The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I'm talking about the pronouciation of the word. I've never heard "n***er" used in a friendly manner. It's actually pronounced differently with much more emphasis placed on the hard "r" sound at the end.
My point is that while "n***a" can and is readily used with both an insulting and friendly tone, much like "fuck" can be used in a large number of ways with various meanings, "n***er" is an insult as it's virtually never used in a friendly manner. So while there is a distinction it's not really cut and dry because both versions of the word can indeed be meant to convey an insult in the right context. I wouldn't be suprised if this had all changed in a decade or two. That's what happens with slang.
I'm not saying that there was a concentrated effort at all. There almost never is in linguistics. However words change, especially slang, and this is an example of that.
This didn't even happen in the States, what does the constitution have to do with it? Its a peculiar feature of your legal system rather than some sort of holy book with regards to philosophy. Its not as if truly free speach is recognised over there anyway - racist names could easily be considered the same sort of thing as shouting 'fire' in a crowded society.
The Constitution is a document which legally enshrines what it clearly states to be a universal moral right.
The Constitution does not grant you the right to act in any way you want without fear of repercussions. It's irrelevant to this whole fucking discussion.
Well, changing the definition a little now aren't we.
Right to act in any way you want != Right to free speech
The Constitution does guarantee the latter. The word in question is, um, a word. Not an action. And the verb for uttering a word is...cmon, you know this one!
now Mr. Pot, it's not nice to talk to Mr. Kettle like that.
Er, at me being insulting? Fair enough. At me being factually inaccurate? Where?
That is semantic Billshat though, its just spelling a word differently because black people don't talk propa. You're not telling me there was ever any concerted effort to create a new word that had the same sound as the old one but was demonstrably different.
Something akin to that with an attempt to reclaim the word in a similar way to gay or queer, maybe. But to make a distinction on spelling is ludicrous. Its like saying people are overeacting to you using the word Kunt, you just find the german word for vagina is less clinical.
Even if you want to argue that the words are the same, there are still two separate and distinct meanings. A black man using that word can make it obvious that he means definition 2 (friend) rather than definition 1 (stupid black person). A white man can't make it quite so obvious - unless the people present know him well and know that he's not a racist.
Even if you use your inflection and context to make it clear that you're using def. 2, it's still offensive, in the same way me coming up to you on the street, wrapping my arm around you, and calling you "darling" would be offensive. It assumes a level of familiarity that simply isn't there. If it were there, we wouldn't be having this discussion - you would know exactly when and where use of the n-word is appropriate.
But unless you are arguing that a black guy can't ever say N-a then what does this matter (and the opposite has been put forward already as the two alternative versions)? Its now entirely based off familiarity in the same way any offensive language/friendly banter might be, just tends to be that blacks might be more accepting of its use as a friendly term from other blacks like old people might take swearing to be more offensive that it was intended, or christians to take more objection to taking the lord's name in vain.
And I just want to reiterate what was said above... you have every right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. That doesn't mean that SOCIETY (NOT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT) can punish you for being an idiot.
Aren't there rules against society punishing other people? Anti-vigilantism, or somesuch?
Barring that, Sentry, there was a whole "part 2" to what I said that you didn't even reference.
It is just a word. It shouldn't be as charged as it is, and that it is so charged is a failing of those who get so upset about it. ON THE OTHER HAND - and this completes my opinion, so please do not disregard it - it is a very understandable failure. No one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it, any more than anyone should be allowed to punish anyone else for similarly stupid actions, but people of all races should really just fucking refrain.
The Constitution is a document which legally enshrines what it clearly states to be a universal moral right.
The Constitution does not grant you the right to act in any way you want without fear of repercussions. It's irrelevant to this whole fucking discussion.
Well, changing the definition a little now aren't we.
Right to act in any way you want != Right to free speech
The Constitution does guarantee the latter. The word in question is, um, a word. Not an action. And the verb for uttering a word is...cmon, you know this one!
:roll:
The Constitution does not guarantee that you can say whatever you want without fear of repercussions.
Feel better now?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Right to act in any way you want != Right to free speech
The Constitution does guarantee the latter. The word in question is, um, a word. Not an action. And the verb for uttering a word is...cmon, you know this one!
