Why are we acting as if the internet needs to hold itself to a higher standard for discussion than a classroom, rather than the other way around?
I mean, if a word is offensive enough so that even people on the internet don't want to use it, then why is it wrong for a classroom to come to the same conclusion?
You can say, "Because it's literature." But people on the board aren't allowed to quote Huck Finn directly, for the above reasons. So we're back where we started.
Why are we acting as if the internet needs to hold itself to a higher standard for discussion than a classroom, rather than the other way around?
I mean, if a word is offensive enough so that even people on the internet don't want to use it, then why is it wrong for a classroom to come to the same conclusion?
You can say, "Because it's literature." But people on the board aren't allowed to quote Huck Finn directly, for the above reasons. So we're back where we started.
lol because the logic used for both is specious! It's rocky! Unstable! Not consistent!
Why are we acting as if the internet needs to hold itself to a higher standard for discussion than a classroom, rather than the other way around?
I mean, if a word is offensive enough so that even people on the internet don't want to use it, then why is it wrong for a classroom to come to the same conclusion?
You can say, "Because it's literature." But people on the board aren't allowed to quote Huck Finn directly, for the above reasons. So we're back where we started.
No, classrooms should hold themselves to a higher standard by refusing to censor uncomfortable words in discussions of literature and historical context.
You have gotten precisely backwards which institution is currently holding itself, and which should be held, to a higher standard.
Why are we acting as if the internet needs to hold itself to a higher standard for discussion than a classroom, rather than the other way around?
I mean, if a word is offensive enough so that even people on the internet don't want to use it, then why is it wrong for a classroom to come to the same conclusion?
You can say, "Because it's literature." But people on the board aren't allowed to quote Huck Finn directly, for the above reasons. So we're back where we started.
lol because the logic used for both is specious!
And you're free to think that.
But you're not the one running the classroom, any more than you're the one who owns the forum.
No, classrooms should hold themselves to a higher standard by refusing to censor uncomfortable words in discussions of literature and historical context.
You have gotten precisely backwards which institution is currently holding itself, and which should be held, to a higher standard.
Can you think of any other examples of things you're allowed to say in a typical classroom due to the lack of censorship, but you're not allowed to say here?
I mean, I guess you can endorse illegal piracy in a classroom without getting punished, but the teacher would probably cut you off real quick.
People on PA are used to having far more freedom of speech than the typical HS student. And they're still not allowed to say the N-word, for a very specific reason. They couldn't use the n-word in a thread centered around Michael Richard's use of the n-word, which is how the rule began. That wasn't just a "part of the historical context." It was, in fact, the very thing being discussed.
Again, the ban on the n-word is largely to avoid unsavory search results from google.
perfectly legitimate.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Again, the ban on the n-word is largely to avoid unsavory search results from google.
perfectly legitimate.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Again, the ban on the n-word is largely to avoid unsavory search results from google.
perfectly legitimate.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Its because they don't want PA to pop up for everyone googling n
And your first paragraph is illogical.
No, classrooms should hold themselves to a higher standard by refusing to censor uncomfortable words in discussions of literature and historical context.
You have gotten precisely backwards which institution is currently holding itself, and which should be held, to a higher standard.
Can you think of any other examples of things you're allowed to say in a typical classroom due to the lack of censorship, but you're not allowed to say here?
I mean, I guess you can endorse illegal piracy in a classroom without getting punished, but the teacher would probably cut you off real quick.
People on PA are used to having far more freedom of speech than the typical HS student. And they're still not allowed to say the N-word, for a very specific reason. They couldn't use the n-word in a thread centered around Michael Richard's use of the n-word, which is how the rule began. That wasn't just a "part of the historical context." It was, in fact, the very thing being discussed.
Who cares?
It's an internet board. Its behavior is a model for nothing and justifies nothing. It has as its mission statement the education of no one and exists to further the culture of fuck all.
No, classrooms should hold themselves to a higher standard by refusing to censor uncomfortable words in discussions of literature and historical context.
You have gotten precisely backwards which institution is currently holding itself, and which should be held, to a higher standard.
Can you think of any other examples of things you're allowed to say in a typical classroom due to the lack of censorship, but you're not allowed to say here?
I mean, I guess you can endorse illegal piracy in a classroom without getting punished, but the teacher would probably cut you off real quick.
