Words carry with them the context in how they are and have been used. Context changes depending on who is using a word. When a black person uses the N word it does mean "I think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy", when a white person uses the N word it does.
Similarly with gendered words, or words that refer to sexual orientations
So regardless of context, when a white person (or is it all non-black people?) uses the n-word, they are revealing their internal view that slavery was "fine and dandy"?
Really?
So would you also argue that if a dude uses any words like "bitch", "slut", "whore", or any of their ilk, regardless of context, they are revealing that they are a misogynist?
What you want something to say, and what you actually say are two different things.
In short, your question begs the following question "Is it possible for a privileged person to use a class based insult or label knowing full well the implications of that class based label or insult without actively supporting those implications?"
Maybe. I think the answer is "no". If you are a white person, you damn well ought to know that when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy" and if you say it anyways then either you're incredibly dumb, or you're a racist. Immediate context very rarely saves you from this assumption because the greater context of the word is so amazingly racist it overpowers any "i was just using it as a joke" or, "i was just quoting Jay-Z" or "i was being ironic"
The reason we still use "bitch", "slut", etc is not because people use it in context that reveals they're not misogynist, but because people do not realize or accept that the implications of the word are sexist.
In short, they have not been told about how class based oppression works. They know one specific example [racism] but don't realize that the same principles that we have used to deny racism and attempt to fix it, are the principles upon which feminism and associated minority rights campaigns are based.
when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy"
It doesn't. I mean it just factually doesn't. You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you're absolutely, one hundred percent shithouse wrong. It's impossible to debate with you further because you're starting with a premise so utterly, utterly flawed that there's no way to discourse with it.
when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy"
It doesn't. I mean it just factually doesn't. You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you're absolutely, one hundred percent shithouse wrong. It's impossible to debate with you further because you're starting with a premise so utterly, utterly flawed that there's no way to discourse with it.
Words have context. If you're white you cannot say the n-word without conveying that information. You cannot say the n-word without referencing Jim Crow.
In order for it to not reference these things then words would have to have no history or meaning. Definitions would be, rather than a mutual understanding created over centuries of evolving use, handed down from an authority.
But definitions are not handed down from an authority, definitions are created from a mutual understanding that evolves as people use the word. All words carry all of the culture and history that went into making them mean what they do. Many words are innocuous, not because they don't carry culture and history, but because the culture and history behind them is innocuous or not powerful.
The n-word is not one of those innocuous words. Though the n-word does not have that as some sort of written down explicit meaning it sure as good goddamned hell has that history behind it. And every time a white person uses it it sure as goddamned hell conveys that history.
when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy"
It doesn't. I mean it just factually doesn't. You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you're absolutely, one hundred percent shithouse wrong. It's impossible to debate with you further because you're starting with a premise so utterly, utterly flawed that there's no way to discourse with it.
In what situation does the use of the word not promote the continued denigration and subjugation of African Americans?
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
That's interesting context that I hadn't really thought through about the word.
That slave owners were using it as a word for their slaves, and it spilled over into a word those slaves were using for themselves, and the word continued to be carried forward in time as a way to "remind black people of their place" (that place being slaves) then yeah. It carries that history even if it doesn't explicitly mean that.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy"
It doesn't. I mean it just factually doesn't. You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you're absolutely, one hundred percent shithouse wrong. It's impossible to debate with you further because you're starting with a premise so utterly, utterly flawed that there's no way to discourse with it.
Words have context. If you're white you cannot say the n-word without conveying that information. You cannot say the n-word without referencing Jim Crow.
In order for it to not reference these things then words would have to have no history or meaning. Definitions would be, rather than a mutual understanding created over centuries of evolving use, handed down from an authority.
But definitions are not handed down from an authority, definitions are created from a mutual understanding that evolves as people use the word. All words carry all of the culture and history that went into making them mean what they do. Many words are innocuous, not because they don't carry culture and history, but because the culture and history behind them is innocuous or not powerful.
The n-word is not one of those innocuous words. Though the n-word does not have that as some sort of written down explicit meaning it sure as good goddamned hell has that history behind it. And every time a white person uses it it sure as goddamned hell conveys that history.
...ok.
Claim 1: "If you're white you cannot say the n-word without conveying that information."
- This is an absolutist claim. When a white person says X, they convey information Y.
Claim 2: "But definitions are not handed down from an authority, definitions are created from a mutual understanding that evolves as people use the word."
- This is a subjectivist claim. The meaning of term-X is dependent upon the context in which term-X is used.