It doesn't guarantee that.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It just says that congress can't abridge it. Other people can.
Ahh... I didn't realize that, morally, black people were only 3/5ths of a person... that's in there too, you know.
Yes, but it isn't listed among the prime inalienable rights at the start of the document. It's not claimed as a moral imperative, only a legal definition.
And I just want to reiterate what was said above... you have every right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. That doesn't mean that SOCIETY (NOT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT) can punish you for being an idiot.
Good good, that's all I wanted to hear.
Also... the consitution only ONLY ONLY ONLY regulates the behavior of the U.S. Federal government and, in many cases thanks to the 13th amendmen (I believe) the actions of the state. The Constitution does not regulate actions of private business or the average citizen excepting the intersate commerce clause. Take a fucking class.
Actually, the actions of private business are still predicated on the same moral imperatives the Constitution enshrines for a private citizen - private broadcast networks and so on have exactly the same right to Free Speech, thus they are allowed to regulate their output. In various cases this has been consistently upheld over individual employees arguing that their right to Free Speech should take precedence (they were told that it certainly does, but it is not included in that right for them to be broadcast by the private companies).
And I just want to reiterate what was said above... you have every right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. That doesn't mean that SOCIETY (NOT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT) can punish you for being an idiot.
Aren't there rules against society punishing other people? Anti-vigilantism, or somesuch?
Barring that, Sentry, there was a whole "part 2" to what I said that you didn't even reference.
It is just a word. It shouldn't be as charged as it is, and that it is so charged is a failing of those who get so upset about it. ON THE OTHER HAND - and this completes my opinion, so please do not disregard it - it is a very understandable failure. No one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it, any more than anyone should be allowed to punish anyone else for similarly stupid actions, but people of all races should really just fucking refrain.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Why do you get to decide how someone feels about a word and whether or not they should be allowed to act in response to it. Starting a protest, writing a letter, boycotting a network are not fucking vigilatism... and if I disregarded your point, it's because it was as stupid and nonsensical as the one you just made.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
And I just want to reiterate what was said above... you have every right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. That doesn't mean that SOCIETY (NOT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT) can punish you for being an idiot.
Aren't there rules against society punishing other people? Anti-vigilantism, or somesuch?
Barring that, Sentry, there was a whole "part 2" to what I said that you didn't even reference.
It is just a word. It shouldn't be as charged as it is, and that it is so charged is a failing of those who get so upset about it. ON THE OTHER HAND - and this completes my opinion, so please do not disregard it - it is a very understandable failure. No one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it, any more than anyone should be allowed to punish anyone else for similarly stupid actions, but people of all races should really just fucking refrain.
"punish" doesn't mean "hang from a tree" you know. It can, however, mean losing your radio show or being kicked off a reality programme. Oh noes! Your position that "no one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it" is downright bizarre. Can I come into your family shop and call your mother a whore for hours on end? Why not?
You asked people to be racists (judge peoples races based upon reactions to a word that can be very racist dependant upon context)
I'm sorry, what?! Go on, show me where that definition of racism is written please!
You're not this dense. You can't possibly be this dense.
Racist-
1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
Please, explain how one is supposed to judge someone's race based upon a conversation that revolves around the word "n***er" when the only thing we have to judge are reactions?
It just says that congress can't abridge it. Other people can.
It's taken from the right to liberty enshrined in the Declaration.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The actual Constitution isn't the only document which de facto forms the working body of the constitution, various other documents such as the Declaration and parts of the law also do so.
You asked people to be racists (judge peoples races based upon reactions to a word that can be very racist dependant upon context)
I'm sorry, what?! Go on, show me where that definition of racism is written please!
You're not this dense. You can't possibly be this dense.
Racist-
1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
Please, explain how one is supposed to judge someone's race based upon a conversation that revolves around the word "n***er" when the only thing we have to judge are reactions?
Yeeees, dense. Always look for option C mucker.
Considering that it's widely acknowledged that both white and black people use that word, and both white and black people react in a variety of ways to it, is it not just possible that my point was you cannot actually tell who is black and who is white? You can give it an educated guess, but you can't be sure. Of course, since only two people responded, we won't know, will we?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was the exact opposite of asking people to be racist. Perhaps it was demonstrating that you can't tell the fucking difference.