People on PA are used to having far more freedom of speech than the typical HS student. And they're still not allowed to say the N-word, for a very specific reason. They couldn't use the n-word in a thread centered around Michael Richard's use of the n-word, which is how the rule began. That wasn't just a "part of the historical context." It was, in fact, the very thing being discussed.
Perhaps the people who think that the n-word shouldn't be censored in Huck Finn also think that the n-word shouldn't be banned on the PA forums as well if it is being used appropriately (as in, not flippantly, not as an insult, etc)?
In a world where using it wouldn't create bad google search results, of course.
Again, the ban on the n-word is largely to avoid unsavory search results from google.
perfectly legitimate.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Its because they don't want PA to pop up for everyone googling n
But that's not an answer.
Why didn't PA want their board to appear when googling n
?
Did they not want the rest of the world to see our riveting debate on Michael Richards?
Again, the ban on the n-word is largely to avoid unsavory search results from google.
perfectly legitimate.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Its because they don't want PA to pop up for everyone googling n
But that's not an answer.
Why didn't PA want their board to appear when googling n
?
Did they not want the rest of the world to see our riveting debate on Michael Richards?
Because the crowd that googles that isn't the crowd we want?
But its irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Huck Fin.
Again, the ban on the n-word is largely to avoid unsavory search results from google.
perfectly legitimate.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Its because they don't want PA to pop up for everyone googling n
But that's not an answer.
Why didn't PA want their board to appear when googling n
?
Did they not want the rest of the world to see our riveting debate on Michael Richards?
Moot point, Tube established this wasn't the case. N word is banned because the n word is banned.
It's an internet board. Its behavior is a model for nothing and justifies nothing. It has as its mission statement the education of no one and exists to further the culture of fuck all.
It is completely irrelevant
You can educate people on the use of the n-word without constantly using the n-word. Just like you can have a discussion on PA about the n-word without using the n-word. There are many, many ways to go about this. Is this discussion diminished by the fact that people aren't throwing the n-word around casually?
The question is, does avoiding the n-word serve any purpose when people already know what it means? It does. It shows that even though we know what the word is, clearly the word is unacceptable in today's age.
Similarly, basathroom doors serve a purpose, even though people already know what you're doing on the toilet. They don't "sanitize" what you're doing. But they do demonstrate that, "Hey, maybe this isn't something you want to share in public."
It's an internet board. Its behavior is a model for nothing and justifies nothing. It has as its mission statement the education of no one and exists to further the culture of fuck all.
It is completely irrelevant
You can educate people on the use of the n-word without constantly using the n-word. Just like you can have a discussion on PA about the n-word without using the n-word. There are many, many ways to go about this. Is this discussion diminished by the fact that people aren't throwing the n-word around casually?
The question is, does avoiding the n-word serve any purpose when people already know what it means? It does. It shows that even though we know what the word is, clearly the word is unacceptable in today's age.
Similarly, basathroom doors serve a purpose, even though people already know what you're doing on the toilet. They don't "sanitize" what you're doing. But they do demonstrate that, "Hey, maybe this isn't something you want to share in public."
Totally missing the point.
Equating literature with shit people say.
Suggesting that the context within a novel and subsequent use of word is the same exact thing as using said word in daily life.
And apart from Schrodinger's utter disinterest in logic, there's also the fact that we're not discussing banning the n-word from class discussions, we're discussing bowdlerising.
Suggesting that the context within a novel and subsequent use of word is the same exact thing as using said word in daily life.
Who suggested this?
What people said was that it would have the same meaning in the context of the story compared to the meaning today, and the teacher could easily explain, "Look, this wasn't the original language of the book, because the language of the book was really offensive."
Actually, the teacher saying that would probably be the best way to encourage kids to actually read Huck Finn. But they'll read Huck Finn knowing that the language isn't acceptable.
Suggesting that the context within a novel and subsequent use of word is the same exact thing as using said word in daily life.
Who suggested this?
What people said was that it would have the same meaning in the context of the story compared to the meaning today, and the teacher could easily explain, "Look, this wasn't the original language of the book, because the language of the book was really offensive."
Actually, the teacher saying that would probably be the best way to encourage kids to actually read Huck Finn. But they'll read Huck Finn knowing that the language isn't acceptable.
You're saying that nothing is lost when the n word is banned on forums - no value in preserving it therefore losing it is awesome!
You then ask why it shouldn't apply to literature.
