As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Rosa's Law or How much PC is too much PC?

18911131420

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?

    You're being taught edited versions great works of literature because it makes someone feel bad?

    So?

    So that's bad? Unless of course you're a better writer than Twain.

    Come again Deebaser?

    Why is that bad? You have yet to demonstrate any harm or loss caused by a word substitution in a single edition. Really, if something this small can cause significant harm to western civilization, the various versions of Twain's autobiography would have caused the apocalypse by now.


    Like I said, Slave is not the same word as the n-word. Not even close. Changing it changes the story, a classic in American literature. You do as much a disservice to students teaching cheaply editing copies of stories as you would if you taught them American History according to Disney.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?

    Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.
    And I've heard that writers pick specific words purposefully.

    But, maybe Twain didn't really know what he was doing and his word choices mean nothing.

    Certainly, making Shylock a non-Jew would not change that play, either. Jewish kids in class might not like the negative potrayal of the character. And we should just avoid mentioning that Othello was black, since it might hurt students' feelings to see the bigotry and distrust directed at him.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?

    Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.

    And you can teach the meanings and connotations without using the word directly.

    "People enslaved black people because they thought black people were inferior. This is wrong."

    Schrodinger on
  • JokermanJokerman Everything EverywhereRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Fartacus wrote: »
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
    Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.

    Hey to the people it hurts, it often isn't! But I'm glad you've got the credentials to tell all black people how to feel.

    My girlfriend -- someone who knows I love her and whom I treat with utmost respect always -- does not allow me to say the n-word, even when quoting (including quoting her, as she uses it all the time), or in discussing it politically or philosophically.

    Why? Because hearing any white person say it makes her uncomfortable -- at best. Even someone she trusts and loves.

    But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?

    Isn't possible that your girlfriend is actually wrong, that she is in fact overly sensitive? Should we really cater to everyone who is overly sensitive about things? I mean this is where it gets waaaay subjective about what is too sensitive and what is not. But to me, your girlfriend being offended by you quoting someone or using the word in some political or philosophical context is definitely overly sensitive. In my mind she is clearly in the wrong to be offended by using the word in that context. I could come up with lots of hyperbolic examples of people being offended when they have no right to be but I am sure you see where I am coming from.

    Do you have total control over your feelings? What do I lose by respecting her feelings?

    It's also perfectly rational, I feel.

    The word being spoken by a white person has an association with unpleasant emotion. I mean, I guess we could put all black people in therapy to break that association, or something, but that seems just a tiny bit extreme.

    It causes her discomfort. It costs me nothing not to do it. Why is this a hard choice? Why should she conform to me, instead of the other way around, even though that would be difficult to her, although it's easy for me to conform to her wishes?

    So would she feel that way if Mark Twain was black? Would it be ok then?

    Jokerman on
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Jokerman wrote: »

    Interesting...

    So if Mark Twain had been black, instead of a progressive Caucasian, she'd have no problem with the book?

    I'm not sure. I'd guess, actually, it'd probably not be much of an issue in a classroom taught by a black teacher with all-black students. Whereas even if Twain were black, it might be uncomfortable for a black student to hear in a classroom full of white students taught by a white teacher.

    I think it's more about personal context than intellectual or historical context.

    Fartacus on
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?

    Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.

    But you've already stated that the n-word is an artifact of the period in which it was written, so the impact can't have been due to author intent in your view. Why don't you actually give how a message is being changed, maybe by giving the message the word is actually meant to convey? Is it because there is no message being changed?

    agentk13 on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?

    Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.

    And you can teach the meanings and connotations without using the word directly.

    "People enslaved black people because they thought black people were inferior. This is wrong."

    Or we could teach them about the casual racism of our past, and not change classic literature to fit emotional sentiments.

    I'm not sure how your post addresses the fact that replacing the n-word with "slave" isn't an accurate change.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Certainly, making Shylock a non-Jew would not change that play, either. Jewish kids in class might not like the negative potrayal of the character. And we should just avoid mentioning that Othello was black, since it might hurt students' feelings to see the bigotry and distrust directed at him.

    Obviously, it's impossible to convey the fact that the slave in Huck Finn was black unless you're willing to use the n-word.

    It's the same reason why all teachers refer to Rosa Parks with the n-word during black history month.

    That's what your analogy was trying to get at, right?