By the way, your original 'definition' remains hopelessly mangled and pretty much meaningless, no matter what you intended it to mean.
It just says that congress can't abridge it. Other people can.
It's taken from the right to liberty enshrined in the Declaration.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The actual Constitution isn't the only document which de facto forms the working body of the constitution, various other documents such as the Declaration and parts of the law also do so.
The right to free speech is ONLY drawn from the constitution, and ONLY applies to congress and the GOVERNMENT's abilities to regulate it. Even still, the right is not absolute.
But the average citizen can use their free speech in the form of writing letters or organizing boycotts to punish individuals who say racist shit. Why should their free speech be abused because some racist fuck doesn't want to not be able to say the N word.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
That is complete and utter bullshit. Why do you get to decide how someone feels about a word and whether or not they should be allowed to act in response to it.
For the same reason you get to decide the same, because that's exactly what you're doing.
Starting a protest, writing a letter, boycotting a network are not fucking vigilatism
At no point did I say they were, and asserting such tells me that you're a little to taken with the subject to read what the people you're responding to are writing. Please calm down.
But the average citizen can use their free speech in the form of writing letters or organizing boycotts to punish individuals who say racist shit. Why should their free speech be abused because some racist fuck doesn't want to not be able to say the N word.
It's not. They can still write their letters and boycotts. That's the whole point of free speech, it's self-regulating through conflict of opinion. You can shut people up, exactly as you said, but only through winning the argument or mass social disapproval.
Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to say that: preventing person X from saying a word = giving freedom of speech to person Y.
The right to free speech is ONLY drawn from the constitution, and ONLY applies to congress and the GOVERNMENT's abilities to regulate it. Even still, the right is not absolute.
Don't expect you to take my word for it. Go ask some constitutional lawyers or scholars.
"punish" doesn't mean "hang from a tree" you know. It can, however, mean losing your radio show or being kicked off a reality programme. Oh noes! Your position that "no one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it" is downright bizarre. Can I come into your family shop and call your mother a whore for hours on end? Why not?
Are we seriously discussing doing this for HOURS on end? When did that part get tacked on, or are you trying to inflate this to the point of absurdity?
EDIT: To bring it back down to earth, let's make the question sensible: "Can I come into your family shop and call your mother a whore, and then leave?"
Yes. It's not nice, but I don't think its an actionable offense.
You asked people to be racists (judge peoples races based upon reactions to a word that can be very racist dependant upon context)
I'm sorry, what?! Go on, show me where that definition of racism is written please!
You're not this dense. You can't possibly be this dense.
Racist-
1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
Please, explain how one is supposed to judge someone's race based upon a conversation that revolves around the word "n***er" when the only thing we have to judge are reactions?
Yeeees, dense. Always look for option C mucker.
Considering that it's widely acknowledged that both white and black people use that word, and both white and black people react in a variety of ways to it, is it not just possible that my point was you cannot actually tell who is black and who is white? You can give it an educated guess, but you can't be sure. Of course, since only two people responded, we won't know, will we?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was the exact opposite of asking people to be racist. Perhaps it was demonstrating that you can't tell the fucking difference.
By the way, your original 'definition' remains hopelessly mangled and pretty much meaningless, no matter what you intended it to mean.
Yes. That's exactly it. That's why when people said "I don't know, there's not enough information" you kept digging for hard answers. If the point you were trying to make was that a conversation is not enough to judge race, why were you bitching about all the people who told you exactly that. You're really horrible at backpeddaling, you know that?
And what original definition? I didn't define racism in that post, I defined the actions you wanted people to take which, yes, are racist. They would be racist because they demand you use sterotypes to make judgements. How do you now get that?
We talk about how much baggage there is behind there.
But in doing so, in a way do we not grow fear of the word? In doing all of this, do we not hand over power to this word and allow it to control us?
Is there some way that we, all of us, not as sexes or races, but as human beings as a whole, can take the power from this word, and merely relegate it to being all it should be: A word?
If a certain race is already able to use this word, it's because it not longer has any baggage behind it. Or if there is, then nobody should be able to use it.