You're saying that nothing is lost when the n word is banned on forums - no value in preserving it therefore losing it is awesome!
You then ask why it shouldn't apply to literature.
That's dumb and missing the point.
Except that the word is still preserved. It just isn't considered acceptable.
There's a difference.
When SLJ complains of "Monday to friday planes," people understand exactly what the original line was. The only thing lost is the acceptability of it.
Someone can't tell the difference between mass media vs. a classroom and why they have something referred to as the FCC regulating it vs. a school system.
Someone can't tell the difference between mass media vs. a classroom and why they have something referred to as the FCC regulating it vs. a school system.
Also, entertainment vs. education.
oh god why do i bother.
FX isn't regulated by the FCC.
Entertainment is generally less restrictive than Education, not more so.
And you missed the underlying point: People know exactly what Sam says even if he doesn't outright say it. If people know exactly what Sam says, then what exactly is lost, other than the acceptability of the phrase?
And you missed the underlying point: People know exactly what Sam says even if he doesn't outright say it. If people know exactly what Sam says, then what exactly is lost, other than the acceptability of the phrase?
The question isn't what is lost.
The question is why even bother. If everyone already knows whats said whats the point to hiding it behind random words?
And you missed the underlying point: People know exactly what Sam says even if he doesn't outright say it. If people know exactly what Sam says, then what exactly is lost, other than the acceptability of the phrase?
The question isn't what is lost.
The question is why even bother. If everyone already knows whats said whats the point to hiding it behind random words?
If everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, then what's the point of having doors?
And you missed the underlying point: People know exactly what Sam says even if he doesn't outright say it. If people know exactly what Sam says, then what exactly is lost, other than the acceptability of the phrase?
The question isn't what is lost.
The question is why even bother. If everyone already knows whats said whats the point to hiding it behind random words?
If everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, then what's the point of having doors?
If all you're going to do are bad fallacies, then what's the point in talking to you?
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.
Uh, yeah, it is. This isn't a goddamn science experiment -- both sides should be able to support their claims. This isn't like saying "vaccines cause autism" or something. Both sides' arguments should be reasonably well-constructed. I mean "proof" is a silly word in a debate like this anyway.
Also, people on the other side of the debate have provided support for this numerous times.
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.
Uh, yeah, it is. This isn't a goddamn science experiment -- both sides should be able to support their claims. This isn't like saying "vaccines cause autism" or something. Both sides' arguments should be reasonably well-constructed. I mean "proof" is a silly word in a debate like this anyway.
Also, people on the other side of the debate have provided support for this numerous times.
An excellent one was provided upthread then promptly ignored by Agent.
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.
Uh, yeah, it is. This isn't a goddamn science experiment -- both sides should be able to support their claims. This isn't like saying "vaccines cause autism" or something. Both sides' arguments should be reasonably well-constructed. I mean "proof" is a silly word in a debate like this anyway.
Also, people on the other side of the debate have provided support for this numerous times.
An excellent one was provided upthread then promptly ignored by Agent.
It's an internet board. Its behavior is a model for nothing and justifies nothing. It has as its mission statement the education of no one and exists to further the culture of fuck all.
It is completely irrelevant
You can educate people on the use of the n-word without constantly using the n-word. Just like you can have a discussion on PA about the n-word without using the n-word. There are many, many ways to go about this. Is this discussion diminished by the fact that people aren't throwing the n-word around casually?
The question is, does avoiding the n-word serve any purpose when people already know what it means? It does. It shows that even though we know what the word is, clearly the word is unacceptable in today's age.
Similarly, basathroom doors serve a purpose, even though people already know what you're doing on the toilet. They don't "sanitize" what you're doing. But they do demonstrate that, "Hey, maybe this isn't something you want to share in public."
Everyone's using it right now. Sure we're substituting 5 or 6 of the letters with asterisks, slashes, "-word", whatever, but we're all saying it. It's working exactly the same was as if we were writing it out full. But as far as I know, the word isn't getting replaced with a filler word (which would be what we're doing) in the book, but eliminating it all together.
On a side note, I'm also not a fan of sex-segregated bathrooms. And while it would be a huge culture shock to me since I didn't grow up this way, I do wish we lived in a world where bathroom doors weren't necessary (and not because I'm a pervert, but because I think it's stupid that it has to be seen as perverted). Although I guess I'd be exposed to a lot more gross smells but meh, this is neither here nor there lol
And you missed the underlying point: People know exactly what Sam says even if he doesn't outright say it. If people know exactly what Sam says, then what exactly is lost, other than the acceptability of the phrase?
