like to see that.
But a couple decades doesn't really erase the 400 even 500 plus years that the word has actually been used to put down Black people.
So that's the gravity of that situation.
And my issue here is that all these people who say, "you're pathetic for being held back by the word", or "words only have so much power", or "it's the same as fuck, shit, or other swear words", is that really a very small percentage of the people who say that actually think, or have thought, or have read, or have studied the history of Black people and how everything actually ended up being like this.
In other words, while they have respect for all that has happened with say, Martin Luther King Jr., that respect only extends so deep because society has forced these "February is Black History Month" events, or forced these "Rosa Parks is a hero" stories on people. Not to say that they're not important, but I find it unbelievable that this has actually conveyed how immense Black history actually is. I guess martyrs are easy to get behind.
So the word is losing its power, and that is great. But we seem to so easily overlook, and few of us have even attempted to truly look into Black history. You shouldn't grimace at the sound of the word and attack people who say it out of hand. You should try to understand yourself why you hate this word. Read up on Black history like you would for an English class. When someone says it in public, try to understand their view of the word and how they come about that view, but try to convey to them what this word means to Black history, and get them to think about it.
If they don't, they don't, and that's a nice side of ignorance. But if they do, you can understand it too from their perspectives.
I'm against the idea of being afraid of a word, being scared of it being thrown about like that.
But I'm more against the idea of using a word without truly understanding where it came from.
I won't use it myself because it simply sounds horrible, and I can't think of any situation where I would want to say it. Mind you, nigger is a bit different than nigguh, but I really am opposed to either for the same reason.
I have mixed feelings about the word. My mixed feelings are not about the word itself - I am largely uncomfortable with the word because of the extreme negative connotations associated with it in most usage cases. As an expression of identity amongst people displaying a theoretically African genetic phenotype, I think that it has become a means of identification with a group that has been historically oppressed in the Western world. That usage seems questionable, but I'm not a person to question the self selected labels or words used by that group. When used by a non-member of that group, it has historically been extremely insulting and a tool to oppress that group, to deem them as subhuman or label them as "other" in a derogatory fashion. Dehumanizing. More modern usage seems to be attempting to break that long association - but few if any other words have such an extreme weight to break free of.
As a gentleman of rather pale skin tone, I would not use the word myself unless it is absolutely necessary - such as Hajji's example of a direct quotation, or if I were performing and the lyrics or lines required it. (Karaoke of some raps, period theater or cinematic pieces.) Largely, out of respect for all of the people who were forcibly subjugated under its usage - although it's also out of respect for other people with whom I may be conversing. People are right when they say "Words only have the power given to them by people" but they are wrong to assume that means the power that the individual speaking gives them. The power is given instead by the people hearing that word - I could walk out into the forest, away from other people, and shout offensive words until my voice gave out. And it has no meaning. But if I were to walk out side my apartment and do the same, the meaning would be different for each person hearing that word, as they assign the power to the word as they hear it and interpret it. (Shouting the word in question, where I live, would not only be incredibly bad taste but bear a degree of risk.) Because to some people, it would be impolite and to others it is a grave insult upon the dignity of their character.
My mixed feelings on the word stem from how its usage is either lauded or condemned depending on who is saying it, regardless of any context. It can win Emmys or cause a person to be shunned, depending on the person saying it, even if the context of the statements are the same. But that may be a failing of people in general, in that it applies to other words and ties back into the power of the word as heard by the listener... I can empathize to a minor extent, but it is still not a word I will use for my own thoughts. Simply using it can be taken to imply a great deal of meaning, and cause unnecessary misunderstanding. Erring on the side of avoiding it makes communication generally less stressful. And there is likely no other word in English which can instantly turn a normal conversation into physical confrontation when used carelessly.
On April 01 2013 06:28 wei2coolman wrote: A word is a word; it in itself holds no weight or value. Its weight is what is given to the ones who use it, and only implied to those who hear it.
Your dislike of the word "nigger"; is because of how heavy you value the word. Yet, those who use it regularly (especially in African American ghetto culture) put no weight on the word. The issue isn't the word, it's the amount of weight you place on it.
The best post in this thread so far imho. Thus said, I think the whole N word anxiety is over the roof. Sure, don't say the word, but some people pay toooooo much attention to this word. Maybe inflated value is clearer to say?
Uhh there are very few black Americans who wouldn't get offended if you call them the n-word. On the other hand, I've met plenty of non-black people (especially those within TL's main demographic: liberal, educated, white, male, young, well-off) who try to justify saying it because "black people are allowed to use it!" and "its just a word!". By the way I do think the OP is being way over the top, though I can't tell if he's being sarcastic.
On April 01 2013 23:42 iheartEDM wrote: I use the N word all the time (out of respect, not insult)
Could you explain how this works?
Hopping in here because that's how I'd normally use it as well. Among other things I associate "Nigger" with the badass guy who doesn't take shit from others, is loyal to his buddies, good at sports, eloquent in a more... "dirty/slang"-type of way, wearing a mix of unusual, expensive but still somehow classy clothes.
When it's about voice I think of a deep and slightly rough voice.
The result of using it exclusively in this context is that the people I usually adept the same concepts, associate it with similar positive things and after some moments of confusion the black people in my social circle are suddenly super happy and proud about it. Everyone wins.
Random example where I instantly would say "Wow, now that is a nigger" out of respect and admiration:
I usually like your posts Haji - unfortunately this one falls short for me. It comes so close to facilitating a discussion on race relations that I almost feel compelled to comment, but the fact that all of the content is bottled into a message of "I shouldn't use this word" just completely takes the wind out of its sails.
Of course you shouldn't say things which would put you in a situation of knowingly offending people. You can - it's not as though anyone will cut out your tongue for it - but you shouldn't. But the fact that this boils down to a statement of appropriate terminology to be used, and not of the underlying discussion of what that terminology says about our culture, is disappointing.
On April 01 2013 23:42 iheartEDM wrote: I use the N word all the time (out of respect, not insult)
Could you explain how this works?
Hopping in here because that's how I'd normally use it as well. Among other things I associate "Nigger" with the badass guy who doesn't take shit from others, is loyal to his buddies, good at sports, eloquent in a more... "dirty/slang"-type of way, wearing a mix of unusual, expensive but still somehow classy clothes.
When it's about voice I think of a deep and slightly rough voice.
The result of using it exclusively in this context is that the people I usually adept the same concepts, associate it with similar positive things and after some moments of confusion the black people in my social circle are suddenly super happy and proud about it. Everyone wins.
Random example where I instantly would say "Wow, now that is a nigger" out of respect and admiration:
How did you arrive at this meaning for 'nigger'? It seems kind of out of left field.
On April 01 2013 23:54 r.Evo wrote: Everyone wins.
Except the group of people who were alive to see the world pre-1970, when the word was used by lynch mobs, when the KKK used the word to demonize them, and when the word itself had such power that it dispossessed any human being to which the word applied from any sort of power or freedom or right they might otherwise have had.
Other than all the people still alive who are traumatized by the experiences associated with that word, you're right - everybody wins. But if you ever encounter someone who doesn't win - congratulations on reminding them that despite all they've gone through, despite whatever they may have lost during the civil rights movements to the intolerance and hatred that was facilitated by those six letters, that they still aren't worth enough consideration to just use a different word (hint: there are several which aren't racially dicey, pick one).
On April 01 2013 23:42 iheartEDM wrote: I use the N word all the time (out of respect, not insult)
Could you explain how this works?
Hopping in here because that's how I'd normally use it as well. Among other things I associate "Nigger" with the badass guy who doesn't take shit from others, is loyal to his buddies, good at sports, eloquent in a more... "dirty/slang"-type of way, wearing a mix of unusual, expensive but still somehow classy clothes.
When it's about voice I think of a deep and slightly rough voice.
The result of using it exclusively in this context is that the people I usually adept the same concepts, associate it with similar positive things and after some moments of confusion the black people in my social circle are suddenly super happy and proud about it. Everyone wins.
How did you arrive at this meaning for 'nigger'? It seems kind of out of left field.
Um. That's a good question.
Culturally I think a lot of it comes from rap/hip-hop and that I draw the association "calls his buddies xyz, I think his buddies are awesome, xyz = good". The connotation I have for the word are just 90% associated with positive things. If it comes to my family (both my grandparents and my mother had their kids at rather young age) I remember mostly post-war stories about GIs walking into brawls and cleaning the whole thing up. Again the "big black (and white) guys from the army" are associated with being badass and awesome.