The fact that a specific race can use a certain word, and not the other races, is racism.
Yes. That's exactly it. That's why when people said "I don't know, there's not enough information" you kept digging for hard answers.
What total bullshit! Do I need to go back to page 2 where I specifically told you I was just looking for a best guess?
If the point you were trying to make was that a conversation is not enough to judge race, why were you bitching about all the people who told you exactly that. You're really horrible at backpeddaling, you know that?
No Skippy, now pay attention here. Some basic scientific principle (though this was of course, not controlled in any way) Start with a hypothesis. Design an experiment. Now people refusing to engage with that experiment =! any demonstration of anything except their unwillingness to engage. People engaging and providing results = demonstration of whether hypothesis is correct or not.
Now this is the hard bit: because the hypothesis and the end result might be the same, does that negate the reason for the experiment?
And what original definition?
You asked people to be racists (judge peoples races based upon reactions to a word that can be very racist dependant upon context)
That one. It's laughable.
They would be racist because they demand you use sterotypes to make judgements. How do you now get that?
Did I now. Where?
Possibly you assumed I was demanding you use stereotypes. You could quite easily have ignored them. Basically - you don't ask people to be racists and it magically happens. Or perhaps you think that you can, in which case I fear for your world.
EDIT: Seriously, before you continue this conversation you need to go back and look at what I actually wrote. I was pretty fucking careful about it, and you're utterly misquoting the whole thing based (I imagine) from your own memory and perception. At the very least, start providing quotes of these crimes I was comitting.
Not Sarastro on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Is there some way that we, all of us, not as sexes or races, but as human beings as a whole, can take the power from this word, and merely relegate it to being all it should be: A word?
You have to be pretty naive to think that any word is just a word.
EDIT: To bring it back down to earth, let's make the question sensible: "Can I come into your family shop and call your mother a whore, and then leave?"
Its not quite the same though, you're either looking at public nusiance/indency/whatever with attached hate crime penalties or a law enacted specifically to try to treat the a greater problem by tackling the easier to deal with public image issues.
We talk about how much baggage there is behind there.
But in doing so, in a way do we not grow fear of the word? In doing all of this, do we not hand over power to this word and allow it to control us?
Is there some way that we, all of us, not as sexes or races, but as human beings as a whole, can take the power from this word, and merely relegate it to being all it should be: A word?
Yep, well sensible thought would suggest it's possible.
Only problem being: we can't get everyone to agree on what the word should mean, and until we do that, you can't reconstitute the meaning.
And though I do agree that fear or fetishisation of a particular word as has happened here is ridiculous (it's not too hard a principle to hold that the intention behind a word matters more than the letters themselves), Poldy is also right in that words have more power than you are allowing for.
If a certain race is already able to use this word, it's because it not longer has any baggage behind it. Or if there is, then nobody should be able to use it.
The fact that a specific race can use a certain word, and not the other races, is racism.
White people can use the words "n***a/er" provided the right context.
For example:
1) "I heard that the word 'n****er' is in Huckleberry Finn." = not racist.
2) "I heard that dude on the street call his buddy a 'n***a'" = not racist.
3) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to a close friend who is okay with being called that = not racist.
4) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to some guy on the street you've never met before = not necessarily racist, but offensive and stupid.
Now, if your issue is that your skin color affects the context of your speech, well tough luck. Being non-racist does not imply being race-blind.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If a certain race is already able to use this word, it's because it not longer has any baggage behind it. Or if there is, then nobody should be able to use it.
The fact that a specific race can use a certain word, and not the other races, is racism.
White people can use the words "n***a/er" provided the right context.
For example:
1) "I heard that the word 'n****er' is in Huckleberry Finn." = not racist.
2) "I heard that dude on the street call his buddy a 'n***a'" = not racist.
3) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to a close friend who is okay with being called that = not racist.
4) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to some guy on the street you've never met before = not necessarily racist, but offensive and stupid.
Now, if your issue is that your skin color affects the context of your speech, well tough luck. Being non-racist does not imply being race-blind.
Maybe so, but skin color doesn't affect the context of speech. Or, maybe it does right now, but it should not. And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
But someone who is race blind is by definition non-racist, right?