    I mean heck, if you want to complain about censorship, Penny Arcade has a rule against that word specifically, because they didn't want to appear in search engines when people googled it. Clearly, this makes it impossible for people on Penny-Arcade to discuss race relationships.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?

    Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.

    But you've already stated that the n-word is an artifact of the period in which it was written, so the impact can't have been due to author intent in your view. Why don't you actually give how a message is being changed, maybe by giving the message the word is actually meant to convey? Is it because there is no message being changed?

    I can't parse this post.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
    Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.

    Hey to the people it hurts, it often isn't! But I'm glad you've got the credentials to tell all black people how to feel.

    My girlfriend -- someone who knows I love her and whom I treat with utmost respect always -- does not allow me to say the n-word, even when quoting (including quoting her, as she uses it all the time), or in discussing it politically or philosophically.

    Why? Because hearing any white person say it makes her uncomfortable -- at best. Even someone she trusts and loves.

    But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?
    I fail to see the relevance of how you and your girlfriend handle racial slurs in your relationship.

    If she signed up for a literature class and demanded that the works in question be sanitized of any words she doesn't like, that's a wholly different situation.

    And, honestly, anyone who uses racial slurs but objects to others doing the same is a hypocrite.

    I have to agree with this, the only exception I can POSSIBLY see is if she uses the N word only in situations where she is referring to herself, that is the only situation where she would have some special right to describe something where others might not. Really if she thinks it's bad, then she shouldn't use it.

    And even if she was to say 'noone should use this word' then she still only has the right to control and censor her own actions and her responses to those who use it. She doesn't have a right to insist that noone uses it. If she wanted to never buy a copy of Huck Finn because it has that word in it, then fine, but she shouldn't go about saying all copies of Huck Finn should be censored.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?

    Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.
    And I've heard that writers pick specific words purposefully.

    But, maybe Twain didn't really know what he was doing and his word choices mean nothing.

    Certainly, making Shylock a non-Jew would not change that play, either. Jewish kids in class might not like the negative potrayal of the character. And we should just avoid mentioning that Othello was black, since it might hurt students' feelings to see the bigotry and distrust directed at him.

    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    agentk13 on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?

    You're being taught edited versions great works of literature because it makes someone feel bad?

    OK but why is that bad? I think how bad it is would be contingent on what the nature of the editing was. And why does the motivation for the editing matter? If editing is harmful, it's harmful for its consequences, which are irrelevant to the motivation.

    You seem to disagree -- the editing is not contingent, or if it is, it is contingent on the motivation for the editing, not the consequence or type of editing.

    Fartacus on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Fartacus wrote: »
    And, yes, I think there is some merit to saying "Hm, we have a group of students who are caused discomfort or harm by reading this book in our curriculum. That could conflict with our educational goals by making them perform poorly on this specific assignment, but also by making them feel alienated and unwelcome in our institution, something this group struggles with already. Is the unique educational value of this book worth that harm? If so, is there a way to retain the educational value of the book while making the group in question feel more welcome and valued?"

    That is a super reasonable question to ask and discussion to have. It's not even remotely analogous to "mak[ing] everything safe and comfortable" or ensuring that "no one is ever offended."

    On the contrary, it sounds like making everything "safe and comfortable" is exactly what you're talking about.

    And there's a level of education at which that is entirely appropriate! And at that level, confrontational or emotionally challenging subjects shouldn't be taught. If reading the racist language in Huck Finn is such a tremendous barrier for students, they probably weren't equipped to address the material anyway.

    but you have to deal with the fact that it's a bigger barrier for some students than others and there's no other way to slice it

    Okay? We can account for particular social or cultural barriers without dumbing down the material.
    But you've already stated that the n-word is an artifact of the period in which it was written, so the impact can't have been due to author intent in your view. Why don't you actually give how a message is being changed, maybe by giving the message the word is actually meant to convey? Is it because there is no message being changed?

    Please, this is ridiculous. Huck Finn is valuable as literature in modern times because it exposes the contradictions in the casual and pervasive racism that existed in Twain's era, not because it's a fun story about rafting. If you sanitize the text to remove the most common and brutal incidences of that racism, you're removing the reason to teach the text in the first place.

    ed: also it's plain moronic to assert that Twain's use of racial slurs was somehow unconscious just because it was more socially acceptable in his time than it is in our own.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    The purpose of the book is to teach people about race relationships, not to be accurate to Mark Twain.