Socially I find myself setting strong enough frames for such a word that my environment adapts to it. Most people I know would call the guy who says "dumb nigger" a racist asshole and the guy who says "omg did you see that nigger?" completely normal because those people each have completely different connotations. If the frames of the people believing it's a positive thing is stronger than the frames of the people believing it's a negative thing it loses its negative connotations.
Denotation of "Nigger": Black person with certain features. Connotation of "Nigger": What you make of it, either positive or negative.
On April 01 2013 23:54 r.Evo wrote: Everyone wins.
Except the group of people who were alive to see the world pre-1970, when the word was used by lynch mobs, when the KKK used the word to demonize them, and when the word itself had such power that it dispossessed any human being to which the word applied from any sort of power or freedom or right they might otherwise have had.
Other than all the people still alive who are traumatized by the experiences associated with that word, you're right - everybody wins. But if you ever encounter someone who doesn't win - congratulations on reminding them that despite all they've gone through, despite whatever they may have lost during the civil rights movements to the intolerance and hatred that was facilitated by those six letters, that they still aren't worth enough consideration to just use a different word (hint: there are several which aren't racially dicey, pick one).
Very good point. To me this boils down to respect, common sense and most of all context. I don't run around and call women "sluts" just because it has a positive association to me and my girlfriend in the bedroom. I wouldn't call a 50 year old black person "badass nigger" or tell a survivor of the holocaust to "stop being jewish" when he tries to save money somewhere.
On a similar level I don't run around calling other TL users "niggers" because I'm aware that the majority most likely has negative connotations, but that doesn't mean I support that point of view when the discussion comes up. For me it boils down that just because older generations fucked up and did things beyond comparison there is no reason for future generations to not be more clever about it and change those meanings. Forcing people to not use certain words which have a historically negative connotation gives people who do use them the power to frame them at will, as negative as they want to.
If I think three generations down the line there are two possibilities. My great grand children could not use the word "Nigger" (being aware of the historical context), then the kids from a racist family can come along and teach them how horrible those Niggers are and frame it their way because that's how they use it on a daily basis. The other possibility is that they are aware of the historical context and have new positive connotations with it. Suddenly there's no wind in the racist sails anymore.
It's accepted now to remove "racist words" out of books like "Huckleberry Finn" or certain German childrens books ("Die kleine Hexe"), the worst possible scenario is that kids 100 years down the line don't even know those words anymore. That's just playing into the hands of everyone who uses them negatively, they won't forget about them for sure if they're still associated with negative things.
On April 01 2013 23:42 iheartEDM wrote: I use the N word all the time (out of respect, not insult)
Could you explain how this works?
Hopping in here because that's how I'd normally use it as well. Among other things I associate "Nigger" with the badass guy who doesn't take shit from others, is loyal to his buddies, good at sports, eloquent in a more... "dirty/slang"-type of way, wearing a mix of unusual, expensive but still somehow classy clothes.
When it's about voice I think of a deep and slightly rough voice.
The result of using it exclusively in this context is that the people I usually adept the same concepts, associate it with similar positive things and after some moments of confusion the black people in my social circle are suddenly super happy and proud about it. Everyone wins.
How did you arrive at this meaning for 'nigger'? It seems kind of out of left field.
Um. That's a good question.
Culturally I think a lot of it comes from rap/hip-hop and that I draw the association "calls his buddies xyz, I think his buddies are awesome, xyz = good". The connotation I have for the word are just 90% associated with positive things. If it comes to my family (both my grandparents and my mother had their kids at rather young age) I remember mostly post-war stories about GIs walking into brawls and cleaning the whole thing up. Again the "big black (and white) guys from the army" are associated with being badass and awesome.
Socially I find myself setting strong enough frames for such a word that my environment adapts to it. Most people I know would call the guy who says "dumb nigger" a racist asshole and the guy who says "omg did you see that nigger?" completely normal because those people each have completely different connotations. If the frames of the people believing it's a positive thing is stronger than the frames of the people believing it's a negative thing it loses its negative connotations.
Denotation of "Nigger": Black person with certain features. Connotation of "Nigger": What you make of it, either positive or negative.
Does that make more sense?
It sounds to me like you are 'taking back the word' and using it in a more positive light. Other people catch on to this and adapt to your usage. This is essentially what many black people have been doing for years, but I hadn't heart of nonblacks doing it (I assume you are not black).
On April 01 2013 09:22 Aukai wrote: I feel like sometimes non-black people are more offended by the word nigger then actual black people.
This so much to quote malcolm in the middle: "It is a dark day indeed when white people get more upset at that word then black people."
Indeed. For example, if I call one of you "white mofo" (I'm white too, see my country), almost no one cares. But if I say N*, lots of people may get crazy. On the other hand, they may because of the word's origin - slavery. Anyways, not much to discuss here.
Edit: I've been talking to a black guy recently, and he has shared with me that most people are afraid of him. I guess the stereotype still works that blacks are dangerous, beefy, etc, so people are scared to say this N word.
On April 01 2013 23:42 iheartEDM wrote: I use the N word all the time (out of respect, not insult)
Could you explain how this works?
Hopping in here because that's how I'd normally use it as well. Among other things I associate "Nigger" with the badass guy who doesn't take shit from others, is loyal to his buddies, good at sports, eloquent in a more... "dirty/slang"-type of way, wearing a mix of unusual, expensive but still somehow classy clothes.
When it's about voice I think of a deep and slightly rough voice.
The result of using it exclusively in this context is that the people I usually adept the same concepts, associate it with similar positive things and after some moments of confusion the black people in my social circle are suddenly super happy and proud about it. Everyone wins.
How did you arrive at this meaning for 'nigger'? It seems kind of out of left field.
Um. That's a good question.
Culturally I think a lot of it comes from rap/hip-hop and that I draw the association "calls his buddies xyz, I think his buddies are awesome, xyz = good". The connotation I have for the word are just 90% associated with positive things. If it comes to my family (both my grandparents and my mother had their kids at rather young age) I remember mostly post-war stories about GIs walking into brawls and cleaning the whole thing up. Again the "big black (and white) guys from the army" are associated with being badass and awesome.
Socially I find myself setting strong enough frames for such a word that my environment adapts to it. Most people I know would call the guy who says "dumb nigger" a racist asshole and the guy who says "omg did you see that nigger?" completely normal because those people each have completely different connotations. If the frames of the people believing it's a positive thing is stronger than the frames of the people believing it's a negative thing it loses its negative connotations.
Denotation of "Nigger": Black person with certain features. Connotation of "Nigger": What you make of it, either positive or negative.
Does that make more sense?
It sounds to me like you are 'taking back the word' and using it in a more positive light. Other people catch on to this and adapt to your usage. This is essentially what many black people have been doing for years, but I hadn't heart of nonblacks doing it (I assume you are not black).
Pretty much.
I would think that it's a bigger issue over in the US simply because you guys are closer to the issue (time-wise). 30 years ago people tried to avoid using the word "Jew" much much more than today over here. The people affected were the ones making politics (60+). Currently the Americans who actively participated when it comes to giving blacks the same right as whites (~20-30 in the early 70ies) are now 60-70 and still active politically and socially. If I compare how the Germans think about the word "Jew" and the Americans about the word "Nigger" I think it's that one more generation that gives lots and lots of distance.
The blacks over here showed up - mostly - after WW2 with the American troops with no strings or history attached so I imagine it's much easier to have that historical distance.
People who's ancestors were disrespected in the past are somehow more worthy of respect than others, it's a strange concept IMO, especially considering that for whatever reason, the natives in the US and Canada who have lived arguably worse things don't even get half that respect. It's really strange because people's standards are all over the place. People are afraid of the word "nigger" while completely disregarding the horrible state in which the natives were left.
On April 01 2013 09:22 Aukai wrote: I feel like sometimes non-black people are more offended by the word nigger then actual black people.
This so much to quote malcolm in the middle: "It is a dark day indeed when white people get more upset at that word then black people."
Indeed. For example, if I call one of you "white mofo" (I'm white too, see my country), almost no one cares. But if I say N*, lots of people may get crazy. On the other hand, they may because of the word's origin - slavery. Anyways, not much to discuss here.
Edit: I've been talking to a black guy recently, and he has shared with me that most people are afraid of him. I guess the stereotype still works that blacks are dangerous, beefy, etc, so people are scared to say this N word.