Claim 3: "All words carry all of the culture and history that went into making them mean what they do."
- This is an absolutist claim. Term-X means Y, since it is cuturally and historically "made to mean" Y.
Claim 4: "every time a white person uses it it sure as goddamned hell conveys that history."
- This is an absolutist claim. Term-X always means Y, because of a particular historical use of the term.
Claim 2 conflicts with Claims 1, 3, and 4. Claim 2 is that the meaning of a term results from its contextual use. This is the notion Wittgenstein called a "language game". The meaning of X is how X is used, how it functions in a language game.
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
However, you seem to maintain that "the n-word" has an objective meaning at all times, in all ways, to all persons.
So, which is it?
1: Every linguistic utterance of "the n-word" always mean the same thing to all people.
2: The meaning of "the n-word" depends upon the context in which it is used.
Pick one of those. Right now you're arguing for both, like a silly goose.
+1
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
So, you think shame has a valid place in intimacy? Because that's what we're talking about here. Let's be honest - sexual culture in the US is, to put it mildly, extremely fucked up the wazoo. A large part of the reason that we don't talk about what we like and don't like in bed is because we are accultured against it. And women get a double whammy, because our culture has the whole Madonna/whore complex issue that tells them that if they show signs of being a sexual being, that marks them as a Bad Person.
So I don't see a problem in saying that if you view shame as an intrinsic part of sex and sexuality, you don't have a healthy relationship with it.
There is no ranked system of sexual health. Talking about sex while having sex is not a goal we are all supposed to be working towards. A healthy sex life is about two people who have sex the way they enjoy having sex in a way that breaks no law. A healthy sex life is definitively not conforming to a specific model developed by a person who does not share the same preferences and pleasures you do.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them. To the original: if a couple finds that having sex through a sheet is awesome, good for them.
You have no right telling anyone what they should be doing to enjoy a proper and healthy sex life. No one died and made you the Sex King (though that sounds like an awesome thing to be).
Enthusiastic consent isn't a prescribed script that must be followed to the letter. It's just open communication, mutual respect, and lack of coercion. Maybe some of that communication can be nonverbal! Different people communicate in different fashions. It seems to me that your argument here is perfectly in line with feminism.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're [consensually] doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild [consensual] orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds [consensual] exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them.
Honestly, i feel my post was more about not judging people for their sexual preferences than it was about Enthusiastic Consent. The origin of this back-and-forth began with AngelH making a judgement on a sex life that didn't conform to his idea of a healthy sex life (for no other reason then it differing from his personal expectations and preferences). I think this is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Regarding Enthusiastic Consent, my problem with it is that it seems to take a very passive approach to sexuality (for both genders). That's fine for some people, but I have trouble seeing how it could possibly be an across the board application. Most of my best experiences never would have happened had I used this approach, for the sheer reason that a good number of people just aren't into passive sexuality. And that's ok from where I'm standing.
And really, I just don't see how this is anything different from a passive approach. I'm fairly fluid in my understanding of the concept (due to many seeming contradictions in what I'm seeing), so feel to set me straight if I've got this part wrong. I'm thinking it's possibly due to enthusiastic consent meaning different things when applied to initial vs ongoing consent, but I don't have any confirmation on that so far.
I know this is a bit back, but this thread moved fast for a bit, so sorry if this has been addressed.
In regards to the bolded, I'd say EC is suppose to be the opposite. Both parties have to show some sign of enthusiasm, be an active participant.
And to tie it back to earlier posts, the idea behind it is not for it to be a legal boundary, but a social one. And even then, not an end-all be-all rule.
Someone used the example of having sex with their partner even though they didn't feel like it, but did it anyway because they loved them, is that rape?
Well no, EC is not a boundary for rape/not rape. I don't have a problem if you/your partner does that, I've done that. However, if you do that 9/10 times when you have sex, you might want to have a talk about it.
EC is more for the stage where you're trying to learn about the other person, where you don't yet know that the yellow scarf mean sexy time tonight.
We had "consent" as our first goal post, but some shitty people took advantage of it, so me moved them a tad. Going from Consent to Enthusiastic Consent as the precursor for sex changed absolutely nothing in my sex life, since I was already there. It's not for us, it's for them (for certain definitions for us and them)
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
Sure but this is not the language game that our society exists in. Our society exists in the language game where the n-word carries with it the weight and history of its use. And the weight and history of its use are huge and abhorrent and overshadows other contexts.
