Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

11416181920

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Anyway, I have yet to see a part of the book in any way changed by the substitution rather than a few words having different letters. In other words, show me a section of Huck Finn changed more than correcting a typo would change it.

    Thats not our burden of proof.

    It's more for classrooms in which there are policies against using this type of language or in which harassment or racial tension is enough of a concern that it needs to be avoided in the classroom (out loud readings). The current consensus seems to be to replace it with "n-word" or some other term as you read it off, but that tends to harm immersion.

    You know those school with gang violence. They read n
    in mark twain and bam, gang fight.

    sig.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2011
    If people know exactly what the phrase replaces, but they also know that the class doesn't want to give the impression that the word is acceptable, then what is the problem?

    Seriously? We're editing out a word because it's not okay to call someone that?

    It's not acceptable to call someone a dirty, shit-eating cunt. There are books with worse language than that, and we're not trying to edit all of those.

    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    There is no benefit for this kind of editing for which the rationale doesn't fold backwards on itself the second you look at it cross-eyed.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Anyway, I have yet to see a part of the book in any way changed by the substitution rather than a few words having different letters. In other words, show me a section of Huck Finn changed more than correcting a typo would change it.

    Thats not our burden of proof.

    It's more for classrooms in which there are policies against using this type of language or in which harassment or racial tension is enough of a concern that it needs to be avoided in the classroom (out loud readings). The current consensus seems to be to replace it with "n-word" or some other term as you read it off, but that tends to harm immersion.

    You know those school with gang violence. They read n
    in mark twain and bam, gang fight.

    How do you not have burden of proof? You keep claiming that the change is some sort of travesty. That is a positive claim.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Anyway, I have yet to see a part of the book in any way changed by the substitution rather than a few words having different letters. In other words, show me a section of Huck Finn changed more than correcting a typo would change it.

    Thats not our burden of proof.

    It's more for classrooms in which there are policies against using this type of language or in which harassment or racial tension is enough of a concern that it needs to be avoided in the classroom (out loud readings). The current consensus seems to be to replace it with "n-word" or some other term as you read it off, but that tends to harm immersion.

    You know those school with gang violence. They read n
    in mark twain and bam, gang fight.

    How do you not have burden of proof? You keep claiming that the change is some sort of travesty. That is a positive claim.

    I've laid out why you have burden and on what.

    Hell even the most basic claim, thats its needed, hasn't been shown.

    sig.jpg
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Teachers should have the right to do what? You never really clarify that. If it's to change the book - they aren't the ones changing it - it's the Boards of Education/Publishers - I think you would be hard pressed to find that a majority of English teachers want this book edited or that is sets a particularly good precedent.

    The publishers are creating an alternate edition. The original edition is still available, and more schools will still use it.
    But anywho - I'm going to ask a series of questions to see if we can agree on something, so bear with me.

    1) First - would we be able to agree on this statement: the reason why we are removing the n word from huckleberry finn is because the n word is intrinsically offensive and makes people feel uncomfortable.

    2) If we are changing the n word to something else because it is intrinsically offensive and makes people uncomfortable, why do we not by logical extension, remove it from all works and art, thereby ensuring the comfort and sensitivity towards those who have endured and suffered from racism?

    The problem is that the main character who the reader is supposed to identify with uses the term casually.

    That would be very different from, say, a showing of "Murder in Mississippi" where the villain uses the n-word to insult the main character.

    RE: Editions

    Ah - okay - choice isn't so bad then, however book choice still isn't really made by teachers so much as it is made by the boards of education.

    RE: The questions

    So this is an issue of how the term is used - and how it is used then causes the ensuing discomfort.

    Now, I am assuming that according to the above, you bring up a "murder in Mississippi" as an instance where this "very different" use of the word is permissible. In this case, using the N word when insulting a character is permissible, whereas using it casually is not.

    Using that as a guideline - all casual uses of the term risks making people feel uncomfortable, therefore we should remove it from all works that use it in such a manner.

    If this isn't what you are arguing for - then I will ask that you explicitly state under what criteria that it would be okay to use the N word in such a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable and if possible, provide works as examples.