1. For one thing, I never lost any relatives to gangs of people calling them "white mofos", so of course it's not the same level of offensive as the N-word. In fact, the worst thing that's ever happened to me as a result of being insulted based on my race (I'm white) is that I felt a little embarassed and out of place for a moment. That's it. For many black people, the story is not the same. Therefore, the level of consideration we should have for people who have to deal with these things should also not be the same.
2. So many people make this out to be fear instead of respect. "Are you afraid to say the word? What - are you chicken? Afraid the big black boogey-man's gonna come beat ya down?" No, of course not. It's a word. It has exactly the power we give it. Were it not for the negative connotations white people gave it with their actions 50 years ago, I'd be fine with you calling your chicken casserole by the N-word if you wanted. But that doesn't mean that in present-day 2013 it's acceptable for you to approach a black man and say "man, I can't wait to go home and eat some N-words tonight!" That doesn't mean you're afraid to use it, it means you're sensible of how it's used.
3. White people ought to be offended by use of the word, too. It represents a failure of our ancestors to display compassion and basic human decency. Not to respect the power of that time in history (by casual use of a word we know to have derogatory and racially motivated origins) is to ensure that we haven't learned our lessons from their failure (and are therefore doomed to repeat it. So many have died as a result of using a simple common word with simple common ignorance that you'd think all people of all races should be taking note of the dangers of referring to groups of people in derogatory tones. You'd be mistaken there, but that's beside the point. Did you know that in Germany it's a crime to deny the holocaust? It wasn't the remaining Jewish people in the country who made that happen - it's the same thing here.
On April 02 2013 00:15 r.Evo wrote: It's accepted now to remove "racist words" out of books like "Huckleberry Finn" or certain German childrens books ("Die kleine Hexe"), the worst possible scenario is that kids 100 years down the line don't even know those words anymore. That's just playing into the hands of everyone who uses them negatively, they won't forget about them for sure if they're still associated with negative things.
I don't necessarily condone changing history to be PC and to include present day taboos, but it wasn't really the specific word itself that allowed people to view african americans as they did. Therefore "taking the word back" doesn't actually change the circumstances for any but those who have been traumatized by it (as they might take some measure of solace that this particular weapon has been disarmed), but it seems to me like more of those who were actually involved in the civil rights movement have been against the re-emergence of the word than have been for it. That aside, we have plenty derogatory terms left and will invent plenty of new ones in the future, I am confident.
We are playing into their hands anyway by not learning the true lesson here - which is that use of derogatory slang towards any groups of people makes it too easy to facilitate seeing people as something other than people, and treat or mistreat them however we like.
I like treehead's point. It's less about fear of using the word and more about not knowing exactly what kind of respect the word deserves.
Most of the time I see the word thrown about like this, I just think of how little appreciation they have about all the history behind the word. Most of the time, at least what I've seen in education, the focus around Black history has always been around the Civil Rights Movement and overcoming the challenges of Black history. But I have rarely seen much about the several hundred years leading up to it.
When people say that they want to "take back the word", they mean they want to try to do so with the utmost respect to the history behind the word. Not that they're afraid of it, but they're afraid of desensitizing society to the word, or watering down the word's meaning, so much so that people just yell it at each other with no regard and no memory of its past, and even with the past in mind, without truly understanding that past.
It's a sad reality that we use words like fag, hag, witch without regard, but nigger has a really strong background, and while going the same root as those words would be nice, it's troubling to see how little society even recognizes the significance of those words, and how little society may recognize the significance of this word in the future.
On April 01 2013 06:28 wei2coolman wrote: A word is a word; it in itself holds no weight or value. Its weight is what is given to the ones who use it, and only implied to those who hear it.
Your dislike of the word "nigger"; is because of how heavy you value the word. Yet, those who use it regularly (especially in African American ghetto culture) put no weight on the word. The issue isn't the word, it's the amount of weight you place on it.
First post and this thread is already over. If a meaning of a word gets you sick to your stomach, you're being oversensitive.
Times have changed, the word "nigger" changed from what it was used for.
I still have yet to understand why people feel so violated when someone attacks you for your race. If you feel violated, then it's the same as you WANT to feel violated.
As for why a Japanese person feeling offended by the n-word is beyond incomprehensible.
On April 01 2013 23:42 iheartEDM wrote: I use the N word all the time (out of respect, not insult)
Could you explain how this works?
Well, it is a cultural thing. Down in the dirty south, in the ATL, there was this cocaine group called the "Black Mafia Family", which were major players in the cocaine game in the USA. Under BMF, rappers like T.I. and Young Jeezy came to fame more or less because they were backed up by the influence of BMF.
Anyways, when I use the N word, it is usually in the context of the same usage from the dirty south, where everyone was black and so the "niggas" were the ones who were the hustlers, the old g's, and in general black people of power.
It can also be like "hes my nigga". That would mean that you are really close to that person and you can trust him to take a bullet for you. In this environment, there were turf wars. People slinging caine usually had body guards and semi-automatic weapons as well so it is important to know which people are "yo niggass" and which ones are "haters".
On April 01 2013 06:28 wei2coolman wrote: A word is a word; it in itself holds no weight or value. Its weight is what is given to the ones who use it, and only implied to those who hear it.
Your dislike of the word "nigger"; is because of how heavy you value the word. Yet, those who use it regularly (especially in African American ghetto culture) put no weight on the word. The issue isn't the word, it's the amount of weight you place on it.
While that is true, doesn't that indeed make it an issue? You could say the exact same thing about the word "faggot" and well, that's all fine and dandy, but if your use of the word is upsetting to some people, what does it actually matter then?
I hope I am not coming across as offensive in any manner, but then again, if I am, what does my intent actually matter, if that's how you perceive it? My point is there
On April 01 2013 06:28 wei2coolman wrote: A word is a word; it in itself holds no weight or value. Its weight is what is given to the ones who use it, and only implied to those who hear it.
Your dislike of the word "nigger"; is because of how heavy you value the word. Yet, those who use it regularly (especially in African American ghetto culture) put no weight on the word. The issue isn't the word, it's the amount of weight you place on it.
While that is true, doesn't that indeed make it an issue? You could say the exact same thing about the word "faggot" and well, that's all fine and dandy, but if your use of the word is upsetting to some people, what does it actually matter then?
I hope I am not coming across as offensive in any manner, but then again, if I am, what does my intent actually matter, if that's how you perceive it? My point is there
Perhaps this is the better angle to take (since respect seems lost on some). Language is nothing if not the expression of personally-held truths.
Why would you use a word that is associated for many with violent and hateful behavior if your intent is to express camaraderie? And this is doubly true in a medium where things like tone and skin color cannot be used to determine context. Even if I (for some quirky reason) refer to my friends as "serial killers" behind closed doors, that shouldn't mean it's appropriate to say, in casual conversation - "Hang on a second, my serial killer just walked in the door." This is not moral reasoning, or even reasoning based on respect, it's preciseness of expression.
When I say, "Hey, this is Chad, he's my N-word." it causes people to wonder if I'm being irreverent, or vulgar, or because I'm just too slow to know that word causes some heartache. When I say "Hey, this is Chad, he's a badass" or "Hey, this is Chad, he's my friend" or "Hey, this is Chad, he's a friend of mine" what I mean is much more clear.
This means that linguistically the word is inferior in its meaning as anything positive.
And hey, if your intent was to be vulgar or irreverent, you could always throw a few f-bombs in there - those still come in loud and clear, and don't trigger memories of lynch mobs (if respect is still a thing we do). I'd suggest: "F*** man, this f***er's name is f***ing Chad. He's my f***ing friend."
On April 01 2013 06:28 wei2coolman wrote: A word is a word; it in itself holds no weight or value. Its weight is what is given to the ones who use it, and only implied to those who hear it.
Your dislike of the word "nigger"; is because of how heavy you value the word. Yet, those who use it regularly (especially in African American ghetto culture) put no weight on the word. The issue isn't the word, it's the amount of weight you place on it.
While that is true, doesn't that indeed make it an issue? You could say the exact same thing about the word "faggot" and well, that's all fine and dandy, but if your use of the word is upsetting to some people, what does it actually matter then?