Theoretically anything can mean anything, its why more than one language exists. But we are not talking about what connotations the n-word has in Flemish; we are not talking about the theoretical connotations of a string of letters in any language; we are talking about what connotations the n-word has in English spoken by the class of people that perpetrated the crime.
This same language game that our society exists in has given power in a similar manner to other class based words when used by the privileged class. Indeed, societal privilege gives power to all language which accentuates that privilege. Certainly it has not given the b-word and c word the same amount of power; those words do not carry the same weight of history but this is only because the history and use of the n-word are so amazingly powerful and vile. It is not because gender based privilege is innocuous.
when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy"
It doesn't. I mean it just factually doesn't. You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you're absolutely, one hundred percent shithouse wrong. It's impossible to debate with you further because you're starting with a premise so utterly, utterly flawed that there's no way to discourse with it.
In what situation does the use of the word not promote the continued denigration and subjugation of African Americans?
When spoken by black people[Uncle Rucus excluded]. Because referencing slavery by someone who comes from the class that was slaves, that endured the racial prejudice of the past, and that still endures racial prejudice in the present rather than condoning oppression recognizes a shared position and culture.
Ditto with gender based insults and sexuality based insults and...
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
Sure but this is not the language game that our society exists in. Our society exists in the language game where the n-word carries with it the weight and history of its use. And the weight and history of its use are huge and abhorrent and overshadows other contexts.
Theoretically anything can mean anything, its why more than one language exists. But we are not talking about what connotations the n-word has in Flemish; we are not talking about the theoretical connotations of a string of letters in any language; we are talking about what connotations the n-word has in English spoken by the class of people that perpetrated the crime.
This same language game that our society exists in has given power in a similar manner to other class based words when used by the privileged class. Indeed, societal privilege gives power to all language which accentuates that privilege. Certainly it has not given the b-word and c word the same amount of power; those words do not carry the same weight of history but this is only because the history and use of the n-word are so amazingly powerful and vile. It is not because gender based privilege is innocuous.
You seem to have missed the point.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
Sure but this is not the language game that our society exists in. Our society exists in the language game where the n-word carries with it the weight and history of its use. And the weight and history of its use are huge and abhorrent and overshadows other contexts.
Theoretically anything can mean anything, its why more than one language exists. But we are not talking about what connotations the n-word has in Flemish; we are not talking about the theoretical connotations of a string of letters in any language; we are talking about what connotations the n-word has in English spoken by the class of people that perpetrated the crime.
This same language game that our society exists in has given power in a similar manner to other class based words when used by the privileged class. Indeed, societal privilege gives power to all language which accentuates that privilege. Certainly it has not given the b-word and c word the same amount of power; those words do not carry the same weight of history but this is only because the history and use of the n-word are so amazingly powerful and vile. It is not because gender based privilege is innocuous.
You seem to have missed the point.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
No rule is perfect. 2 exceptions in Vermont don't disprove a rule or an idea.
I mean do you have any clue how the social sphere works.
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
Sure but this is not the language game that our society exists in. Our society exists in the language game where the n-word carries with it the weight and history of its use. And the weight and history of its use are huge and abhorrent and overshadows other contexts.
Theoretically anything can mean anything, its why more than one language exists. But we are not talking about what connotations the n-word has in Flemish; we are not talking about the theoretical connotations of a string of letters in any language; we are talking about what connotations the n-word has in English spoken by the class of people that perpetrated the crime.
This same language game that our society exists in has given power in a similar manner to other class based words when used by the privileged class. Indeed, societal privilege gives power to all language which accentuates that privilege. Certainly it has not given the b-word and c word the same amount of power; those words do not carry the same weight of history but this is only because the history and use of the n-word are so amazingly powerful and vile. It is not because gender based privilege is innocuous.
You seem to have missed the point.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
No rule is perfect. 2 exceptions in Vermont don't disprove a rule or an idea.
I mean do you have any clue how the social sphere works.
The point is that any group of persons can use a term to mean something other than what the term means in another group of people.
Edit: This, by the way, is why "X is sexist!" or "X is racist!" is a goosey notion.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
Yea so long as no one else hears it and the two white people in vermont have a language game in which they know that no racist connotations are implied.
But we are never talking about cases where "no one hears it" because in order to talk about it, someone must have heard it and once someone else has heard it we are right back into our societies language game where it is vile and out of the tiny subset of it where its ok.