    This isn't me being glib or anything - I'm just trying to understand your position more thoroughly.

    I'd like you to answer this when you get a chance Schrodinger.

    sig.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    In the Divine Comedy, the political crap is half the entire point so replacing them all would harm the point. The n-word doesn't have much to do with the point of the book outside of being vernacular usage.

    In the larger, metacontextual sense, yes, the n-word has a ton to do with the book. It just doesn't have much to do with the plot.

    If your concern is preservation of original intent, you know what would be a lot better than editing the entire text of the book? Sticking in a two-paragraph preface that says, "The meaning of the word 'n
    ' has changed slightly, this is what it means now...."

    It's more for classrooms in which there are policies against using this type of language or in which harassment or racial tension is enough of a concern that it needs to be avoided in the classroom (out loud readings). The current consensus seems to be to replace it with "n-word" or some other term as you read it off, but that tends to harm immersion.

    Presumably in such classrooms you would also not be allowed to say "goddamn" or "shit" or whatnot, correct?

    What other books do we need to edit? Let me know so I can start crusading. I assume we should start with Catcher In the Rye?

    Also, if the reason is "we can't say that word in the classroom!" then can't we just not do out-loud readings of that book? I don't recall ever doing those in high-school, and I'm pretty sure it didn't affect my education adversely.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Anyway, I have yet to see a part of the book in any way changed by the substitution rather than a few words having different letters. In other words, show me a section of Huck Finn changed more than correcting a typo would change it.

    Thats not our burden of proof.

    It's more for classrooms in which there are policies against using this type of language or in which harassment or racial tension is enough of a concern that it needs to be avoided in the classroom (out loud readings). The current consensus seems to be to replace it with "n-word" or some other term as you read it off, but that tends to harm immersion.

    You know those school with gang violence. They read n
    in mark twain and bam, gang fight.

    How do you not have burden of proof? You keep claiming that the change is some sort of travesty. That is a positive claim.

    I've laid out why you have burden and on what.

    By listing negative claims that I have to somehow prove.

    The fact of the matter is that I've proven that your claims have the burden of proof by showing how they can be proven. Show me a test of my claims that the passing of would make them proven in your consideration?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    By listing negative claims that I have to somehow prove.

    Again, you're wrong on what is proving a negative and proving that something won't happen.

    Prove you won't float away if you jump off the ground. Oh there you go. Proved.

    But here's a positive to prove. Show its needed. No one here has shown this is some real issue. Are people getting in gang fights over n
    Jim? Are just doing this because some kid somewhere got sad?

    sig.jpg
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    You don't make racism better by pretending it doesn't happen.

    So if you removed the n-word from Huck Finn, clearly, there would be no racism in it.

    Of course there would be. So we should probably go edit that out too lest they be offended.

    And Agent, everything I asked you to prove is a claim you and Fartacus have made.

    You gave three claims, two of which were negative, with the remaining claim being made only by Farticus.

    you're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking...
    You don't really think "It's impossible to prove a negative" means it is impossible to prove/disprove a statement that has "not" in it.

    Yeah it had me laughing.

    That would work if I had bolded every use of "not", rather than the spots where you ask me to prove that something "does not' (those are the exact words I bolded, not simply "not") happen. That the definition of a request to prove the negative.

    Of course, if you're in earnest and not simply trying to dodge again, you'd be willing to propose a way I can prove my alleged claims, just as I've given a way you can prove your claims. I've already asked you for such a proposition, a request that you've chosen to ignore, so I'm not expecting much from you.

    wow....I was not expecting you to double down on that...

    OK. Forget SS said "prove" at all. What he's asking you to do is "support" (prove) the arguments you or fartacus (it really isn't important) are making.
    1) The use of the n-word detracts in a significant way from the learning experience for appropriately aged students.

    2) That changing the story to not offend people assuming 1 is true does not have a greater negative impact than positive.

    3) The use of the word "slave" is an appropriate substitution, in that it does not represent an undue change in the story or tone and accomplishes to goal of not offending anyone.