I hope I am not coming across as offensive in any manner, but then again, if I am, what does my intent actually matter, if that's how you perceive it? My point is there
Well the point haji was talkin about was the strict "usage" of the word "nigger". He cares not for the connotation it means to other; only to how "he" perceives it when used, and how "he" perceives it when he uses it. So that's why I didn't go in any detail in the implication of the word to others; If you want to delve really deep into this stuff. I suggest taking a semiotics philosophy class. Very interesting stuff.
People of color means precisely the same thing as colored people. Why honkies think "people of color" today is respectful as opposed to the derogatory "colored people" of yesteryear is beyond me.
As quick as many people here are to write off a word *because it's just a word*, I think it also needs to be acknowledged that context is quite important when it comes to being offended. If someone is using a term (whether it's "nigger" or something else), and that person is purposely using it with malicious intent, then there may very well be enough justification to being offended by that term (whether it's directed at you or someone else). Being offended (by certain ideas, rhetoric, etc.) doesn't mean you're being overly sensitive or just a big pussy in all cases.
But I do agree that the random construction of six letters should not offend you, if there's no intended bite behind it.
Indeed. It's not the word, but the implied meaning behind the word that gives it power. If I go up to a friend and say 'what's up slut' I'm just being silly (I knew people who did this in high school for example). If my coworker was brought up on charges of prostitution, and is fighting a legal battle even though it's known she didn't commit any crimes, it's extremely rude for me to mutter 'slut' after an argument with her.
It's one of these cultural difference things. For me, the concept of "this word is so bad you must never speak it in your lifetime" is non existant, I just can't comprehend it. There are no such words in my language.
I also find very funny everytime someone refers to "the F word" or "the N word" because when reading it, people in their mind are hearing fuck or nigger, so the word itself is efectively being sent and received in the comunication. If you can not say it then do not, or if you can then do. But these levels of mental-police or social hipocrisy, whatever it is, is something really unheard of here in Spain (and probably in the rest of Europe as well). Took me a while to understand.
I guess that is why I related to Jinro and his "deal with it, I'm Swedish".
On April 03 2013 06:44 Ender985 wrote: I also find very funny everytime someone refers to "the F word" or "the N word" because when reading it, people in their mind are hearing fuck or nigger, so the word itself is efectively being sent and received in the comunication. If you can not say it then do not, or if you can then do.
I do not agree. I do not read 'the f word' as 'fuck' in my mind. I read it as 'the f word' although obviously I realize what it is referring to. Sometimes, when referencing what someone else said, it would make sense to refer to 'the f word' in a quote if you are speaking to someone you don't want to actually drop the f bomb to, but want to have the quote right, more or less.
Yea, for some people you can just drop the bomb. For some people you shouldn't even mention it (edit or skip the quote). But for some people, and I think this is a big group, you are stuck in between.
On April 03 2013 06:44 Ender985 wrote: I also find very funny everytime someone refers to "the F word" or "the N word" because when reading it, people in their mind are hearing fuck or nigger, so the word itself is efectively being sent and received in the comunication. If you can not say it then do not, or if you can then do.
I do not agree. I do not read 'the f word' as 'fuck' in my mind. I read it as 'the f word' although obviously I realize what it is referring to. Sometimes, when referencing what someone else said, it would make sense to refer to 'the f word' in a quote if you are speaking to someone you don't want to actually drop the f bomb to, but want to have the quote right, more or less.
Yea, for some people you can just drop the bomb. For some people you shouldn't even mention it (edit or skip the quote). But for some people, and I think this is a big group, you are stuck in between.
what property defines these people in this group? which set is that group a subset of? what similar groups is it big in comparison to? how many of the people who think they belong in this group shouldn't be thinking this?
i don't think it's a "big" group, at least much smaller than people think. at least i don't think it should be a big group, and i think it should be way smaller than it currently is.
On April 03 2013 06:44 Ender985 wrote: I also find very funny everytime someone refers to "the F word" or "the N word" because when reading it, people in their mind are hearing fuck or nigger, so the word itself is efectively being sent and received in the comunication. If you can not say it then do not, or if you can then do.
I do not agree. I do not read 'the f word' as 'fuck' in my mind. I read it as 'the f word' although obviously I realize what it is referring to. Sometimes, when referencing what someone else said, it would make sense to refer to 'the f word' in a quote if you are speaking to someone you don't want to actually drop the f bomb to, but want to have the quote right, more or less.
Yea, for some people you can just drop the bomb. For some people you shouldn't even mention it (edit or skip the quote). But for some people, and I think this is a big group, you are stuck in between.
what property defines these people in this group? which set is that group a subset of? what similar groups is it big in comparison to? how many of the people who think they belong in this group shouldn't be thinking this?
i don't think it's a "big" group, at least much smaller than people think. at least i don't think it should be a big group, and i think it should be way smaller than it currently is.
I'm thinking about it, and I guess you could say the size of this 'group' will vary from person to person. Someone who curses like crazy probably will only hold back when talking to a very small group of people, whereas someone like me who rarely curses verbally will have a lot of people that I don't want to 'fbomb' but don't mind quoting curses to in their edited form.
I just can't agree with the unilateral declaration that you should either curse or drop the topic... that there is no time for partial censoring. I also don't have much respect for people who curse like crazy so that might shed some light on where I'm coming from.
On April 02 2013 04:58 ComaDose wrote: Little frightens me more than a group of unopressed people discusing why something is not oppressive to a group of oppressed people.
yup
stupid children think history doesn't mean anything i'm from the south racism is a very real thing that word has a terrible history it should not be uttered, not in jest, not in "taking it back" (what a load of bullshit), not because of some stupid notion of "gamer culture" (which, if it's a culture that uses that word as part of its identity, is a worthless culture).
only a child thinks "word are just words." words are the realest things there are.
On April 02 2013 04:58 ComaDose wrote: Little frightens me more than a group of unopressed people discusing why something is not oppressive to a group of oppressed people.
yup
stupid children think history doesn't mean anything i'm from the south racism is a very real thing that word has a terrible history it should not be uttered, not in jest, not in "taking it back" (what a load of bullshit), not because of some stupid notion of "gamer culture" (which, if it's a culture that uses that word as part of its identity, is a worthless culture).
only a child thinks "word are just words." words are the realest things there are.
Oh shit, it's turning into one of "these" conversations again. Yeah, words are important. Well, certain words are. Due to the extremely high volume of words being uttered at any given moment, I would say that approximately only 5% of the distributed lexicons are truly meaningful and special. I wonder how many people around the world are saying the word "nigger" this very second. I wonder how many of those people hate black people. I wonder how many of those people love black people. I wonder how many of those people live in a place where it's a bad word. I wonder how many of those people are live in a place where it's a commonplace word. I wonder how many of those people think that exchanging "er" with "a" magically makes it a different word. I wonder how many of those people are Jay-Z (probably around 1 with a +/- 5 margin of error). I wonder how many of the people who hear it are upset because because of it's history, and how many people don't really give a shit.
When I think about this, I realize different people have different attitudes towards various words. Different people give one word more gravity than another, and people react differently to different phrases than other people do. Why does someone always have to interject and say "SAYING NIGGER IS BAD, DON'T DO IT EVER CUZ 500 YEARS OF SLAVERY"? If you feel so strongly about racial inequality, the best thing you can do is be compassionate towards all people, rather than condescending. There are already plenty of confrontational and aggressive people approaching the subject, so that role is filled to the brim.
i don't see what any of that has to do with it. you shouldn't say the word
edit: I can't believe anyone would even dispute this. if you use that word, you are an ignorant child with bad manners and you should be chastised for your poor behavior. that's really all there is to it.
On April 02 2013 04:58 ComaDose wrote: Little frightens me more than a group of unopressed people discusing why something is not oppressive to a group of oppressed people.
yup
stupid children think history doesn't mean anything i'm from the south racism is a very real thing that word has a terrible history it should not be uttered, not in jest, not in "taking it back" (what a load of bullshit), not because of some stupid notion of "gamer culture" (which, if it's a culture that uses that word as part of its identity, is a worthless culture).
only a child thinks "word are just words." words are the realest things there are.
The other videos linked in this thread using the word "Nigger": Not racism.
A person who says "I believe that we should find solutions to the turkish/black/jewish population in this country undermining everyones work ethics and our moral values" = racist.
A person who says "Damn I love you nigger" = not racist.
Someone who says "You stupid fucking nigger" (in a non racial context) = possibly racist, but most of all utterly retarded.
If you'd like to define it after Albert Memmi (his definition is in the Encyclopædia Universalis among others) racism must include a benefit for the accuser, damage for the accused and its purpose is to justify an act of aggression.