And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
Quite, thank you. As with many things, I've never used it, I've never wanted or found it necessary to use it, I don't envisage ever wanting to or doing so in the future (clearly I'm not street enough!). But I have significant problems with people telling me I cannot use it.
Largely because you start there, but it doesn't end there. Example: when I didn't star the word out at the beginning of this thread. Nobody thought I was using it with intent, according to Ferals definitions up there it was non-racist. Get smacked down for it. This is because the board policy from on high has gone just a tiny bit further than necessary, for ease of use, or clear demonstration of intent. Exactly the same thing seems to have happened in the British BB situation (Channel 4 are paranoid after a previous row where racism clearly was involved, and they didn't act), and they are overzealous in this case.
White people can use the words "n***a/er" provided the right context.
For example:
1) "I heard that the word 'n****er' is in Huckleberry Finn." = not racist.
2) "I heard that dude on the street call his buddy a 'n***a'" = not racist.
3) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to a close friend who is okay with being called that = not racist.
4) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to some guy on the street you've never met before = not necessarily racist, but offensive and stupid.
Now, if your issue is that your skin color affects the context of your speech, well tough luck. Being non-racist does not imply being race-blind.
Do you need the word "white" at the start of that sentence? (I mean, I know you were responding to a specific point so in this case you did, but I mean in general.) Surely those are the rules for any person, indeed for any potentially-offensive word?
White people can use the words "n***a/er" provided the right context.
For example:
1) "I heard that the word 'n****er' is in Huckleberry Finn." = not racist.
2) "I heard that dude on the street call his buddy a 'n***a'" = not racist.
3) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to a close friend who is okay with being called that = not racist.
4) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to some guy on the street you've never met before = not necessarily racist, but offensive and stupid.
Now, if your issue is that your skin color affects the context of your speech, well tough luck. Being non-racist does not imply being race-blind.
Do you need the word "white" at the start of that sentence? (I mean, I know you were responding to a specific point so in this case you did, but I mean in general.) Surely those are the rules for any person, indeed for any potentially-offensive word?
Djiem on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
But I have significant problems with people telling me I cannot use it.
You cannot use it because any language which does not use "n***a" as an insult is a private language, from which you are excluded from using as an outsider. By using it, you mock the people who regard it as private, because your inherent langauge - whether or not you use it that way - does use it that way.
This wasn't an experiment and stop trying to claim it was. It was a trap to start a debate about racism based upon sterotypes and because people here aren't idiots you got called out on it.
If you wanted to have a debate about that, you should have started one, not set up a transparent trap in the OP.
Again, since you decided to only quote part of what I said, the original statement was never a definition of racism. It was a summary of what you were asking people to do. You then asked for a definition and I provided one. And what you wanted people to do falls under it.
Example: when I didn't star the word out at the beginning of this thread. Nobody thought I was using it with intent, according to Ferals definitions up there it was non-racist. Get smacked down for it. This is because the board policy from on high has gone just a tiny bit further than necessary, for ease of use, or clear demonstration of intent.
Pretty much everybody here thinks the forum rule is stupid, for pretty much that reason - the mods are pretty good at figuring out what context a given word is used in, so a blanket rule is unnecessary.
The fact that a specific race can use a certain word, and not the other races, is racism.
White people can use the words "n***a/er" provided the right context.
Do you need the word "white" at the start of that sentence? (I mean, I know you were responding to a specific point so in this case you did, but I mean in general.) Surely those are the rules for any person, indeed for any potentially-offensive word?
Hey, very good. Those are the rules for any person and any potentially-offensive word. And, yes, I did use the word 'white' because I was responding to a specific point.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Maybe so, but skin color doesn't affect the context of speech. Or, maybe it does right now, but it should not. And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
You're an entitled brat. Can you not understand how I might react differently to being called a fag by another gay man than I would if you were to try? God damn, it's not any different than carnies calling one another carnies, or lawyers telling each other lawyer jokes.
But no, this is the one where the entitled brats come out yelling 'cism.
Maybe so, but skin color doesn't affect the context of speech. Or, maybe it does right now, but it should not. And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
You're an entitled brat. Can you not understand how I might react differently to being called a fag by another gay man than I would if you were to try? God damn, it's not any different than carnies calling one another carnies, or lawyers telling each other lawyer jokes.
