Printable View
i never understood all that fuss about a word... its not the word that pisses people off, the word is just a token its what the token signifies that pisses people off. change the thoughts that people have not the words that people use...
mind control FTW
that all sounds very nice, but i'm not seeing a demonstrated linkage to justify your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
racists, in my limited experience, have never had anything to say about huck-fin, let alone that the "n" word should be removed, either for reasons stated or otherwise.
i don't accept your premise.
It's still not hard to take lines such as:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
etc.Quote:
. Without HELP, mind you-- 'thout HELP! THAT'S wher 'tis. Don't tell ME, s'I; there WUZ help, s'I; 'n' ther' wuz a PLENTY help, too, s'I; ther's ben a DOZEN a-helpin' that nigger, 'n' I lay I'd skin every last nigger on this place but I'D find out who done it.
out of context.
So if I understand correctly, you're saying that the solution is to no longer consider "nigger" offensive? That's... extreme...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
that is not extreme...not the word nigger is offensive as showed by the frequent use of it in black rapsongs and it is used by negroes all the time. it is the thoughts that usually pass through ones mind when that word is uttered that are offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
No, you're wrong. It's at the discretion of the group which is the target of the racial slur as to whether the slur is offensive or not.
that sounds dangerously close to macpherson report jibberish to me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
come again? so if i understand correctly what u say is: it is not an insult when the word is uttered but when it is received as an insult? regardless of the intention of the one that utters it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
And how is this very different than what i said? It is still not the word but the thoughts of the people about the word that are at the root of people being pissed off...
And its not entirely at the discretion of the group who is being "insulted" (or who is feeling insulted) but also at the discretion of the insulting person (he may very well have the intention to hurt someone with the words he uses) and of the enviroment (the people that have nothing to do with it directly but either approve or disaprove of that action).
ive seen it happen many times, when per example i was not offended by the word nigger being hurled at me while the the enviroment were still like oh oh thats so wrong you cant do that its offensive. what ive noticed is the people most concerned with discrimination and racism are usually not the people who are at the center of this. but the onlookers that actually dont have much to do with it...
generally people dont like to be called certain things because of the negative connotation to the word (not a direct negative definition) not because the word actually means (in terms of definition) something bad or because they dont like the sound of the word. nigger is a bad word because of all the negative emotions and history attached to the word not because the word itself actually means something bad.
and by just ignoring the word or by making the word disappear this will not make the history or negative emotions dissapear. by trying to do so, by trying to censor them out, is just being naive, shortsighted etc. its a typical political shortterm solution.
What word starts with 'N' and ends with 'R' that no civilised man should call a black person?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This will just further the dumb
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Well I understand where you are coming from, but you have to note that this isn't an empirical statement I am making here. This kind of thing is in the realm of the social sciences and unless somehow, someone took a poll of racists and asked them what their favorite way of keeping the black person down is, there wouldn't be a link to defend the statement beyond all skepticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
EDITED OUT because I think it was a terrible analogy.
EDIT: And I am not saying all racists would use this tactic, just the crafty ones. The extremely ignorant bigots would be more blunt in their hatred and would not get how censoring a book would be beneficial to them.
EDIT 2 hours after the post: I really should have chosen a better example. Hmm I will just take that out and leave it as it is.
So does this mean I can make white jokes now? I have a hat full of 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
sadly, what subotan exhibits above is a perfect example of DEEPLY misguided conclusions regarding racism resulting from the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the Macpherson report carried out by the police as a consequence.
you had an unfortunate black kid who was viscously murdered by a bunch of other kids, the investigation of whom was hindered and obstructed by the local police.
the fact the murderers were related to crime families that had links to corrupt police was considered 'unfortunate', so it became a race crime rather than a corruption crime.
having opted for this direction in a murder case with a high public profile there was then a need to conduct a public report to explain how such a terrible crime could have occurred.
two significant conclusions arose:
1. that the police are institutionally racist, so mandatory sensitivity training for everyone rather than public corruption cases for a few, as that was the only way to account for a lack of evidence of racism.
2. that the definition of racism depends on whether offence is perceived by the 'victim' rather given by the 'perp' because there was no other way to pin racism as a motive to the murder.
The first conclusion is utterly ludicrous, and a miscarriage of justice, but a happy excuse that prevents the exposure of (what was) endemic corruption in certain parts of the MET.