    SS didn't ask you to "prove a negative". That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing. Here are some examples for future reference so you don't look silly:

    Prove that you aren't a child molestor.
    Prove that you aren't hiding $10,000,000 in the woods.
    Prove that you have never been to the moon.

    See the difference?

    Other examples:
    Prove that changing the story to not offend people assuming 1 is true does not have a greater negative impact than positive.
    Prove that it does not represent an undue change in the story or tone and accomplishes to goal of not offending anyone.
    Prove that bigfoot does not exist.

    No dude. Those are all subjective, not factual. Deflecting with "You can't prove a negative" shows extreme ignorance of WHY you cannot prove a negative.

    Just forget he said "prove", it's a little out of place and is confusing you. There's no magic "test" for either position. Just support your arguments.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If people know exactly what the phrase replaces, but they also know that the class doesn't want to give the impression that the word is acceptable, then what is the problem?

    Seriously? We're editing out a word because it's not okay to call someone that?

    It's not acceptable to call someone a dirty, shit-eating cunt. There are books with worse language than that, and we're not trying to edit all of those.

    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    There is no benefit for this kind of editing for which the rationale doesn't fold backwards on itself the second you look at it cross-eyed.

    The book as written should make you feel a bit uncomfortable. Replacing the n word neuters a chunk of the impact.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Yeah fair enough.

    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    Are we going to go through and clean out everything someone got sad over? Do we get to decide what offense is legit and what isnt?

    sig.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    In the Divine Comedy, the political crap is half the entire point so replacing them all would harm the point. The n-word doesn't have much to do with the point of the book outside of being vernacular usage.

    In the larger, metacontextual sense, yes, the n-word has a ton to do with the book. It just doesn't have much to do with the plot.

    If your concern is preservation of original intent, you know what would be a lot better than editing the entire text of the book? Sticking in a two-paragraph preface that says, "The meaning of the word 'n
    ' has changed slightly, this is what it means now...."

    It's more for classrooms in which there are policies against using this type of language or in which harassment or racial tension is enough of a concern that it needs to be avoided in the classroom (out loud readings). The current consensus seems to be to replace it with "n-word" or some other term as you read it off, but that tends to harm immersion.

    Presumably in such classrooms you would also not be allowed to say "goddamn" or "shit" or whatnot, correct?

    What other books do we need to edit? Let me know so I can start crusading. I assume we should start with Catcher In the Rye?

    Also, if the reason is "we can't say that word in the classroom!" then can't we just not do out-loud readings of that book? I don't recall ever doing those in high-school, and I'm pretty sure it didn't affect my education adversely.

    Lord of the flies

    Gone with the wind

    Of mice and men

    To kill a mockingbird

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    By listing negative claims that I have to somehow prove.

    Again, you're wrong on what is proving a negative and proving that something won't happen.

    Prove you won't float away if you jump off the ground. Oh there you go. Proved.

    But here's a positive to prove. Show its needed. No one here has shown this is some real issue. Are people getting in gang fights over n
    Jim? Are just doing this because some kid somewhere got sad?

    I can't prove that. I can prove that I stayed earthbound THIS TIME, but I may have gotten lucky.

    For the test
    A) I never said anything about gangs. That's your own strawman.
    B) I never said that would happen, only that there were schools which were concerned with the eventuality, which is clearly true GIVEN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS. Of course, we've had someone post on this thread that he would have been harassed even worse were the book part of Canadian curricula, but you've chosen to ignore that, haven't you?

    Now, any tests for the other two claims you claimed I had been making?

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Man, better not let those black kids hear the "n word." They might be offended by it! [vidurl= (NSFW links, obviously) It's downright condescending to sit there and think as a majority that you have to protect the minority like they're you're fucking dog and you don't want it getting under into the cabinet under the sink.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    sig.jpg
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Man, better not let those black kids hear the "n word." They might be offended by it! [vidurl= (NSFW links, obviously) It's downright condescending to sit there and think as a majority that you have to protect the minority like they're you're fucking dog and you don't want it getting under into the cabinet under the sink.

    You might want to let the mods know about this glorious revelation.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you want to go about changing classic literature because hey maybe someone won't like this word.