    Do you also complain when kindergardeners are given watered down versions of Cinderella?

    Schrodinger on
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Fartacus wrote: »
    And, yes, I think there is some merit to saying "Hm, we have a group of students who are caused discomfort or harm by reading this book in our curriculum. That could conflict with our educational goals by making them perform poorly on this specific assignment, but also by making them feel alienated and unwelcome in our institution, something this group struggles with already. Is the unique educational value of this book worth that harm? If so, is there a way to retain the educational value of the book while making the group in question feel more welcome and valued?"

    That is a super reasonable question to ask and discussion to have. It's not even remotely analogous to "mak[ing] everything safe and comfortable" or ensuring that "no one is ever offended."

    On the contrary, it sounds like making everything "safe and comfortable" is exactly what you're talking about.

    And there's a level of education at which that is entirely appropriate! And at that level, confrontational or emotionally challenging subjects shouldn't be taught. If reading the racist language in Huck Finn is such a tremendous barrier for students, they probably weren't equipped to address the material anyway.

    but you have to deal with the fact that it's a bigger barrier for some students than others and there's no other way to slice it

    Okay? We can account for particular social or cultural barriers without dumbing down the material.
    But you've already stated that the n-word is an artifact of the period in which it was written, so the impact can't have been due to author intent in your view. Why don't you actually give how a message is being changed, maybe by giving the message the word is actually meant to convey? Is it because there is no message being changed?

    Please, this is ridiculous. Huck Finn is valuable as literature in modern times because it exposes the contradictions in the casual and pervasive racism that existed in Twain's era, not because it's a fun story about rafting. If you sanitize the text to remove the most common and brutal incidences of that racism, you're removing the reason to teach the text in the first place.

    Wait, you think that the n-word is more brutal than all the slavery? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    agentk13 on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I think that everyone whining about Huck Finn should just use the n-word as much as possible in this thread.

    You'll get infracted by the mods and your post will get edited, but you can call it civil disobedience.

    If your point is that we can't discuss these issues without using the n-word, then you're being a hypocrite by not using it yourself.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    The purpose of the book is to teach people about race relationships, not to be accurate to Mark Twain.

    Do you also complain when kindergardeners are given watered down versions of Cinderella?

    So the problem is you're teaching huck fin to students who aren't old enough for it then.

    Yes thats one of the great things about Huck Fin, the race relations. Its arrogance and foolery to assume you can go about editing out the words that are offensive and think it will still do that just as well. It assumes that who ever is doing the editing knows better than the man who wrote it.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Wait, you think that the n-word is more brutal than all the slavery? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    God damn if strawmen aren't intractable this is exhibit A on why they should be.

    And come on Shrod don't be dense. No one is saying its ok to walk around calling people the n-word.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Certainly, making Shylock a non-Jew would not change that play, either. Jewish kids in class might not like the negative potrayal of the character. And we should just avoid mentioning that Othello was black, since it might hurt students' feelings to see the bigotry and distrust directed at him.

    Obviously, it's impossible to convey the fact that the slave in Huck Finn was black unless you're willing to use the n-word.

    It's the same reason why all teachers refer to Rosa Parks with the n-word during black history month.

    That's what your analogy was trying to get at, right?
    What? No. These situations are nothing alike. Huck's casual use of the word shows some pretty important contextual and cultural details about the time and place he lived in. It tells us something about him. Similarly, using the same word to refer to Rosa Parks would also tell the listener something about the person using the word.
    I mean heck, if you want to complain about censorship, Penny Arcade has a rule against that word specifically, because they didn't want to appear in search engines when people googled it. Clearly, this makes it impossible for people on Penny-Arcade to discuss race relationships.
    Penny Arcade's banning of the word gives us a pretty clear sign of the beliefs of the ownership/management of the board. I imagine a website like Stormfront has no such ban and actively encourages the use of racial slurs.

    In both contexts, the handling of the word tells us something about the environment, culture and beliefs of the sub-groups in question. Much like Huck's casual use of the word tells us something about his world.

    Penny Arcade bans the word because they don't like the negative connotations. Stormfront is okay with the word because they like the negative aspects associated with it. Huck uses the word because he hasn't given it much thought and it's natural for him to do so.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Yes thats one of the great things about Huck Fin, the race relations. Its arrogance and foolery to assume you can go about editing out the words that are offensive and think it will still do that just as well. It assumes that who ever is doing the editing knows better than the man who wrote it.