If you'd like to take Stuart Halls position there is no "racism" per se, but only historically specific "racisms". Meaning that certain statements or words are incredibly racist in some specific timeperiods but essentially unbiased if they aren't used for mostly racial discrimination.
The very act of establishing certain conventions for certain groups of people or even things like quotas is much, much more racist than someone who calls a buddy of his "nigger" and expresses that in a positive context. It shouldn't matter whether a person is white, black, brown or purple. It should be about their character as a human being, their rights as a human being and their abilities as a human being.
Stepping in to prevent "racial injustice" is in most cases not about more than glorifying your deed because we as a (dominant white) society love to play the race card. If people would really care about rotting out racist concepts they would step in to prevent a human injustice.
I highly suggest "The Heart Of Whiteness" by Robert Jensen who describes racism as a "Whiteness problem", driven by white people feeling guilty.
On April 03 2013 10:47 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Sam is here now? Dis gown be gud
samizmidlyirked
These kinds of discussions (format--independent of content) are generally pretty interesting though. Reading too many can get to be a bit much, but in moderation, it's interesting to read what people think
nothing you say matters. i don't care anything about whatever words you want to play with what "racism" is or other sophistic bullshit designed to make you look like you have an educated opinion, when in fact you are just a fool with no manners, if you use that word.
it's not up for discussion.
civilized people have standards about how they behave, and how they show their respect towards things. this is one of those.
On April 03 2013 14:56 sam!zdat wrote: i don't see what any of that has to do with it. you shouldn't say the word
edit: I can't believe anyone would even dispute this. if you use that word, you are an ignorant child with bad manners and you should be chastised for your poor behavior. that's really all there is to it.
On April 03 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote: nothing you say matters. i don't care anything about whatever words you want to play with what "racism" is or other sophistic bullshit designed to make you look like you have an educated opinion, when in fact you are just a fool with no manners, if you use that word.
it's not up for discussion.
civilized people have standards about how they behave, and how they show their respect towards things. this is one of those.
That sounds similar to people who say "I hate jews/blacks/white people and my point of view is not up to discussion", it's just on the other extreme of the spectrum. Kinda sad to see you in that company.
Edit to clarify: Saying "I hate/dislike word xyz and I don't want you to use it in my presence" is something that is respectable and should be honored if someone wants to maintain a respectful relationship. Saying "You're an idiot/fool/uncivilized for using word xyz" is being utterly ignorant and extremist, the same fallacy you're accusing the other side of.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
You don't care about perspectives the scientific community has, you don't care about what black people think, you don't care about what white people think - all you do is call everyone inferior who has a different viewpoint from you.
That's the very core of any -ism. As I said, sad to see you in that company.
On April 03 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote: nothing you say matters. i don't care anything about whatever words you want to play with what "racism" is or other sophistic bullshit designed to make you look like you have an educated opinion, when in fact you are just a fool with no manners, if you use that word.
it's not up for discussion.
civilized people have standards about how they behave, and how they show their respect towards things. this is one of those.
That sounds similar to people who say "I hate jews/blacks/white people and my point of view is not up to discussion", it's just on the other extreme of the spectrum. Kinda sad to see you in that company.
Edit to clarify: Saying "I hate/dislike word xyz and I don't want you to use it in my presence" is something that is respectable and should be honored if someone wants to maintain a respectful relationship. Saying "You're an idiot/fool/uncivilized for using word xyz" is being utterly ignorant and extremist, the same fallacy you're accusing the other side of.
On April 03 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote: nothing you say matters. i don't care anything about whatever words you want to play with what "racism" is or other sophistic bullshit designed to make you look like you have an educated opinion, when in fact you are just a fool with no manners, if you use that word.
it's not up for discussion.
civilized people have standards about how they behave, and how they show their respect towards things. this is one of those.
That sounds similar to people who say "I hate jews/blacks/white people and my point of view is not up to discussion", it's just on the other extreme of the spectrum. Kinda sad to see you in that company.
Edit to clarify: Saying "I hate/dislike word xyz and I don't want you to use it in my presence" is something that is respectable and should be honored if someone wants to maintain a respectful relationship. Saying "You're an idiot/fool/uncivilized for using word xyz" is being utterly ignorant and extremist, the same fallacy you're accusing the other side of.
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!
that's a load of fashionable, banal, neo-pagan yuppie bullshit.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved. i care a great deal about science, in fact I want to give scientists political power so that we can no longer have matters-of-fact like anthropogenic climate change be treated as matters-of-opinion by the colossal clown circus that is mass democratic politics
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
I don't even.
Edit: In one case you're arguing that denotation = connotation and in the other you're arguing that denotation != connotation. Make up your mind first.
Words have power and exert force independent of their speakers and dependent on their audience. You cannot control what people take from the words they hear; you can only control your own speech. If you believe that your words may hurt someone, and your intention is not to hurt them, then exercise higher judgment, and take the five seconds it requires to pick a different word so that they are not hurt. This is simply being a considerate, respectful human being.
If you still wish to use potentially hurtful words, then go ahead. Just don't be surprised when someone calls you out for it.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
While I agree with sam that we should not casually use the word "nigger" casually and that racism is very real (I witness it every day to the point that I give up trying to fight against it since it is that bad), I do not think this is so much of having class so much as it is just plain logic.
1. Words are meaningless. 2. Words are given as much meaning as society or the person receiving the word sees fit. 3. The person speaking is uttering to spread meaning through his words.
Stop the language nihilism, it is really infantile. The word queer was taken back, the word nerd was taken back, but people who want to take back nigga and faggot seem to want to use it as insults which I find to be immature. Words most certainly have meaning since society is formed around communication and civilization would not exist without it.
But then there is the other much more controversial variation "nigga" which is mostly used affectionately but there is still controversy whether non-blacks can use it and one of my buddies told me that you would not call a random person honey, baby, or dear unless they were your significant other.
Also, Jacques Derrida is the only language nihilist worth listening to when presented with this infantile pseudo-philosophy.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
no
edit: you are inferior because you are behaving badly when you know very well that you should not. if you would like to stop being a barbarian, and start being a civilized person, you would be perfectly capable of doing so. chastising a child for bad behavior, and being a racist, are not equivalent things. not all value judgments are the same, that is quite obvious. trying to turn this into a mutatis mutandis argument with racism is empty sophistry, and you know it. the childishness of your argumentation matches the childishness of your position.
edit: it's not really about what you "can" and "can not" do. it's a question about how the usage of that word reflects on your character. it makes you look ignorant, low-class, and uncivilized. don't say it. i would not be known to associate with anyone who used that word, and having that word in your vocabulary is only going to come back to bite you some day. just get rid of it, it's not that hard. english has lots of great profanity that isn't that word.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
Did you just call all black people who use the word "nigger", inferior human beings? Dat racist....
edit: I probably wouldn't approve either, if that were my community. certainly the use of that word is not uncontroversial in the black community. but here we're talking about smug overprivileged white (and asian I guess maybe, although most asians I know have better manners) children. it's not even debatable.
Given the effect that Confucianism has had on Asia, I don't think it's racist to say that Asians tend to treat elders, family members, and those of higher social standing than themselves with more respect.
Kind of hesitate to say if there's as much respect from those of higher standing towards those of lower standing.
Plus, they will call you fat if you're fat though. :O I appreciate that honesty, personally, but some might say that's bad manners.
Short version: "the usage of that word reflects on your character. it makes you look ignorant, low-class, and uncivilized. don't say it" - You deny everyone, including the very people affected, the right to use a word and you take the right to exclusively claim what it means (aka denotation). You're putting yourself in a position above them by making your opinion appear to be holy ground which is the very basis for every form of extremism. Said extremism includes racism against black people.
Long version: "Cultural imperialism (...) consists of the takeover of one culture by another: The food, clothing, customs, recreation, and values of the economically dominant culture increasingly replace those of the economically vulnerable culture until the latter appears to be a kind of imitation of the former." (Lois Tyson, Critical Theory Today, 1999)
Parallel to this form of imperialism a process called "othering" comes into play: The dominant culture defines itself by demonizing or otherwise devaluing the "inferior" culture. Along this way a "brand" is attached to the "inferior" culture. Historically these brands have been things like "Nigger", "Jew" or even "Eskimo" - all of which are used with a exclusively negative connotation at this point. Note that neither of the mentioned groups are homogenous, meaning no common nomenclature to define them as a group does exist.