Which is why "girlfriend mode" isn't ok. Even if everyone on the design team knows it was named after his girlfriend who is bad at shooters once they aren't talking in the development house where it means something else, once it is heard by someone else outside of that cloister, it carries with it everything that society implies when things are gendered.
The word "bitch" needs to be used more often as a general definitions of an unpleasant person. It would suck if that word got N'd because some people only want to use it on women.
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
Sure but this is not the language game that our society exists in. Our society exists in the language game where the n-word carries with it the weight and history of its use. And the weight and history of its use are huge and abhorrent and overshadows other contexts.
Theoretically anything can mean anything, its why more than one language exists. But we are not talking about what connotations the n-word has in Flemish; we are not talking about the theoretical connotations of a string of letters in any language; we are talking about what connotations the n-word has in English spoken by the class of people that perpetrated the crime.
This same language game that our society exists in has given power in a similar manner to other class based words when used by the privileged class. Indeed, societal privilege gives power to all language which accentuates that privilege. Certainly it has not given the b-word and c word the same amount of power; those words do not carry the same weight of history but this is only because the history and use of the n-word are so amazingly powerful and vile. It is not because gender based privilege is innocuous.
You seem to have missed the point.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
No rule is perfect. 2 exceptions in Vermont don't disprove a rule or an idea.
I mean do you have any clue how the social sphere works.
The point is that any group of persons can use a term to mean something other than what the term means in another group of people.
Edit: This, by the way, is why "X is sexist!" or "X is racist!" is a goosey notion.
"My friends understand it as part of our inside jokes" does not apply when you're talking to the press.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
Yea so long as no one else hears it and the two white people in vermont have a language game in which they know that no racist connotations are implied.
But we are never talking about cases where "no one hears it" because in order to talk about it, someone must have heard it and once someone else has heard it we are right back into our societies language game where it is vile and out of the tiny subset of it where its ok.
I think you're actually agreeing with Tube and _J_'s general sentiments, just not the details. Neither side is saying that it's ever ok to use certain words in a public situation.
The point is that any group of persons can use a term to mean something other than what the term means in another group of people.
Edit: This, by the way, is why "X is sexist!" or "X is racist!" is a goosey notion.
The point is it doesn't matter because we do not exist in a hypothetical situation where it does not mean that. We exist in the real situation where it does
Fake Edit: You realize that you're suggesting that no language can be considered racist or sexist right? Because "I hate the gays and wish they would all die and burn in hell" could mean something totally different in some 2 person language game played by 2 straight guys in Vermont. Or we might say that because theoretically "and" may mean something horrible and vile to some people it clearly must not ever be used...
No, the only consistent understanding is the predominant meaning in society. As in the language game that our society actually exists in.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
Yea so long as no one else hears it and the two white people in vermont have a language game in which they know that no racist connotations are implied.
But we are never talking about cases where "no one hears it" because in order to talk about it, someone must have heard it and once someone else has heard it we are right back into our societies language game where it is vile and out of the tiny subset of it where its ok.
Which is why "girlfriend mode" isn't ok. Even if everyone on the design team knows it was named after his girlfriend who is bad at shooters once they aren't talking in the development house where it means something else, once it is heard by someone else outside of that cloister, it carries with it everything that society implies when things are gendered.
If you're not even going to try to understand then there's no point in this.
Edit:
PlayerA says X to PlayerB.
PlayerB says Y to Player C, and Player D overhears them.
PlayerE says F to PlayerG, and the saying of F is rebroadcast to multiple other players.
Whence the meaning of X, Y, and F? Are they:
1) Inherently, objectively meaningful.
2) Contextually dependent for their meaning.
3) Reliant upon both the context and the persons involved for their meaning.
Person A: You're not allowed to shoot guns at anyone, as it could injure or kill them
Person B: Not so, what about that one time when someone fired at Jules and and Vincent in Pulp Fiction and doesn't hurt either of them?
The word "bitch" needs to be used more often as a general definitions of an unpleasant person. It would suck if that word got N'd because some people only want to use it on women.
No. Gendered insults are used to enforce gender norms of all sorts, simply because its being used against a male to enforce the male side of gender norms rather than a female does not make it less bad.
They can both hurt people. They can not hurt the people we intend to hurt (situation with Vincent and Jules) or hurt people who we don't intend to hurt (Marvin).
They can both hurt people. They can not hurt the people we intend to hurt (situation with Vincent and Jules) or hurt people who we don't intend to hurt (Marvin).
The word "bitch" needs to be used more often as a general definitions of an unpleasant person. It would suck if that word got N'd because some people only want to use it on women.