But no, this is the one where the entitled brats come out yelling 'cism.
I can understand it. I just don't respect it.
Djiem on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Maybe so, but skin color doesn't affect the context of speech. Or, maybe it does right now, but it should not. And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
You're an entitled brat. Can you not understand how I might react differently to being called a fag by another gay man than I would if you were to try? God damn, it's not any different than carnies calling one another carnies, or lawyers telling each other lawyer jokes.
But no, this is the one where the entitled brats come out yelling 'cism.
Can you not understand how I might react differently to being called a fag by another gay man than I would if you were to try?
Yes one can understand, but it doesn't make you right.
Also, you don't have a monopoly on offence. Pretty much everyone can get offended by something, but it doesn't give them the right to stop that thing happening. If it did, nobody would be able to do or say anything.
Oh, also I totally call ad hominem. Entitled brat as part of your argument? As an insult, sure...
Maybe so, but skin color doesn't affect the context of speech. Or, maybe it does right now, but it should not. And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
You're an entitled brat. Can you not understand how I might react differently to being called a fag by another gay man than I would if you were to try? God damn, it's not any different than carnies calling one another carnies, or lawyers telling each other lawyer jokes.
But no, this is the one where the entitled brats come out yelling 'cism.
I can understand it. I just don't respect it.
You don't respect culture?
I don't respect the "It's our [something], you can't use it" mentality.
Just because it's culture? Thought you guys hated moral/ethical relativism. Nothing stopping aspects of someone's culture being wrong regardless of how accepted, widespread or old it is.
Posts
My point is that while "n***a" can and is readily used with both an insulting and friendly tone, much like "fuck" can be used in a large number of ways with various meanings, "n***er" is an insult as it's virtually never used in a friendly manner. So while there is a distinction it's not really cut and dry because both versions of the word can indeed be meant to convey an insult in the right context. I wouldn't be suprised if this had all changed in a decade or two. That's what happens with slang.
I'm not saying that there was a concentrated effort at all. There almost never is in linguistics. However words change, especially slang, and this is an example of that.
Well, changing the definition a little now aren't we.
Right to act in any way you want != Right to free speech
The Constitution does guarantee the latter. The word in question is, um, a word. Not an action. And the verb for uttering a word is...cmon, you know this one!
Er, at me being insulting? Fair enough. At me being factually inaccurate? Where?
But unless you are arguing that a black guy can't ever say N-a then what does this matter (and the opposite has been put forward already as the two alternative versions)? Its now entirely based off familiarity in the same way any offensive language/friendly banter might be, just tends to be that blacks might be more accepting of its use as a friendly term from other blacks like old people might take swearing to be more offensive that it was intended, or christians to take more objection to taking the lord's name in vain.
Aren't there rules against society punishing other people? Anti-vigilantism, or somesuch?
Barring that, Sentry, there was a whole "part 2" to what I said that you didn't even reference.
It is just a word. It shouldn't be as charged as it is, and that it is so charged is a failing of those who get so upset about it. ON THE OTHER HAND - and this completes my opinion, so please do not disregard it - it is a very understandable failure. No one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it, any more than anyone should be allowed to punish anyone else for similarly stupid actions, but people of all races should really just fucking refrain.
:roll:
The Constitution does not guarantee that you can say whatever you want without fear of repercussions.
Feel better now?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It doesn't guarantee that. It just says that congress can't abridge it. Other people can.
Yes, but it isn't listed among the prime inalienable rights at the start of the document. It's not claimed as a moral imperative, only a legal definition.
Good good, that's all I wanted to hear.
Actually, the actions of private business are still predicated on the same moral imperatives the Constitution enshrines for a private citizen - private broadcast networks and so on have exactly the same right to Free Speech, thus they are allowed to regulate their output. In various cases this has been consistently upheld over individual employees arguing that their right to Free Speech should take precedence (they were told that it certainly does, but it is not included in that right for them to be broadcast by the private companies).
That is complete and utter bullshit. Why do you get to decide how someone feels about a word and whether or not they should be allowed to act in response to it. Starting a protest, writing a letter, boycotting a network are not fucking vigilatism... and if I disregarded your point, it's because it was as stupid and nonsensical as the one you just made.