The respective group is now forced into a corner and has no other choice but to stick together. In the case of Jews and black people (it's a bit more difficult to say for Inuit) it means that the members of the groups are now in need of a common name. Hence they start to identify themselves with the brand given to them by their oppressors by appointing a positive connotation - their actual identity. This is what is commonly referred to as "taking the word back".
What happened in the 1960ies with white people was that they realized the way they treated and named black people was offensive, inhumane even. Acknowledging their highly negative connotations within certain words they pretty much "denazificated" their language. In the early 70ies we're now looking at a total taboo for white people and the "N-word".
At the same time a movement called "Black nationalism" shows up ("Black Art" was written in 1965) which, in a nutshell, claims that after all the suffering black people endured at the hands of white people it is now time to return the violence and the oppression. When you look at connotations in this period you will see that certain words, while still having a negative connotation, are now used as a tool to show white people what they have done in the past because it's their most vulnerable spot at that time. The important thing to note is that in this process the insult is now being used as a weapon by the people it meant to insult.
Fast forward to the 80ies/early 90ies you have a new black generation (born in the middle of the sixties) with people like Chris Rock who have never experienced the extreme discrimination their parents and grandparents had to endure. This is also the category most of the early rap and hip hop artists using "derogatory words" fall into (Niggaz Wit Attitudes e.g. was formed in '86). These people had a overall mostly equal life in high school and later university. While still experiencing discrimination it is now more an occasional phenomenon.
As a result of such an integration it is now obvious that white people tip-toe around certain words, for example using "African American" instead of black. While initially amusing this soon turns into anger: The very act of being careful in ones choice of words is offensive because it implies weakness and pity for the other side. This is no sign of a strong and equal culture. Cultural imperialism is still completely successful in keeping certain words with the negative connotation that was initially forcefully imposed by an oppressive regime.
This is the point where the "inferior" culture takes the words and starts using them with positive connotations in an effort to establish themselves as an equal culture on equal footing and equal terms. By using those words they provoke attention - it is impossible for a white person to ignore a black person making a jokes about "niggers" but they also have trouble just accepting it as a joke because they've been conditioned to trust in the negative connotation that their parents and grandparents imposed on the word.
Fast forward another 10-20 years. We now have a generation born in the 80ies (sup?) which grew up listening to black groups calling themselves "Niggaz" and calling their best buddies "Nigger" and watching black comedians cracking jokes about "blacks versus niggas". This is where "naturalization" comes into play, the acceptance of things as completely normal. This is where the black Mr. White can walk into my classroom, refer to himself as the "ratio nigger" and everyone, whites, Indians, Eastern Europeans and Jews can laugh about his joke with him together. This is where a buddy of mine can walk in afterwards, wearing gold chains, baggy pants and a baseball cap and I can say to him "Wow you look like one of those New York Gangster Niggers" and he can happily show me the finger while laughing together with me, Mr. White (African American) and a Jewish kid.
This is an equal, integrated and strong society. This is also the world where I want my kids to grow up in, this is the kind of world black people fought for in the last 50+ years.
And then people like you come along. Closet supremacists who try to extend the power their grandparents wielded by attaching the same connotations as they had to certain words, by forbidding other people to move on and by extending their personal "freedom" and "cultural values" to the point where it invades other peoples freedom. Radical, extremist and without any historical or social basis.
a words meaning changes when the word itself is used. if you try to select sort of set of words whose meaning when the word is used have a perceived negative influence on something, it implies that there could exist scenarios where using a word whose meaning has a negative influence at the moment, will contribute towards the words meaning converging towards having a positive influence over time. in this scenario it would be in your best interest to encourage use of the word.
it doesn't rule out the option of abstaining from using a word in its entirety being the best course of action for a period of time in some cases, or the opposite for that matter, but this doesn't necessarily always apply. my point is that it is not a binary problem, and if you seek to control something you're not automatically making it easier on yourself by limiting the ways you can influence the process.
edit: and there are certainly conceivable scenarios similar to this one where it would be a bad idea.
I think its strange that anyone should de facto say how and when people should use a word, and set such a universal standard for every human being on Earth. If the victims of slavery themselves wanted to change how the word is perceived and used, so as to divorce the negative connotations associated with that word and free them from remembering their past, what moral right do we have to stop them? If anything it is immoral to force them to associate such a word with bad memories. Of course it might not work in the darkest of cases - and so this is also a matter of cultural sensitivity, and being aware of who you are talking to and what you are saying. When in doubt people should probably avoid saying such words.
So I have to agree with R.Evo, and many others in this thread. That context matters, its very strange (to put it mildly) to suggest that a word is universally bad, and will be so for all time, and therefore bringing it up in any other context, or trying to change it in any way, is wrong...let alone barbaric! There are surely exceptions, and many contexts in which it is both appropriate and makes a positive contribution in people's social lives, which may also take the form of self-empowerment.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
no
edit: you are inferior because you are behaving badly when you know very well that you should not. if you would like to stop being a barbarian, and start being a civilized person, you would be perfectly capable of doing so. chastising a child for bad behavior, and being a racist, are not equivalent things. not all value judgments are the same, that is quite obvious. trying to turn this into a mutatis mutandis argument with racism is empty sophistry, and you know it. the childishness of your argumentation matches the childishness of your position.
This is so hypocritical that it defies all logic.
On April 04 2013 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: no, that's a separate issue
edit: I probably wouldn't approve either, if that were my community. certainly the use of that word is not uncontroversial in the black community. but here we're talking about smug overprivileged white (and asian I guess maybe, although most asians I know have better manners) children. it's not even debatable.
Then you say this racist shit just to put icing on the hypocrite-cake? (sometimes known as a hypocake)
ALSO, WHAT SHOULD WE CALL THIS COUNTRY:
I just hope you can educate savages like r.Evo before you come to the conclusion that he cannot be educated, as he is an inferior human being, but perhaps, he can serve some useful purpose yet by, say, doing undesirable jobs. That's where brutes like him belong, anyway, RIGHT?
Clearly the country needs to be renamed Negro, you know, to be politically correct and all.
I also think this discussion has skewed too far; Haji originally meant the usage of nigger in all context (even non offensive context in history books/ old literature/etc) disgusted him. My original point (which I should have made clearer, my fault) was that the word by itself held no meaning, and that any connotation in it's usage that was not explicit in malicious intent shouldn't be taken offensively; muchless disgust him.
On April 04 2013 06:14 wei2coolman wrote: Clearly the country needs to be renamed Negro, you know, to be politically correct and all.
I also think this discussion has skewed too far; Haji originally meant the usage of nigger in all context (even non offensive context in history books/ old literature/etc) disgusted him. My original point (which I should have made clearer, my fault) was that the word by itself held no meaning, and that any connotation in it's usage that was not explicit in malicious intent shouldn't be taken offensively; muchless disgust him.
Words don't exist in a vacuum, and one's intent or lack of intent to offend people really doesn't matter a whit if they feel offended.
People can use whatever words they like. However, there shouldn't be the expectation that the audience will derive from that word the meaning you want, and I think it's laughable that some people get all up in arms when oppressed peoples do take offense at words that were historically used to oppress them.
I'm highly amused that you put so much meaning behind this word. Given the date of the post, and how convicted it appears you feel on the subject I'm tempted to believe this is an April's Fools joke. Especially given your handle...
I understand that haji is a term used to describe someone that has completed the journey to Mecca, and therefore is religion, not race, specific. But hajji, and specifically the killing of hajjis or dead hajjis, is a term that I've heard used quite frequently in the military ... much to the chagrin of leadership.
Regardless, I like that this post is at least bringing attention to derogatory terms even if it isn't done in the most poetic fashion.
On April 04 2013 06:14 wei2coolman wrote: Clearly the country needs to be renamed Negro, you know, to be politically correct and all.
I also think this discussion has skewed too far; Haji originally meant the usage of nigger in all context (even non offensive context in history books/ old literature/etc) disgusted him. My original point (which I should have made clearer, my fault) was that the word by itself held no meaning, and that any connotation in it's usage that was not explicit in malicious intent shouldn't be taken offensively; muchless disgust him.
Words don't exist in a vacuum, and one's intent or lack of intent to offend people really doesn't matter a whit if they feel offended.