No. Gendered insults are used to enforce gender norms of all sorts, simply because its being used against a male to enforce the male side of gender norms rather than a female does not make it less bad.
That's why I said to take the gender out of it. Easier said than done, I know, but the word being removed from the language is not very likely either.
The word "bitch" needs to be used more often as a general definitions of an unpleasant person. It would suck if that word got N'd because some people only want to use it on women.
No. Gendered insults are used to enforce gender norms of all sorts, simply because its being used against a male to enforce the male side of gender norms rather than a female does not make it less bad.
That's why I said to take the gender out of it. Easier said than done, I know, but the word being removed from the language is not very likely either.
If you're not even going to try to understand then there's no point in this.
I completely and totally understand your point. Its just that your point is irrelevant. Once their conversation is rebroadcast or overheard its no longer solely their conversation. Their intended meanings do not matter because their words convey different meaning to the other members of the conversation, those who overheard, and those that were rebroadcast to.
Its not like the situation here is ambiguous, a developer, at a press conference when making, more or less, a prepared presentation with the express intent of that being rebroadcast in order to generate interest in the game, used language which was sexist in meaning to the intended audience. It doesn't matter if he did not mean it to be sexist, it was, and he should have known better than to broadcast it.
The fact that he did not know better, is indeed, "the problem" of feminism. Because it is very easy to see how gender and sexuality and racial based discrimination is wrong, but it is very difficult to see exactly what things constitute and perpetuate sexism, given that privilege is so ingrained in our society.
The word "bitch" needs to be used more often as a general definitions of an unpleasant person. It would suck if that word got N'd because some people only want to use it on women.
No. Gendered insults are used to enforce gender norms of all sorts, simply because its being used against a male to enforce the male side of gender norms rather than a female does not make it less bad.
That's why I said to take the gender out of it. Easier said than done, I know, but the word being removed from the language is not very likely either.
Ok, I'm curious.
How does one remove gender from a word?
Well, I always thought "dick" was an insult directed towards guys, but I've seen it used towards women when the person is trying not to use the term "bitch". I don't know, is it better if "dick" just becomes the catch-all term for people of both genders being jerks?
Edit - I'm probably just being dense about it because spanish has male and female versions for pretty much every term. My girlfriend and I have argued about gendered terms a million times and it's something that will probably never make sense to me.
Once their conversation is rebroadcast or overheard its no longer solely their conversation. Their intended meanings do not matter because their words convey different meaning to the other members of the conversation, those who overheard, and those that were rebroadcast to.
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
Once their conversation is rebroadcast or overheard its no longer solely their conversation. Their intended meanings do not matter because their words convey different meaning to the other members of the conversation, those who overheard, and those that were rebroadcast to.
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
He's arguing that as a society there's a list of terms that are particularly offensive, and as such they are not cool to say on many situations.
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
No. I am saying that you are "not permitted" to say things which have meanings that are incredibly offensive to most people. It is just as ridiculous to say "I can say the n-word because me and my friends are OK with it" as it is to say "someone might be offended when I say "discourse" so no one can say that word ever".
The words you are "not permitted" to say are the words that have, in our current language game, those meanings which are vile and which recognize and perpetuate sexism, racism, and bigotry of all sorts.
If there is no chance of you being overheard, go fucking hog wild with your friends who clearly have the same understanding as you. No one cares. If there is a chance of you being overheard then maybe you should not say those things. And if you do, and if they're overheard, or if you say them at a press conference in front of the press with the intent that they be repeated, then you're going to get shit for it and the shit you get for it will be justified.
Is a word so important to you that you would say it, knowing the connotations it had to other people?
Once their conversation is rebroadcast or overheard its no longer solely their conversation. Their intended meanings do not matter because their words convey different meaning to the other members of the conversation, those who overheard, and those that were rebroadcast to.
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
He's arguing that as a society there's a list of terms that are particularly offensive, and as such they are not cool to say on many situations.
He seems to be ignoring the problems with that mentality.
In SituationA, TermX means Y.
In SituationB, TermX means W.
He seems to be saying that if SituationA < Situation B, then the meaning in SituationA doesn't actually matter. So, the meaning of TermX is always W, since SituationB is really super special.
Once their conversation is rebroadcast or overheard its no longer solely their conversation. Their intended meanings do not matter because their words convey different meaning to the other members of the conversation, those who overheard, and those that were rebroadcast to.
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
He's arguing that as a society there's a list of terms that are particularly offensive, and as such they are not cool to say on many situations.