    Yeah thats not ok.

    sig.jpg
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you want to go about changing classic literature because hey maybe someone won't like this word.

    Yeah thats not ok.

    "Change" like adjusting the format to fit your printing presses or subbing an inconsequential word or "change" like actually playing with plot elements of symbolism?

    I suppose we'll be arguing about paperback editions of pre-paperback works next, as that's a pretty big change to a book.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you want to go about changing classic literature because hey maybe someone won't like this word.

    Yeah thats not ok.

    "Change" like adjusting the format to fit your printing presses or subbing an inconsequential word or "change" like actually playing with plot elements of symbolism?

    I suppose we'll be arguing about paperback editions of pre-paperback works next, as that's a pretty big change to a book.

    Oh you know, going through and changing words so someone won't get offended.

    Changing literature because it makes someone offended is fucking stupid and is one step from removing a book from the library because someone might get offended.

    sig.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you don't feel there's any change in meaning for the reader between
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a n*****."

    and
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a slave."

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Teachers should have the right to do what? You never really clarify that. If it's to change the book - they aren't the ones changing it - it's the Boards of Education/Publishers - I think you would be hard pressed to find that a majority of English teachers want this book edited or that is sets a particularly good precedent.

    The publishers are creating an alternate edition. The original edition is still available, and more schools will still use it.
    But anywho - I'm going to ask a series of questions to see if we can agree on something, so bear with me.

    1) First - would we be able to agree on this statement: the reason why we are removing the n word from huckleberry finn is because the n word is intrinsically offensive and makes people feel uncomfortable.

    2) If we are changing the n word to something else because it is intrinsically offensive and makes people uncomfortable, why do we not by logical extension, remove it from all works and art, thereby ensuring the comfort and sensitivity towards those who have endured and suffered from racism?

    The problem is that the main character who the reader is supposed to identify with uses the term casually.

    That would be very different from, say, a showing of "Murder in Mississippi" where the villain uses the n-word to insult the main character.

    RE: Editions

    Ah - okay - choice isn't so bad then, however book choice still isn't really made by teachers so much as it is made by the boards of education.

    RE: The questions

    So this is an issue of how the term is used - and how it is used then causes the ensuing discomfort.

    Now, I am assuming that according to the above, you bring up a "murder in Mississippi" as an instance where this "very different" use of the word is permissible. In this case, using the N word when insulting a character is permissible, whereas using it casually is not.

    Using that as a guideline - all casual uses of the term risks making people feel uncomfortable, therefore we should remove it from all works that use it in such a manner.

    If this isn't what you are arguing for - then I will ask that you explicitly state under what criteria that it would be okay to use the N word in such a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable and if possible, provide works as examples.

    This isn't me being glib or anything - I'm just trying to understand your position more thoroughly.

    I'd like you to answer this when you get a chance Schrodinger.

    Is this getting ignored? Under what criteria should we allow or ban the use of the N word in art, music, literature, culture?

    You can't be selective using arbitrary criteria.

    sig.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    We already have that rule on this board when we have to use "n-word."

    So...

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    We already have that rule on this board when we have to use "n-word."

    So...
    This board does not exist for didactic or artistic purposes, nor is that rule enforced via the moderators going around changing the words in other people's posts "to avoid hurting people's feelings"

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    We already have that rule on this board when we have to use "n-word."

    So...

    It's a good thing nothing we write on the penny-arcade forums could possibly be misconstrued as literature and that the internet wouldn't have a field day abusing the word.

    Talk about ignoring context.

    sig.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    The ban also prevents us from popping up when someone googles n
    which is a good idea.

    sig.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    RE: Editions

    Ah - okay - choice isn't so bad then, however book choice still isn't really made by teachers so much as it is made by the boards of education.

    RE: The questions

    So this is an issue of how the term is used - and how it is used then causes the ensuing discomfort.

    Now, I am assuming that according to the above, you bring up a "murder in Mississippi" as an instance where this "very different" use of the word is permissible. In this case, using the N word when insulting a character is permissible, whereas using it casually is not.