People can use whatever words they like. However, there shouldn't be the expectation that the audience will derive from that word the meaning you want, and I think it's laughable that some people get all up in arms when oppressed peoples do take offense at words that were historically used to oppress them.
edit: the point is, you can copy paste whatever 'theory' you want about words and stuff
when kids use the word nigger as a way to express their rage in video game culture, it's barbaric behavior and they should have been raised better.
if I were black, I don't think I would want my kids using the word. But who can say? And that's not my fight.
I'm just concerned about privileged white kids who have been told that the word is being 'reclaimed' and that this gives them a pseudo philosophical excuse to use it. I think that's a load of crap
is anyone who thinks it's okay to use actually from the american south? Curious
edit: do you guys understand it's my own culture I'm calling barbaric? I'm a white southerner. When my grandfather said nigger, he meant it. I feel the same way about white people using the word nigger as germans feels about swastikas.
edit: am I wrong that your entire purpose for arguing this is to justify to yourself your own use of the word as an epithet, ala orb?
On April 08 2013 02:43 sam!zdat wrote: lol I'm a closet supremacist
edit: the point is, you can copy paste whatever 'theory' you want about words and stuff
when kids use the word nigger as a way to express their rage in video game culture, it's barbaric behavior and they should have been raised better.
if I were black, I don't think I would want my kids using the word. But who can say? And that's not my fight.
I'm just concerned about privileged white kids who have been told that the word is being 'reclaimed' and that this gives them a pseudo philosophical excuse to use it. I think that's a load of crap
is anyone who thinks it's okay to use actually from the american south? Curious
edit: do you guys understand it's my own culture I'm calling barbaric? I'm a white southerner. When my grandfather said nigger, he meant it. I feel the same way about white people using the word nigger as germans feels about swastikas.
edit: am I wrong that your entire purpose for arguing this is to justify to yourself your own use of the word as an epithet, ala orb?
i agree with kids using nigger to express rage being barbaric. maybe i wouldn't say barbaric, since i have mostly seen it used through asterix and obelix, but i don't think it's malplaced. from my perspective it's a context where i don't think the usage would do any good. i am having troubles putting into words what it's not doing good towards here though. also leaving open the possibility that there are different context where usage would not be bad.
Ultimately, I think that if you are not part of the group that was oppressed by a certain word, you shouldn't be allowed to "reclaim" that word for that group, especially if your reasons for reclaiming that word are weak (e.g. I want to be able to freely insult people with it without people taking offense!). I mean, I'm not well-read (or read at all) on cultural reappropriation, but it does feel as if most people who argue for the use of racist slurs just want to use them as insults free from any racist connotations. "We want to desensitize people to them through exposure!" they say. But that will almost always fail, and if you look at the words that have been historically reclaimed to some extent (e.g. dyke, queer, nerd, gay, geek), they've been reclaimed by peoples within that group, not those outside of it. The change comes from pride in an identity, a pride that cannot be forced onto them by those outside.
I'm not really a proponent of "reclaiming" words, and I recognize that there are words that have powerful implications, good and bad, but I am opposed to censorship in all forms, especially when it comes to the enforcement of 'morality'.
edit: do you guys understand it's my own culture I'm calling barbaric? I'm a white southerner. When my grandfather said nigger, he meant it. I feel the same way about white people using the word nigger as germans feels about swastikas.
edit: am I wrong that your entire purpose for arguing this is to justify to yourself your own use of the word as an epithet, ala orb?
Sam, no one except you was talking about using it as an insult. I gladly agree with you that using it as an insult is despicable.
That aside, here's the issue that I'm struggling to explain to you: By insisting that your (negative) connotation is the only acceptable one you are doing the exact same thing your grandfather did. You are insisting that what he meant as an insult has to stay an insult. Why? Because some utterly racist people said so.
What you're doing with this is putting your grandfather (or my grand-aunt =P) on the same level of "stupid racist barbarians" as a black rapper who is talking about his Niggers from the streets (positive context) or anyone else who tries to establish a positive connotation.
Words change. Connotations change according to historic context. By insisting that the connotation stays the same even though the context has changed you're helping those with a real racist motivation to get their point across. Instead of forsaking it you could choose to use it positively instead and make those who use it as an insult look utterly stupid.
One man's barbarism is another man's civilized culture. Civilization is an opinion constructed by the social contract of the group one belongs. The Romans thought they were the height of culture. So did the Huns. As did the Egyptians. And the Sumerians. And the Babylonians. And the Ming Chinese. There are differences, and "improvement" is usually a vague issue as well.
What I seem to be seeing now is an argument over etiquette. If you are not well mannered, you are in ill mannered lout. Something like that anyways.
Please note that the South does not hold a stranglehold on racism. The North is in many ways as racist, before and after the Civil War, and to this day.
remember, however, that it is an achievement of culture to realize that "every document of culture is a monument to barbarism"
edit: a last thought about it. i mean, I listen to hip hop. i recognize a certain poetry in the use of "nigga" and there's some very rich expressions, e.g. "nigga please" is a great phrase. but i'm very conflicted about this (and it's separate from the usage by white people, which I find totally unacceptable). i'm also concerned about the cooptation of black culture by the white-dominated culture industry, and white kids thinking that because everyone can say "nigga" and it's not racist, that means that somehow the race problems in american society have been solved, when actually blacks are systematically denied economic and education opportunities (and the apotheosis of a few blacks into the culture industry doesn't exactly fix anything). and I think to some extent the enthusiasm of whites to go along with the whole "reappropriation" thing is a sort of ideological shield to mask the fact that white society really does still think of "niggaz" as "niggers." only now they entertain us on television and that makes it all okay, because everybody's laughing.
On April 10 2013 06:33 sam!zdat wrote: remember, however, that it is an achievement of culture to realize that "every document of culture is a monument to barbarism"
edit: a last thought about it. i mean, I listen to hip hop. i recognize a certain poetry in the use of "nigga" and there's some very rich expressions, e.g. "nigga please" is a great phrase. but i'm very conflicted about this (and it's separate from the usage by white people, which I find totally unacceptable). i'm also concerned about the cooptation of black culture by the white-dominated culture industry, and white kids thinking that because everyone can say "nigga" and it's not racist, that means that somehow the race problems in american society have been solved, when actually blacks are systematically denied economic and education opportunities (and the apotheosis of a few blacks into the culture industry doesn't exactly fix anything). and I think to some extent the enthusiasm of whites to go along with the whole "reappropriation" thing is a sort of ideological shield to mask the fact that white society really does still think of "niggaz" as "niggers." only now they entertain us on television and that makes it all okay, because everybody's laughing.
You're not alone with regard to confliction regarding the use of the word by others.
Remember, barbarism is a societal opinion. What is barbaric to you could be a treasured part of another culture that may have social structures, constructed works, and use technology as complex as any other. The point I was making was largely specific to your closed minded view of any discussion of the topic. While in most ways I tend to agree with you regarding the subject matter, such authoritative dismissal of any discussion of a subject reads poorly.
On April 10 2013 12:56 felisconcolori wrote: What is barbaric to you could be a treasured part of another culture that may have social structures, constructed works, and use technology as complex as any other.
then one of us would be wrong
The point I was making was largely specific to your closed minded view of any discussion of the topic. While in most ways I tend to agree with you regarding the subject matter, such authoritative dismissal of any discussion of a subject reads poorly.
sometimes I think you just have to make abitrary pronouncements on things
On April 10 2013 12:56 felisconcolori wrote: What is barbaric to you could be a treasured part of another culture that may have social structures, constructed works, and use technology as complex as any other.
then one of us would be wrong
That's a matter of perception. There's no definitive, objective right or wrong associated with it. There is not a mathematical or empirical method of determining exactly what civilization is from a non-subjective standpoint. How can you accurately and objectively establish what is a better civilization?
The point I was making was largely specific to your closed minded view of any discussion of the topic. While in most ways I tend to agree with you regarding the subject matter, such authoritative dismissal of any discussion of a subject reads poorly.
sometimes I think you just have to make abitrary pronouncements on things
What makes you say that? Although I will admit that I'm quite capable of discussing any issue from any side without much in the way of emotional investment. I do not seek to "win", to "prove I'm right" or "more intelligent" or "better read", etc. I seek to increase discourse, to provoke thought and hopefully learn more about the thought process in use. Your responses of late in this particular thread have been generally geared towards pronouncing that you're opinion is the right one, anyone with a different opinion is a lesser human being, and generally worthy of your scorn (implied via diminutive phrasings and bestowed nicknames generally used to reinforce your superior knowledge or standing).