The second conclusion is so tragically and DEEPLY wrong-headed it quite surpasses the understanding of society that such a chronic idiocy can be considered both correct and normal.
[edited for accuracy - cheers IA]
Just in the interests of accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I still think it's very arrogant and extreme that you can just arbitrarily decide that "nigger" should no longer be considered offensive to black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
So racists should be able to use the excuse "Oh, but I didn't mean it in THAT way, just in this way!"? Besides, the people who are the target of such abuse are nearly always savvy enough to tell when they are being insulted.Quote:
And its not entirely at the discretion of the group who is being "insulted" (or who is feeling insulted) but also at the discretion of the insulting person (he may very well have the intention to hurt someone with the words he uses) and of the enviroment (the people that have nothing to do with it directly but either approve or disaprove of that action).
No, I'm not the target of such abuse, but fifty/sixy years ago, I would have been the target of similar abuse in Great Britain, and god knows how recently I would have been (still would be?) the target of similar abuse back in Northern Ireland (Coming from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background...). Saying "Oh no, you're white, you can't talk about discrimination" is a pretty poor argument.Quote:
ive seen it happen many times, when per example i was not offended by the word nigger being hurled at me while the the enviroment were still like oh oh thats so wrong you cant do that its offensive. what ive noticed is the people most concerned with discrimination and racism are usually not the people who are at the center of this. but the onlookers that actually dont have much to do with it...
There's a completely direct connection. A golliwog doll and the word "golliwog" are both as offensive as each other because they both mean exactly the same thing. Saying that "nigger" isn't bad because it's the connotations which are bad is completely irrelevant! If the word "Jigglypuff" instead of "nigger" historically, then "Jigglypuff" would be the controversial word, but it isn't, so it doesn't matter! The fact of the matter is that "nigger" is offensive, as is "Paki", and as is "Taig" and that's that.Quote:
generally people dont like to be called certain things because of the negative connotation to the word (not a direct negative definition) not because the word actually means (in terms of definition) something bad or because they dont like the sound of the word. nigger is a bad word because of all the negative emotions and history attached to the word not because the word itself actually means something bad.
Excuse me? Did you actually read what I said about the topic at hand?Quote:
and by just ignoring the word or by making the word disappear this will not make the history or negative emotions dissapear. by trying to do so, by trying to censor them out, is just being naive, shortsighted etc. its a typical political shortterm solution.
I'm not even arguing what you say I am - I'm not saying we should censor it or the history from historical books and the like, since it did happen, it was used, and it is important to document just how commonly a word with such negative connotations was used back then. However, does that mean that children should be forced to be exposed to the word through state education in the classroom? Of course not - it is still perfectly possible to educate young people about racism in the South AND Huck Finn without using "nigger" in the classroom.Quote:
I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.
Of course, it goes without saying that ordinary versions for sale in shops to be read by private individuals should remain completely unchanged.
Besides, I think we would all agree that the tabooification (That's not a real word but who cares) of the word "nigger" in civilised conversation has only been a good thing.
How so? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say - are you saying that racism quite surpasses the understanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
well there is not just one side to the argument. as i already said in my first post i think it is a triangle of relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
because you cannot just say it is offensive when it is so perceived by the people who are targeted by the so called offense. like if I would say something about mohammed in a general way that muslims wouldnt like to hear, i would never do that with the intention to offend. yet most likely some of them would be offended.
but at the same time you cannot just put the offense in the intention of the offender because if no offense is received one may ask himself if there actually was an offense.
and then there is the third party and you could call it law, enviroment etc. because in case that per example an act was commited and while no offense was intended and no offence was received an was PERCEIVED by the law or by the people who saw it then there will still be occasions that the thing will go to court or to the principles office or to the parents. and then stuff still can get bigger than it is...
i think the third party should not at all be involved in the offender offended relation but sadly enough in our society that relation has expanded to offender-offended-puplic oppinion. and as i said before the people that usually are most outraged by such things are not the offended party but the public oppinion... while usually they have nothing to do with it.
another personal example: when i went to st.petersburg with my university, the people who planned the trip were a bit afraid that something might happen to me because russians are stereotyped (and there is truth in it for some russians but the country is so big...) to be not so friendly to black people (and a lot of other kinds of people for that matter). and they were pretty upset about it and wanted to know how i felt and that i was sure to know that they didnt feel about it the same way. and dont get me wrong, it was very nice of them and i know it was full of good intentions but it had never crossed my mind and i wasnt bothered by it at all.