    Using that as a guideline - all casual uses of the term risks making people feel uncomfortable, therefore we should remove it from all works that use it in such a manner.

    If this isn't what you are arguing for - then I will ask that you explicitly state under what criteria that it would be okay to use the N word in such a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable and if possible, provide works as examples.

    This isn't me being glib or anything - I'm just trying to understand your position more thoroughly.

    Murder in Mississippi presents the use of the word as a bad thing. Which is was, in the era it was use, and which is still true today.

    Huck Finn portrays it ambiguously. Which it was, in the era, but not true today.

    You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you don't feel there's any change in meaning for the reader between
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a n*****."

    and
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a slave."

    I'd really like to hear an answer to this, Is there a qualitative difference in experience for the modern reader between those to versions, or not?

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you don't feel there's any change in meaning for the reader between
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a n*****."

    and
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a slave."

    Only in the modern usage of the former word, but at least we're arguing substantively.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you don't feel there's any change in meaning for the reader between
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a n*****."

    and
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a slave."

    Only in the modern usage of the former word, but at least we're arguing substantively.

    So there is, then, a significant difference for the modern reader between the two versions and the change you are dismissing as minor is not, in fact, slight and inconsequential

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    We already have that rule on this board when we have to use "n-word."

    So...

    It's a good thing nothing we write on the penny-arcade forums could possibly be misconstrued as literature and that the internet wouldn't have a field day abusing the word.

    Talk about ignoring context.

    What if we call Heck Finn "a book" instead? Is it okay now?

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
    ' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?

    We already have that rule on this board when we have to use "n-word."

    So...

    It's a good thing nothing we write on the penny-arcade forums could possibly be misconstrued as literature and that the internet wouldn't have a field day abusing the word.

    Talk about ignoring context.

    And it's not like an immature HS student in the south will assume that it's okay to start using the N-word because "I'm just quoting Huck Finn."

    No one is saying, "All schools have to do this." But there are some schools where they've decided, "You know, a lot of kids love using that word enough already, better not give them an excuse."

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    That's terrible fucking logic.

  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    RE: Editions

    Ah - okay - choice isn't so bad then, however book choice still isn't really made by teachers so much as it is made by the boards of education.

    RE: The questions

    So this is an issue of how the term is used - and how it is used then causes the ensuing discomfort.

    Now, I am assuming that according to the above, you bring up a "murder in Mississippi" as an instance where this "very different" use of the word is permissible. In this case, using the N word when insulting a character is permissible, whereas using it casually is not.

    Using that as a guideline - all casual uses of the term risks making people feel uncomfortable, therefore we should remove it from all works that use it in such a manner.

    If this isn't what you are arguing for - then I will ask that you explicitly state under what criteria that it would be okay to use the N word in such a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable and if possible, provide works as examples.

    This isn't me being glib or anything - I'm just trying to understand your position more thoroughly.

    Murder in Mississippi presents the use of the word as a bad thing. Which is was, in the era it was use, and which is still true today.

    Huck Finn portrays it ambiguously. Which it was, in the era, but not true today.

    You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.

    So in other words, unless the work is moralizing and providing a lesson (ie, using the n word is bad, pedophelia is bad), it should be censored? That is to say books that contain content that is deemed socially unacceptable should be censored?

    I think that eliminates literature with homosexual sex in every region but the northeast and california.

    See what I mean? This censorship is purely subjective. That's problematic because it's cherry picking.

    sig.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    RE: Editions

    Ah - okay - choice isn't so bad then, however book choice still isn't really made by teachers so much as it is made by the boards of education.

    RE: The questions

    So this is an issue of how the term is used - and how it is used then causes the ensuing discomfort.

    Now, I am assuming that according to the above, you bring up a "murder in Mississippi" as an instance where this "very different" use of the word is permissible. In this case, using the N word when insulting a character is permissible, whereas using it casually is not.

    Using that as a guideline - all casual uses of the term risks making people feel uncomfortable, therefore we should remove it from all works that use it in such a manner.

    If this isn't what you are arguing for - then I will ask that you explicitly state under what criteria that it would be okay to use the N word in such a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable and if possible, provide works as examples.