"punish" doesn't mean "hang from a tree" you know. It can, however, mean losing your radio show or being kicked off a reality programme. Oh noes! Your position that "no one should be allowed to punish anyone who uses it" is downright bizarre. Can I come into your family shop and call your mother a whore for hours on end? Why not?
You're not this dense. You can't possibly be this dense.
Racist-
1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
Please, explain how one is supposed to judge someone's race based upon a conversation that revolves around the word "n***er" when the only thing we have to judge are reactions?
It's taken from the right to liberty enshrined in the Declaration.
The actual Constitution isn't the only document which de facto forms the working body of the constitution, various other documents such as the Declaration and parts of the law also do so.
Yeeees, dense. Always look for option C mucker.
Considering that it's widely acknowledged that both white and black people use that word, and both white and black people react in a variety of ways to it, is it not just possible that my point was you cannot actually tell who is black and who is white? You can give it an educated guess, but you can't be sure. Of course, since only two people responded, we won't know, will we?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was the exact opposite of asking people to be racist. Perhaps it was demonstrating that you can't tell the fucking difference.
By the way, your original 'definition' remains hopelessly mangled and pretty much meaningless, no matter what you intended it to mean.
The right to free speech is ONLY drawn from the constitution, and ONLY applies to congress and the GOVERNMENT's abilities to regulate it. Even still, the right is not absolute.
But the average citizen can use their free speech in the form of writing letters or organizing boycotts to punish individuals who say racist shit. Why should their free speech be abused because some racist fuck doesn't want to not be able to say the N word.
For the same reason you get to decide the same, because that's exactly what you're doing.
At no point did I say they were, and asserting such tells me that you're a little to taken with the subject to read what the people you're responding to are writing. Please calm down.
So "people should just stop using the word because it is too charged" is a "stupid and nonsensical" point?
...interesting.
It's not. They can still write their letters and boycotts. That's the whole point of free speech, it's self-regulating through conflict of opinion. You can shut people up, exactly as you said, but only through winning the argument or mass social disapproval.
Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to say that: preventing person X from saying a word = giving freedom of speech to person Y.
Don't expect you to take my word for it. Go ask some constitutional lawyers or scholars.
Are we seriously discussing doing this for HOURS on end? When did that part get tacked on, or are you trying to inflate this to the point of absurdity?
EDIT: To bring it back down to earth, let's make the question sensible: "Can I come into your family shop and call your mother a whore, and then leave?"
Yes. It's not nice, but I don't think its an actionable offense.
Yes. That's exactly it. That's why when people said "I don't know, there's not enough information" you kept digging for hard answers. If the point you were trying to make was that a conversation is not enough to judge race, why were you bitching about all the people who told you exactly that. You're really horrible at backpeddaling, you know that?
And what original definition? I didn't define racism in that post, I defined the actions you wanted people to take which, yes, are racist. They would be racist because they demand you use sterotypes to make judgements. How do you now get that?
we talk about how bad the word is.
We talk about how much baggage there is behind there.
But in doing so, in a way do we not grow fear of the word? In doing all of this, do we not hand over power to this word and allow it to control us?
Is there some way that we, all of us, not as sexes or races, but as human beings as a whole, can take the power from this word, and merely relegate it to being all it should be: A word?
The fact that a specific race can use a certain word, and not the other races, is racism.
What total bullshit! Do I need to go back to page 2 where I specifically told you I was just looking for a best guess?
No Skippy, now pay attention here. Some basic scientific principle (though this was of course, not controlled in any way) Start with a hypothesis. Design an experiment. Now people refusing to engage with that experiment =! any demonstration of anything except their unwillingness to engage. People engaging and providing results = demonstration of whether hypothesis is correct or not.
Now this is the hard bit: because the hypothesis and the end result might be the same, does that negate the reason for the experiment?
That one. It's laughable.
Did I now. Where?
Possibly you assumed I was demanding you use stereotypes. You could quite easily have ignored them. Basically - you don't ask people to be racists and it magically happens. Or perhaps you think that you can, in which case I fear for your world.