He seems to be ignoring the problems with that mentality.
In SituationA, TermX means Y.
In SituationB, TermX means W.
He seems to be saying that if SituationA < Situation B, then the meaning in SituationA doesn't actually matter. So, the meaning of TermX is always W, since SituationB is really super special.
It's just a matter of compromise. If the term is considered offensive by enough people, not using it in public is a courtesy that you should extend to maximize the amount of happy people.
The other problem with that mentality is that the offensiveness wanes over time and with use, which is why you just sound silly when you say, "Dag nabbit!" even though it was quite harsh at one time.
The other problem with that mentality is that the offensiveness wanes over time and with use, which is why you just sound silly when you say, "Dag nabbit!" even though it was quite harsh at one time.
Outlawing words retards that process.
That's not the only thing that makes this process retarded.
Once their conversation is rebroadcast or overheard its no longer solely their conversation. Their intended meanings do not matter because their words convey different meaning to the other members of the conversation, those who overheard, and those that were rebroadcast to.
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
He's arguing that as a society there's a list of terms that are particularly offensive, and as such they are not cool to say on many situations.
He seems to be ignoring the problems with that mentality.
In SituationA, TermX means Y.
In SituationB, TermX means W.
He seems to be saying that if SituationA < Situation B, then the meaning in SituationA doesn't actually matter. So, the meaning of TermX is always W, since SituationB is really super special.
No. I am saying that Situation A is a strawman. That if you're overheard or rebroadcast you are not actually in situation A, you are in situation B
If I am not talking to them, then why the fuck do they have the ability to dominate me and limit my speech?
I am just here swinging my fists, i am not swinging at you, why the fuck does your face at the right to get in the way of my fists?
Posts
"Some of these jokes may sound sexist, but they're meant to be ironic. So don't you worry your pretty little head about it."
--LeVar Burton
What you want something to say, and what you actually say are two different things.
In short, your question begs the following question "Is it possible for a privileged person to use a class based insult or label knowing full well the implications of that class based label or insult without actively supporting those implications?"
Maybe. I think the answer is "no". If you are a white person, you damn well ought to know that when you say the n-word it means "i think that whole slavery thing was fine and dandy" and if you say it anyways then either you're incredibly dumb, or you're a racist. Immediate context very rarely saves you from this assumption because the greater context of the word is so amazingly racist it overpowers any "i was just using it as a joke" or, "i was just quoting Jay-Z" or "i was being ironic"
The reason we still use "bitch", "slut", etc is not because people use it in context that reveals they're not misogynist, but because people do not realize or accept that the implications of the word are sexist.
In short, they have not been told about how class based oppression works. They know one specific example [racism] but don't realize that the same principles that we have used to deny racism and attempt to fix it, are the principles upon which feminism and associated minority rights campaigns are based.
It doesn't. I mean it just factually doesn't. You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you're absolutely, one hundred percent shithouse wrong. It's impossible to debate with you further because you're starting with a premise so utterly, utterly flawed that there's no way to discourse with it.
Words have context. If you're white you cannot say the n-word without conveying that information. You cannot say the n-word without referencing Jim Crow.
In order for it to not reference these things then words would have to have no history or meaning. Definitions would be, rather than a mutual understanding created over centuries of evolving use, handed down from an authority.
But definitions are not handed down from an authority, definitions are created from a mutual understanding that evolves as people use the word. All words carry all of the culture and history that went into making them mean what they do. Many words are innocuous, not because they don't carry culture and history, but because the culture and history behind them is innocuous or not powerful.
The n-word is not one of those innocuous words. Though the n-word does not have that as some sort of written down explicit meaning it sure as good goddamned hell has that history behind it. And every time a white person uses it it sure as goddamned hell conveys that history.
In what situation does the use of the word not promote the continued denigration and subjugation of African Americans?
That slave owners were using it as a word for their slaves, and it spilled over into a word those slaves were using for themselves, and the word continued to be carried forward in time as a way to "remind black people of their place" (that place being slaves) then yeah. It carries that history even if it doesn't explicitly mean that.
...ok.
Claim 1: "If you're white you cannot say the n-word without conveying that information."
- This is an absolutist claim. When a white person says X, they convey information Y.
Claim 2: "But definitions are not handed down from an authority, definitions are created from a mutual understanding that evolves as people use the word."
- This is a subjectivist claim. The meaning of term-X is dependent upon the context in which term-X is used.