    This isn't me being glib or anything - I'm just trying to understand your position more thoroughly.

    Murder in Mississippi presents the use of the word as a bad thing. Which is was, in the era it was use, and which is still true today.

    Huck Finn portrays it ambiguously. Which it was, in the era, but not true today.

    You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.

    Lolita?

    sig.jpg
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Man, better not let those black kids hear the "n word." They might be offended by it! [vidurl= (NSFW links, obviously) It's downright condescending to sit there and think as a majority that you have to protect the minority like they're you're fucking dog and you don't want it getting under into the cabinet under the sink.

    Hey, you know, feel free to call me a thin-skinned pussy and whatever, but it kind of sucked to have my entire class calling me N
    every time the teachers turned their backs, and I'm having trouble thinking of ways it could have been positive to re-introduce the subject in an official capacity, with the teacher then intoning that it was a bad thing. Cause, you know, they already knew that. They already knew that to use the word was upsetting. This is not news to people.

    I'm not taking a stance on the word change myself, as I've said, I'm rather conflicted about it, so I'm mostly staying out of the thread because this debate feels rather personal. But whatever! Some black people use the N word so I guess we're all totally cool with it!

    Okay, thin-skinned pussy checking out. Carry on.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    What ever since you want to harp on it


    Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.

    It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?

    So you don't feel there's any change in meaning for the reader between
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a n*****."

    and
    "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

    "No' m. Killed a slave."

    Only in the modern usage of the former word, but at least we're arguing substantively.

    So there is, then, a significant difference for the modern reader between the two versions and the change you are dismissing as minor is not, in fact, slight and inconsequential

    And how is the misinterpretations of a modern reader in any way related to author intent? Translating the work would be a big change for the people speaking the language the work is being translated into, but I think we can all agree that the assertion that the concept of translation tramples on author intent is ridiculous.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    So in other words, unless the work is moralizing and providing a lesson (ie, using the n word is bad, pedophelia is bad), it should be censored? That is to say books that contain content that is deemed socially unacceptable should be censored?

    I think that eliminates literature with homosexual sex in every region but the northeast and california.

    See what I mean? This censorship is purely subjective. That's problematic because it's cherry picking.

    The idea that pedophilia and incest is wrong is subjective?

    By that logic, how in the world do teachers decide on anything, ever?

  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Man, better not let those black kids hear the "n word." They might be offended by it! [vidurl= (NSFW links, obviously) It's downright condescending to sit there and think as a majority that you have to protect the minority like they're you're fucking dog and you don't want it getting under into the cabinet under the sink.

    Hey, you know, feel free to call me a thin-skinned pussy and whatever, but it kind of sucked to have my entire class calling me N
    every time the teachers turned their backs, and I'm having trouble thinking of ways it could have been positive to re-introduce the subject in an official capacity, with the teacher then intoning that it was a bad thing. Cause, you know, they already knew that. They already knew that to use the word was upsetting. This is not news to people.

    I'm not taking a stance on the word change myself, as I've said, I'm rather conflicted about it, so I'm mostly staying out of the thread because this debate feels rather personal. But whatever! Some black people use the N word so I guess we're all totally cool with it!

    Okay, thin-skinned pussy checking out. Carry on.

    Sounds like you had a problem before Huckleberry Finn was talked about.

    Don't project an issue with these people onto the book.

    Feel free to project it on music videos.

    sig.jpg
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    So in other words, unless the work is moralizing and providing a lesson (ie, using the n word is bad, pedophelia is bad), it should be censored? That is to say books that contain content that is deemed socially unacceptable should be censored?

    I think that eliminates literature with homosexual sex in every region but the northeast and california.

    See what I mean? This censorship is purely subjective. That's problematic because it's cherry picking.

    The idea that pedophilia and incest is wrong is subjective?

    By that logic, how in the world do teachers decide on anything, ever?


    No - the idea that you can't write, teach, or talk about a story involving pedophilia regardless of its merits without it being CENSORED is subjective.

    sig.jpg
This discussion has been closed.