EDIT: Seriously, before you continue this conversation you need to go back and look at what I actually wrote. I was pretty fucking careful about it, and you're utterly misquoting the whole thing based (I imagine) from your own memory and perception. At the very least, start providing quotes of these crimes I was comitting.
You have to be pretty naive to think that any word is just a word.
Words are power.
Yep, well sensible thought would suggest it's possible.
Only problem being: we can't get everyone to agree on what the word should mean, and until we do that, you can't reconstitute the meaning.
And though I do agree that fear or fetishisation of a particular word as has happened here is ridiculous (it's not too hard a principle to hold that the intention behind a word matters more than the letters themselves), Poldy is also right in that words have more power than you are allowing for.
White people can use the words "n***a/er" provided the right context.
For example:
1) "I heard that the word 'n****er' is in Huckleberry Finn." = not racist.
2) "I heard that dude on the street call his buddy a 'n***a'" = not racist.
3) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to a close friend who is okay with being called that = not racist.
4) "Hey, my n***a, how's it going?" to some guy on the street you've never met before = not necessarily racist, but offensive and stupid.
Now, if your issue is that your skin color affects the context of your speech, well tough luck. Being non-racist does not imply being race-blind.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Maybe so, but skin color doesn't affect the context of speech. Or, maybe it does right now, but it should not. And I will use the word as I damn well please as long as other people can use it (I don't even use it anyway). If someone is offended by it, and he/she wasn't offended when a black person said it, well that's just too bad.
Does not necessarily imply being race blind.
But someone who is race blind is by definition non-racist, right?
Quite, thank you. As with many things, I've never used it, I've never wanted or found it necessary to use it, I don't envisage ever wanting to or doing so in the future (clearly I'm not street enough!). But I have significant problems with people telling me I cannot use it.
Largely because you start there, but it doesn't end there. Example: when I didn't star the word out at the beginning of this thread. Nobody thought I was using it with intent, according to Ferals definitions up there it was non-racist. Get smacked down for it. This is because the board policy from on high has gone just a tiny bit further than necessary, for ease of use, or clear demonstration of intent. Exactly the same thing seems to have happened in the British BB situation (Channel 4 are paranoid after a previous row where racism clearly was involved, and they didn't act), and they are overzealous in this case.
Mission creep.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
You cannot use it because any language which does not use "n***a" as an insult is a private language, from which you are excluded from using as an outsider. By using it, you mock the people who regard it as private, because your inherent langauge - whether or not you use it that way - does use it that way.
Sorry. You can't use it.
If you wanted to have a debate about that, you should have started one, not set up a transparent trap in the OP.
Again, since you decided to only quote part of what I said, the original statement was never a definition of racism. It was a summary of what you were asking people to do. You then asked for a definition and I provided one. And what you wanted people to do falls under it.
Pretty much everybody here thinks the forum rule is stupid, for pretty much that reason - the mods are pretty good at figuring out what context a given word is used in, so a blanket rule is unnecessary.
Hey, very good. Those are the rules for any person and any potentially-offensive word. And, yes, I did use the word 'white' because I was responding to a specific point.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You're an entitled brat. Can you not understand how I might react differently to being called a fag by another gay man than I would if you were to try? God damn, it's not any different than carnies calling one another carnies, or lawyers telling each other lawyer jokes.
But no, this is the one where the entitled brats come out yelling 'cism.
I can understand it. I just don't respect it.
You don't respect culture?
Yes one can understand, but it doesn't make you right.
Also, you don't have a monopoly on offence. Pretty much everyone can get offended by something, but it doesn't give them the right to stop that thing happening. If it did, nobody would be able to do or say anything.
Oh, also I totally call ad hominem. Entitled brat as part of your argument? As an insult, sure...
I don't respect the "It's our [something], you can't use it" mentality.
It just means that the people who insist on their right to keep offending, damn hell or high water, are selfish assholes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just because it's culture? Thought you guys hated moral/ethical relativism. Nothing stopping aspects of someone's culture being wrong regardless of how accepted, widespread or old it is.
No, it means they may cherish their right to do whatever you find something offensive as much as you cherish the right not to be offended.
EDIT: Honestly, a lot of the assumptions made here are really scarily close-minded, and you don't even seem to realise it.