Claim 3: "All words carry all of the culture and history that went into making them mean what they do."
- This is an absolutist claim. Term-X means Y, since it is cuturally and historically "made to mean" Y.
Claim 4: "every time a white person uses it it sure as goddamned hell conveys that history."
- This is an absolutist claim. Term-X always means Y, because of a particular historical use of the term.
Claim 2 conflicts with Claims 1, 3, and 4. Claim 2 is that the meaning of a term results from its contextual use. This is the notion Wittgenstein called a "language game". The meaning of X is how X is used, how it functions in a language game.
If you maintain 2, then it is possible for two persons to construct a language game in which a particular term means something other than what it means when another group of persons use the term.
However, you seem to maintain that "the n-word" has an objective meaning at all times, in all ways, to all persons.
So, which is it?
1: Every linguistic utterance of "the n-word" always mean the same thing to all people.
2: The meaning of "the n-word" depends upon the context in which it is used.
Pick one of those. Right now you're arguing for both, like a silly goose.
I know this is a bit back, but this thread moved fast for a bit, so sorry if this has been addressed.
In regards to the bolded, I'd say EC is suppose to be the opposite. Both parties have to show some sign of enthusiasm, be an active participant.
And to tie it back to earlier posts, the idea behind it is not for it to be a legal boundary, but a social one. And even then, not an end-all be-all rule.
Someone used the example of having sex with their partner even though they didn't feel like it, but did it anyway because they loved them, is that rape?
Well no, EC is not a boundary for rape/not rape. I don't have a problem if you/your partner does that, I've done that. However, if you do that 9/10 times when you have sex, you might want to have a talk about it.
EC is more for the stage where you're trying to learn about the other person, where you don't yet know that the yellow scarf mean sexy time tonight.
We had "consent" as our first goal post, but some shitty people took advantage of it, so me moved them a tad. Going from Consent to Enthusiastic Consent as the precursor for sex changed absolutely nothing in my sex life, since I was already there. It's not for us, it's for them (for certain definitions for us and them)
Or at least that's my take on it.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Sure but this is not the language game that our society exists in. Our society exists in the language game where the n-word carries with it the weight and history of its use. And the weight and history of its use are huge and abhorrent and overshadows other contexts.
Theoretically anything can mean anything, its why more than one language exists. But we are not talking about what connotations the n-word has in Flemish; we are not talking about the theoretical connotations of a string of letters in any language; we are talking about what connotations the n-word has in English spoken by the class of people that perpetrated the crime.
This same language game that our society exists in has given power in a similar manner to other class based words when used by the privileged class. Indeed, societal privilege gives power to all language which accentuates that privilege. Certainly it has not given the b-word and c word the same amount of power; those words do not carry the same weight of history but this is only because the history and use of the n-word are so amazingly powerful and vile. It is not because gender based privilege is innocuous.
When spoken by black people[Uncle Rucus excluded]. Because referencing slavery by someone who comes from the class that was slaves, that endured the racial prejudice of the past, and that still endures racial prejudice in the present rather than condoning oppression recognizes a shared position and culture.
Ditto with gender based insults and sexuality based insults and...
You seem to have missed the point.
Two white people in vermont can say that word to each other without bringing in the entire historical connotations of the term.
No rule is perfect. 2 exceptions in Vermont don't disprove a rule or an idea.
I mean do you have any clue how the social sphere works.
The point is that any group of persons can use a term to mean something other than what the term means in another group of people.
Edit: This, by the way, is why "X is sexist!" or "X is racist!" is a goosey notion.
Yea so long as no one else hears it and the two white people in vermont have a language game in which they know that no racist connotations are implied.
But we are never talking about cases where "no one hears it" because in order to talk about it, someone must have heard it and once someone else has heard it we are right back into our societies language game where it is vile and out of the tiny subset of it where its ok.
Which is why "girlfriend mode" isn't ok. Even if everyone on the design team knows it was named after his girlfriend who is bad at shooters once they aren't talking in the development house where it means something else, once it is heard by someone else outside of that cloister, it carries with it everything that society implies when things are gendered.
Twitter
"My friends understand it as part of our inside jokes" does not apply when you're talking to the press.
I think you're actually agreeing with Tube and _J_'s general sentiments, just not the details. Neither side is saying that it's ever ok to use certain words in a public situation.