The question isn't what is lost.
The question is why even bother. If everyone already knows whats said whats the point to hiding it behind random words?
If everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, then what's the point of having doors?
Man.
Just.
Just stop.
You're equating an internet message board with literature, entertainment with literature and bathrooms with words. Not one of these comparisons is valid. You're not making any sense.
And even if they were valid, you're still way outside the scope of the actual argument.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
And apart from Schrodinger's utter disinterest in logic, there's also the fact that we're not discussing banning the n-word from class discussions, we're discussing bowdlerising.
Yup, People are defending putting pasties on the Venus De Milo for the children.
And, of course, Twain would not have thought that the N-word would have been a tool of dehumanization in his time -- certainly he would not have expected his audience to think so, since it had not yet become a pejorative. So, clearly Twain felt that his book sufficiently accomplished the task you're describing without the use of pejorative language to describe Jim (I mean, there is lots of pejorative language used against him, but you know what I'm trying to say).
I think it's really just as simple as de-politicizing the book and making black students comfortable having it read in a classroom where they are a minority and likely hear the N-word already on a regular basis and don't need that to enter into what should be a welcoming and safe environment.
But, of course, you can address this lots of other ways too that are probably better, like reading a book that wasn't written by a white guy in the first place.
I know this post is from several pages back, but I wanted to pop in and point out that the n-word has been a pejorative ("Used by whites or other non-blacks as a hostile term of abuse or contempt") since the 1770s, according to the OED. The meaning has not radically transformed, and it was still a tool for dehumanization then as now.
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.
Uh, yeah, it is. This isn't a goddamn science experiment -- both sides should be able to support their claims. This isn't like saying "vaccines cause autism" or something. Both sides' arguments should be reasonably well-constructed. I mean "proof" is a silly word in a debate like this anyway.
Also, people on the other side of the debate have provided support for this numerous times.
An excellent one was provided upthread then promptly ignored by Agent.
I missed it. Can you link?
Don't want to page through for it but it was along the lines of
Posts
do you
do you even know what specious means?
Sorry - I think you got my point confused.
Your avatar along with this line made me laugh by the way.
I mean, if a word is offensive enough so that even people on the internet don't want to use it, then why is it wrong for a classroom to come to the same conclusion?
You can say, "Because it's literature." But people on the board aren't allowed to quote Huck Finn directly, for the above reasons. So we're back where we started.
lol because the logic used for both is specious! It's rocky! Unstable! Not consistent!
No, classrooms should hold themselves to a higher standard by refusing to censor uncomfortable words in discussions of literature and historical context.
You have gotten precisely backwards which institution is currently holding itself, and which should be held, to a higher standard.
And you're free to think that.
But you're not the one running the classroom, any more than you're the one who owns the forum.
perfectly legitimate.
Can you think of any other examples of things you're allowed to say in a typical classroom due to the lack of censorship, but you're not allowed to say here?
I mean, I guess you can endorse illegal piracy in a classroom without getting punished, but the teacher would probably cut you off real quick.
People on PA are used to having far more freedom of speech than the typical HS student. And they're still not allowed to say the N-word, for a very specific reason. They couldn't use the n-word in a thread centered around Michael Richard's use of the n-word, which is how the rule began. That wasn't just a "part of the historical context." It was, in fact, the very thing being discussed.
So if the school was afraid of appearing in google because of headlines saying "N-word controversy surrounds Alabama HS," then it would be okay?
Also, what is the reason for not wanting to appear in google? Hint: It's so that you don't gain a reputation for using that phrase casually. Which is essentially the same thing here.
Logic fails left and right.
Its because they don't want PA to pop up for everyone googling n
And your first paragraph is illogical.
Who cares?
It's an internet board. Its behavior is a model for nothing and justifies nothing. It has as its mission statement the education of no one and exists to further the culture of fuck all.
It is completely irrelevant
Perhaps the people who think that the n-word shouldn't be censored in Huck Finn also think that the n-word shouldn't be banned on the PA forums as well if it is being used appropriately (as in, not flippantly, not as an insult, etc)?
In a world where using it wouldn't create bad google search results, of course.
But that's not an answer.