    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    I dare you.

    Schrodinger on
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    agentk13 on
  • JokermanJokerman Everything EverywhereRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    The purpose of the book is to teach people about race relationships, not to be accurate to Mark Twain.

    Do you also complain when kindergardeners are given watered down versions of Cinderella?

    Kindergarderners =\= highschoolers.

    Also Cinderella is not one of the core stories of American fiction.

    Jokerman on
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    The purpose of the book is to teach people about race relationships, not to be accurate to Mark Twain.

    Do you also complain when kindergardeners are given watered down versions of Cinderella?

    So the problem is you're teaching huck fin to students who aren't old enough for it then.

    Yes thats one of the great things about Huck Fin, the race relations. Its arrogance and foolery to assume you can go about editing out the words that are offensive and think it will still do that just as well. It assumes that who ever is doing the editing knows better than the man who wrote it.

    You mean slavery and the plot of the book had nothing to do with race relations? Who knew!

    agentk13 on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I think that everyone whining about Huck Finn should just use the n-word as much as possible in this thread.

    You'll get infracted by the mods and your post will get edited, but you can call it civil disobedience.

    If your point is that we can't discuss these issues without using the n-word, then you're being a hypocrite by not using it yourself.
    I don't use racial slurs as a matter of course. And I don't associate with people who do. But that doesn't prevent me from reading books where characters do use such language.

    I'm also anti-stabbing of Italians. But Julius Caesar is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Fartacus wrote: »
    literally no one in the thread has argued that all copies should be edited

    I didn't say it either, so..? :whistle:

    adytum on
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Certainly, making Shylock a non-Jew would not change that play, either. Jewish kids in class might not like the negative potrayal of the character. And we should just avoid mentioning that Othello was black, since it might hurt students' feelings to see the bigotry and distrust directed at him.

    Obviously, it's impossible to convey the fact that the slave in Huck Finn was black unless you're willing to use the n-word.

    It's the same reason why all teachers refer to Rosa Parks with the n-word during black history month.

    That's what your analogy was trying to get at, right?
    What? No. These situations are nothing alike. Huck's casual use of the word shows some pretty important contextual and cultural details about the time and place he lived in. It tells us something about him. Similarly, using the same word to refer to Rosa Parks would also tell the listener something about the person using the word.
    I mean heck, if you want to complain about censorship, Penny Arcade has a rule against that word specifically, because they didn't want to appear in search engines when people googled it. Clearly, this makes it impossible for people on Penny-Arcade to discuss race relationships.
    Penny Arcade's banning of the word gives us a pretty clear sign of the beliefs of the ownership/management of the board. I imagine a website like Stormfront has no such ban and actively encourages the use of racial slurs.

    In both contexts, the handling of the word tells us something about the environment, culture and beliefs of the sub-groups in question. Much like Huck's casual use of the word tells us something about his world.

    Penny Arcade bans the word because they don't like the negative connotations. Stormfront is okay with the word because they like the negative aspects associated with it. Huck uses the word because he hasn't given it much thought and it's natural for him to do so.

    As opposed to referring to all black people as "slaves" casually?

    agentk13 on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I just told you what the harm was, and you chose not to respond in a substantive manner.

    If you don't want to have the discussion, why play at starting it?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Find me one passage of thew book in which the meaning, message, or significance is changed by the substitution. Just one.

    agentk13 on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    In both contexts, the handling of the word tells us something about the environment, culture and beliefs of the sub-groups in question. Much like Huck's casual use of the word tells us something about his world.

    Right, and the point is that some people don't want to hear white teachers using that word just as casually when reading that word out loud.

    People will still learn about the n-word in a separate section of curriculum. But they also need to learn that it is not acceptable for them to use the word themselves.

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    In both contexts, the handling of the word tells us something about the environment, culture and beliefs of the sub-groups in question. Much like Huck's casual use of the word tells us something about his world.

    Right, and the point is that some people don't want to hear white teachers using that word just as casually when reading that word out loud.

    People will still learn about the n-word in a separate section of curriculum. But they also need to learn that it is not acceptable for them to use the word themselves.
    I really doubt anyone is reading that section out loud in class. At most, they're probably discussing it the same way we are on this thread.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I think that everyone whining about Huck Finn should just use the n-word as much as possible in this thread.