Twitter
The point is it doesn't matter because we do not exist in a hypothetical situation where it does not mean that. We exist in the real situation where it does
Fake Edit: You realize that you're suggesting that no language can be considered racist or sexist right? Because "I hate the gays and wish they would all die and burn in hell" could mean something totally different in some 2 person language game played by 2 straight guys in Vermont. Or we might say that because theoretically "and" may mean something horrible and vile to some people it clearly must not ever be used...
No, the only consistent understanding is the predominant meaning in society. As in the language game that our society actually exists in.
If you're not even going to try to understand then there's no point in this.
Edit:
PlayerA says X to PlayerB.
PlayerB says Y to Player C, and Player D overhears them.
PlayerE says F to PlayerG, and the saying of F is rebroadcast to multiple other players.
Whence the meaning of X, Y, and F? Are they:
1) Inherently, objectively meaningful.
2) Contextually dependent for their meaning.
3) Reliant upon both the context and the persons involved for their meaning.
Person B: Not so, what about that one time when someone fired at Jules and and Vincent in Pulp Fiction and doesn't hurt either of them?
Twitter
Words are, in fact, not at all like bullets.
No. Gendered insults are used to enforce gender norms of all sorts, simply because its being used against a male to enforce the male side of gender norms rather than a female does not make it less bad.
They can both hurt people. They can not hurt the people we intend to hurt (situation with Vincent and Jules) or hurt people who we don't intend to hurt (Marvin).
One cannot chose to not be hurt by a bullet.
One can chose to not be hurt by a word.
That's why I said to take the gender out of it. Easier said than done, I know, but the word being removed from the language is not very likely either.
Twitter
Ok, I'm curious.
How does one remove gender from a word?
Its not like the situation here is ambiguous, a developer, at a press conference when making, more or less, a prepared presentation with the express intent of that being rebroadcast in order to generate interest in the game, used language which was sexist in meaning to the intended audience. It doesn't matter if he did not mean it to be sexist, it was, and he should have known better than to broadcast it.
The fact that he did not know better, is indeed, "the problem" of feminism. Because it is very easy to see how gender and sexuality and racial based discrimination is wrong, but it is very difficult to see exactly what things constitute and perpetuate sexism, given that privilege is so ingrained in our society.
Well, I always thought "dick" was an insult directed towards guys, but I've seen it used towards women when the person is trying not to use the term "bitch". I don't know, is it better if "dick" just becomes the catch-all term for people of both genders being jerks?
Edit - I'm probably just being dense about it because spanish has male and female versions for pretty much every term. My girlfriend and I have argued about gendered terms a million times and it's something that will probably never make sense to me.
Twitter
So, no one is ever permitted to say anything that anyone might be offended by.
That's what you're arguing.
Because if anyone ever interprets anything anyone says to be sexist or racist, then that person must have said something that was sexist or racist.
He's arguing that as a society there's a list of terms that are particularly offensive, and as such they are not cool to say on many situations.
Twitter
No. I am saying that you are "not permitted" to say things which have meanings that are incredibly offensive to most people. It is just as ridiculous to say "I can say the n-word because me and my friends are OK with it" as it is to say "someone might be offended when I say "discourse" so no one can say that word ever".
The words you are "not permitted" to say are the words that have, in our current language game, those meanings which are vile and which recognize and perpetuate sexism, racism, and bigotry of all sorts.
If there is no chance of you being overheard, go fucking hog wild with your friends who clearly have the same understanding as you. No one cares. If there is a chance of you being overheard then maybe you should not say those things. And if you do, and if they're overheard, or if you say them at a press conference in front of the press with the intent that they be repeated, then you're going to get shit for it and the shit you get for it will be justified.
Is a word so important to you that you would say it, knowing the connotations it had to other people?
He seems to be ignoring the problems with that mentality.
In SituationA, TermX means Y.
In SituationB, TermX means W.
He seems to be saying that if SituationA < Situation B, then the meaning in SituationA doesn't actually matter. So, the meaning of TermX is always W, since SituationB is really super special.
If I am not talking to them, then why the fuck do they have the ability to dominate me and limit my speech?
It's just a matter of compromise. If the term is considered offensive by enough people, not using it in public is a courtesy that you should extend to maximize the amount of happy people.
Twitter
Outlawing words retards that process.
--LeVar Burton
That's not the only thing that makes this process retarded.
No. I am saying that Situation A is a strawman. That if you're overheard or rebroadcast you are not actually in situation A, you are in situation B
I am just here swinging my fists, i am not swinging at you, why the fuck does your face at the right to get in the way of my fists?
So, every statement that anyone ever makes is addressed to the world.
Got it.