As far as pronouncements, I use declaratory sentences attempting to keep them as succinct as possible. Would you prefer I ended all of my statements with a question mark or a disclaimer similar to Dennis Miller's favorite - "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, with the caveat that I imagine I'm probably right when it comes to strictly factual statements such as "1 + 1 = 2 in basic algebra". But if I am, I welcome constructive discussion.
On April 10 2013 12:56 felisconcolori wrote: What is barbaric to you could be a treasured part of another culture that may have social structures, constructed works, and use technology as complex as any other.
then one of us would be wrong
That's a matter of perception. There's no definitive, objective right or wrong associated with it. There is not a mathematical or empirical method of determining exactly what civilization is from a non-subjective standpoint. How can you accurately and objectively establish what is a better civilization?
The point I was making was largely specific to your closed minded view of any discussion of the topic. While in most ways I tend to agree with you regarding the subject matter, such authoritative dismissal of any discussion of a subject reads poorly.
sometimes I think you just have to make abitrary pronouncements on things
What makes you say that? Although I will admit that I'm quite capable of discussing any issue from any side without much in the way of emotional investment. I do not seek to "win", to "prove I'm right" or "more intelligent" or "better read", etc. I seek to increase discourse, to provoke thought and hopefully learn more about the thought process in use. Your responses of late in this particular thread have been generally geared towards pronouncing that you're opinion is the right one, anyone with a different opinion is a lesser human being, and generally worthy of your scorn (implied via diminutive phrasings and bestowed nicknames generally used to reinforce your superior knowledge or standing).
As far as pronouncements, I use declaratory sentences attempting to keep them as succinct as possible. Would you prefer I ended all of my statements with a question mark or a disclaimer similar to Dennis Miller's favorite - "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, with the caveat that I imagine I'm probably right when it comes to strictly factual statements such as "1 + 1 = 2 in basic algebra". But if I am, I welcome constructive discussion.
because i think some things are not a matter of discussion. you kinda just have to set norms. because of what you say above (that it's not really possible to derive social norms from first principles - they're not objective, they're intersubjective, so sometimes the appropriate response to a question takes the form of a demand).
On April 10 2013 14:18 sam!zdat wrote: because i think some things are not a matter of discussion. you kinda just have to set norms. because of what you say above (that it's not really possible to derive social norms from first principles - they're not objective, they're intersubjective, so sometimes the appropriate response to a question takes the form of a demand).
You're assuming the point of the extremist that has no arguments to back up his position besides "I think I'm right, you're wrong and my position is superior and nothing you say matters to me anyway. I'm just here to punch you into the face with my opinion until you're on my side. If that doesn't work you're inferior as human being. (...therefor I can call you pig in the next step and then justify slaughtering you for food.)"
If this is about "You don't fart into someones face while he's eating", I'm very sure the majority would agree with you. Since this is about a - apparently - controversial argument an extremist position doesn't contribute anything to the discussion besides noise.
This is like trying to discuss whether to change immigrant policy and on one fence there's the guy shouting "LET THEM ALL IN" and on the other the guy "OMG OUT WITH ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE", both trying to yell so loud that their "opinion" drowns the other guy out - neither of them can be taken seriously. Both believe their opinions are utterly superior, both are supremacists.
On April 10 2013 21:46 r.Evo wrote: Since this is about a - apparently - controversial argument an extremist position doesn't contribute anything to the discussion besides noise.
that's not true, though, because you know who i am.
i think it's wrong because society disapproves. who is society? society is us. i am one of us. and i disapprove. (edit: it's not like I made this up. that word is not acceptable in polite society. it's not just a matter of my opinion, it's a fact about the way that society is. anyone who doesn't understand this is, in my eyes, just sort of ignorant about a basic element of good manners, and one which isn't worth questioning. what good would possibly come of people saying "nigger" all of a sudden? leave it alone. people only want to give "arguments" for why it's okay to say because they're looking for cheap transgressive thrills. that's a good rule, leave it alone. hone your sophistry on something else)
there's some space for the enumeration of reasons, but I don't think social disapproval of a behavior is always about reasons. sometimes you just forbid things, and ask questions later. i think the usage of this word is obviously offensive to the extent that it's not really worthy of discussion.
edit: because I really do find people who think they can use this word to be behaving childishly. when children behave childishly, there comes a point when you cannot give them a reason for why they should not do so. you have to just say "because I say so, because that is the way that we behave." you have to use social force. at the end of the day, people just kind of have to say "do I respect sam or not?" and then decide whether or not my opinion matters. it's not really about convincing people with arguments. but if someone wants to go around using that language, then we can't be friends, because I don't associate with people who have bad manners. I think that's how stuff like this gets played out, not with rational argumentation.
On April 10 2013 21:46 r.Evo wrote: If this is about "You don't fart into someones face while he's eating", I'm very sure the majority would agree with you.
I don't see any difference. what I'm saying is that I really don't think it's controversial (in the sense of not being worthy of controversy. this is the same sense in which I don't believe that, say, gay marriage is controversial, even though the media will tell you that it is a "controversy." people who disagree are simply wrong, it's not really worth dignifying their position with a "reason" why it is wrong)
edit: as someone said before. there's no "objective" answer to the question of whether or not it is inappropriate. so why seek an "objective" answer through rational disputation? it's wrong because I say it's wrong (and everyone else in polite society agrees with me).
On April 01 2013 08:54 Yurie wrote: Funny thing is that there is a Swedish cookie called (translated) Nigger Ball. This is since it is black and the word had no negative meaning at the time of naming.
Since we are now a days politically correct it was renamed and only people aged 60+ call it by the old name. Now it would translate to Coco Ball, even though some variants doesn't use coco...
The word has always had a negative meaning, it was just socially acceptable at the time of the naming, just like how Brazil nuts were called nigger toes. For everybody here defending the use of the word, would you feel comfortable using it casually in a formal setting like a job interview? Or in front of someone black you just met? I seriously doubt any of you would ask him to pass the nigger toes...
On April 11 2013 02:11 sam!zdat wrote: I think that's how stuff like this gets played out, not with rational argumentation.
i don't think it's hard to interpret your position from a rational point of view. it could follow from assuming the use of a word with meaning in context having consequences, coupled with having some perception of how we should seek control these consequences through its use to achieve some goal (f.ex in this thread: least possible racism). a reasonable model in a lot of cases similar to this.
one of the consequences of use is the change of the words meaning, which is also fading with time. making a reasonable assumption on the average reader of this thread and taking my own experience into account would probably lead me to post mildly discouraging or mildly encouraging to achieve our goal. both seem rational. which side i would land on would largely depend on my assumption on the average reader.
but this is not an accurate model of my perceived meaning of a word. i know it's not only a function of use, but also f.ex strong feelings or the strong feelings of close ones. this unmodelled disturbance would manifest itself through significant use of the word by me or others in contexts detrimental to my goal. if that's the case i would have to make another assumption on strong feelings and expand my model to account for them if i wanted it to fit in these cases as well.
these cases aren't being discussed in these last pages. i haven't i experienced a case like that. if i did, it would still cause the result of my rational approach (to the cases actually discussed here) to differ significantly from where it would end up had i not experienced it. it would be manifested in my assumption on the average reader and/or due to some other lingering unmodelled dynamic relating to that experience.
i wouldn't be doing myself any favours trying to marginalize those people as extremist. instead trying to understand where they are coming from could give me insight into some dynamic that i have not accounted for in my model because i have not experienced it, or i have forgotten about it.
edit: tl posters are not always rational when they post.
And frankly surprising I haven't seen it in this entire thread. (Of course, there's always the SNL skit he did with Chevy Chase, but that one is less comedy to me than the two of them exploring the social issue.)
I don't think anyone should be offended by any racial slurs anymore than any other negative word with a tone attached to it's context. If some guy is all in your face regardless of color and he calls you a fucking nigger or a fucking toothpaste, either way he is all in your face yelling at you. Isn't 70% of communication nonverbal anyways? Tone, inflection, cadence, etc. Also, nigger was mainly used for blacks(slaves) but it's actual definition is just as offensive to any person.
PS- How can you hate a word with such a catchy song? + Show Spoiler +
This Lil Jon track holds a Guiness World Record for Most Expletives In A Single Song at 295.
But in all seriousness, I have never and will never use it as an insult. It's amazing that when I beat a Terran with tanks he called me a "tank massing n***er."