    You'll get infracted by the mods and your post will get edited, but you can call it civil disobedience.

    If your point is that we can't discuss these issues without using the n-word, then you're being a hypocrite by not using it yourself.
    I don't use racial slurs as a matter of course. And I don't associate with people who do. But that doesn't prevent me from reading books where characters do use such language.

    I'm also anti-stabbing of Italians. But Julius Caesar is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays.

    I didn't ask you to start referring to black people with the term.

    Use it academically. Quote passages from Huck Finn with the word in tact. Then when someone flags you and the mod edits your post, complain that they are editing the works of Mark Twain.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Find me one passage of thew book in which the meaning, message, or significance is changed by the substitution. Just one.

    You're being obtuse.

    The words quite simply are not the same words, they have different meanings, and connotations.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    I just told you what the harm was, and you chose not to respond in a substantive manner.

    If you don't want to have the discussion, why play at starting it?

    That referring to people as "slave" doesn't show casual racism? That's the supposed harm? Aren't you adorable.

    agentk13 on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    The reason Twain was refers to Jim as a n*gger constantly throughout the book is that he's contrasting the common, dehumanizing slur for black people with the fundamental humanity that huck observes in Jim. We don't really observe Jim as a slave in the book; we only see him as a runaway, and one that interacts with relatively few white people. The book isn't really even about slavery per se, it's about the pervasive view that black people were inferior that Huck even in his relatively sheltered state has been socialized into, his observations of its contradictions, and his eventual rejection of it. If you change the language to make the assumed inferiority of blacks less obvious, you lessen the impact of the book.

    ed: no, the term is not interchangeable with slave; it wasn't then and it isn't now. We can, for example, freely type one word on this board, and not the other.

    One would think this would be obvious.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Find me one passage of thew book in which the meaning, message, or significance is changed by the substitution. Just one.

    You're being obtuse.

    The words quite simply are not the same words, they have different meanings, and connotations.

    Then this should be easy.

    Unless, of course, Twain's work is more then simple wordplay, being a satire through plot and characterization.

    agentk13 on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I think that everyone whining about Huck Finn should just use the n-word as much as possible in this thread.

    You'll get infracted by the mods and your post will get edited, but you can call it civil disobedience.

    If your point is that we can't discuss these issues without using the n-word, then you're being a hypocrite by not using it yourself.
    I don't use racial slurs as a matter of course. And I don't associate with people who do. But that doesn't prevent me from reading books where characters do use such language.

    I'm also anti-stabbing of Italians. But Julius Caesar is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays.

    I didn't ask you to start referring to black people with the term.

    Use it academically. Quote passages from Huck Finn with the word in tact. Then when someone flags you and the mod edits your post, complain that they are editing the works of Mark Twain.
    What? You're going down a weird rabbit hole here.

    I have no problem quoting that section for purposes of discussion. But, PA has enacted a rule against doing so and I respect that. Respecting the wishes of private property owners does not make me a hypocrite.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    The reason Twain was refers to Jim as a n*gger constantly throughout the book is that he's contrasting the common, dehumanizing slur for black people with the fundamental humanity that huck observes in Jim. We don't really observe Jim in a book; we only see him as a runaway, and one that interacts with relatively few white people. The book isn't really even about slavery per se, it's about the pervasive view that black people were inferior that Huck even in his relatively sheltered state has been socialized into, his observations of its contradictions, and his eventual rejection of it. If you change the language to make the assumed inferiority of blacks less obvious, you lessen the impact of the book.

    ed: no, the term is not interchangeable with slave; it wasn't then and it isn't now. We can, for example, freely type one word on this board, and not the other.

    One would think this would be obvious.

    And referring to him and other black people as "slaves" suddenly negates all that?

    agentk13 on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Find me one passage of thew book in which the meaning, message, or significance is changed by the substitution. Just one.

    You're being obtuse.

    The words quite simply are not the same words, they have different meanings, and connotations.

    Then this should be easy.

    Unless, of course, Twain's work is more then simple wordplay, being a satire through plot and characterization.

    Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig already addressed this a few posts up.

    You're asking for stupid irrelevant hoops to be jumped through. You want to take out the words that make your ears hurt and replace them with words that mean something else entirely.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
This discussion has been closed.