Why didn't PA want their board to appear when googling n
?
Did they not want the rest of the world to see our riveting debate on Michael Richards?
Because the crowd that googles that isn't the crowd we want?
But its irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Huck Fin.
Moot point, Tube established this wasn't the case. N word is banned because the n word is banned.
You can educate people on the use of the n-word without constantly using the n-word. Just like you can have a discussion on PA about the n-word without using the n-word. There are many, many ways to go about this. Is this discussion diminished by the fact that people aren't throwing the n-word around casually?
The question is, does avoiding the n-word serve any purpose when people already know what it means? It does. It shows that even though we know what the word is, clearly the word is unacceptable in today's age.
Similarly, basathroom doors serve a purpose, even though people already know what you're doing on the toilet. They don't "sanitize" what you're doing. But they do demonstrate that, "Hey, maybe this isn't something you want to share in public."
Totally missing the point.
Equating literature with shit people say.
Suggesting that the context within a novel and subsequent use of word is the same exact thing as using said word in daily life.
Logic fails.
Who suggested this?
What people said was that it would have the same meaning in the context of the story compared to the meaning today, and the teacher could easily explain, "Look, this wasn't the original language of the book, because the language of the book was really offensive."
Actually, the teacher saying that would probably be the best way to encourage kids to actually read Huck Finn. But they'll read Huck Finn knowing that the language isn't acceptable.
How many people watched this scene and thought, "Yep, that was Samuel L Jackson's original line, exactly as he orignally said it."
You're saying that nothing is lost when the n word is banned on forums - no value in preserving it therefore losing it is awesome!
You then ask why it shouldn't apply to literature.
That's dumb and missing the point.
Oh man, guess which word isn't censored on television.
That's right.
Guess why swear words are censored on television?
long and hard please.
Except that the word is still preserved. It just isn't considered acceptable.
There's a difference.
When SLJ complains of "Monday to friday planes," people understand exactly what the original line was. The only thing lost is the acceptability of it.
Someone can't tell the difference between mass media vs. a classroom and why they have something referred to as the FCC regulating it vs. a school system.
Also, entertainment vs. education.
oh god why do i bother.
FX isn't regulated by the FCC.
Entertainment is generally less restrictive than Education, not more so.
And you missed the underlying point: People know exactly what Sam says even if he doesn't outright say it. If people know exactly what Sam says, then what exactly is lost, other than the acceptability of the phrase?
The question isn't what is lost.
The question is why even bother. If everyone already knows whats said whats the point to hiding it behind random words?
If everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, then what's the point of having doors?
If all you're going to do are bad fallacies, then what's the point in talking to you?
Uh, yeah, it is. This isn't a goddamn science experiment -- both sides should be able to support their claims. This isn't like saying "vaccines cause autism" or something. Both sides' arguments should be reasonably well-constructed. I mean "proof" is a silly word in a debate like this anyway.
Also, people on the other side of the debate have provided support for this numerous times.
An excellent one was provided upthread then promptly ignored by Agent.
I missed it. Can you link?
Everyone's using it right now. Sure we're substituting 5 or 6 of the letters with asterisks, slashes, "-word", whatever, but we're all saying it. It's working exactly the same was as if we were writing it out full. But as far as I know, the word isn't getting replaced with a filler word (which would be what we're doing) in the book, but eliminating it all together.
On a side note, I'm also not a fan of sex-segregated bathrooms. And while it would be a huge culture shock to me since I didn't grow up this way, I do wish we lived in a world where bathroom doors weren't necessary (and not because I'm a pervert, but because I think it's stupid that it has to be seen as perverted). Although I guess I'd be exposed to a lot more gross smells but meh, this is neither here nor there lol
Man.
Just.
Just stop.
You're equating an internet message board with literature, entertainment with literature and bathrooms with words. Not one of these comparisons is valid. You're not making any sense.
And even if they were valid, you're still way outside the scope of the actual argument.
Yup, People are defending putting pasties on the Venus De Milo for the children.
I know this post is from several pages back, but I wanted to pop in and point out that the n-word has been a pejorative ("Used by whites or other non-blacks as a hostile term of abuse or contempt") since the 1770s, according to the OED. The meaning has not radically transformed, and it was still a tool for dehumanization then as now.
and I totally agree on that last point.
Don't want to page through for it but it was along the lines of
"killed that n
"
"killed that slave"