then one day we were there and i was looking for an atm a few drunk guys came across our path and they started talking in russian and making clear that i was unwanted there shouting stuff. i just said i dont speak russian and moved on. funny thing was that the people i was with were more shocked by the event than i was. and in return because they were so shocked i started thinking about it all and then i really got pissed off, sad and moody (thats what happens when i think about certain things to deep... :S)
well that is to illustrate the point that the third party can have severe impact on the process. because i was not directly offended by their behaviour, i was appalled yes, but not personally offended. i just saw them as drunk guys wanting something from me. it was not directly clear that they were acting that way because i am black, because they spoke russian and they were drunk... but because it was labeled rascist by the people i traveled with it became rascist...
I am black and i am not offended. not by the word that is to say. i am neither offended personally by the negative history attached to the word, i am appalled however by it. i could be offended by the thoughts, biases and emotions that go through someonese mind, the hatred in someones eyes when he calls you that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
you are getting me all wrong. I am not saying that people should no longer be offended when they are called nigger by someone. im saying that the WORD nigger is not the problem. and by hiding the word you will solve nothing. another word will just take its place because as long as the wounds of the negative history, emotions and hatred are not cured it will never go away.
but everyone can always be offended. i can be offended by what i quote just now. ofcourse it is difficult. but we have no problem in court determining what someones intentions were when we charge him with attempted murder.Quote:
So racists should be able to use the excuse "Oh, but I didn't mean it in THAT way, just in this way!"? Besides, the people who are the target of such abuse are nearly always savvy enough to tell when they are being insulted.
that is a poor argument indeed. yet the question: have you ever been target of discrimination? is still a valid question. but then again i never posed that question. and i have never said anything like hey you are white so stfu... that is all yourself here... i dont know how we even got to this because nothing i said in my post directs us to here...Quote:
No, I'm not the target of such abuse, but fifty/sixy years ago, I would have been the target of similar abuse in Great Britain, and god knows how recently I would have been (still would be?) the target of similar abuse back in Northern Ireland (Coming from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background...). Saying "Oh no, you're white, you can't talk about discrimination" is a pretty poor argument.
no that is exactly what matters. the fact that the word can just as easily be replaced by another word and still have the same value and impact is EXACTLY the entire crux of the matter because it shows, atleast i believe that, that it is not the word itself (the letters arranged in a particular way) but the meaning of the word and all the things that are attached to it.Quote:
There's a completely direct connection. A golliwog doll and the word "golliwog" are both as offensive as each other because they both mean exactly the same thing. Saying that "nigger" isn't bad because it's the connotations which are bad is completely irrelevant! If the word "Jigglypuff" instead of "nigger" historically, then "Jigglypuff" would be the controversial word, but it isn't, so it doesn't matter! The fact of the matter is that "nigger" is offensive, as is "Paki", and as is "Taig" and that's that.
but im now halfway in your point and i realise that were not talking about the same thing and you wont see what im trying to point out... i think we need reenk roink to translate for me!
that was not aimed at you in particular. it was a general statement. so keep your pants on :)Quote:
Excuse me? Did you actually read what I said about the topic at hand?
well quite, racism is beyond my understanding, but no, i was actually referring to the idiocy that is the legal definition of racism post macpherson; that it is no longer to be an empirical definition that can be weighed and judged, it is now a metaphysical construct that morphs into existence at the whim of the 'victim' or random third parties who feel the need to throw their tuppence into the pot. it is no way to operate a system of law, and in fact bears a greater resemblance to the inquisition!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
on a related note, an excellent post-morten of the lawrence affair and racism idiocy it spawned:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_otbie-racism.html
Quote:
Among the report’s many pernicious recommendations was the following: “The definition of a racist incident should be any incident which is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person.” Nothing could be better designed to destroy the possibility of easy—dare I say normal—relations among people of different races. For the notion that racism is so pervasive and institutionalized that it is everywhere, even where it appears not to be, induces in the susceptible a paranoid state of mind, which then finds racism in every possible situation, in every remark, in every suggestion, in every gesture and expression. It is a charge against which there is no defense.
Two incidents in my clinical experience illustrate this nonfalsifiability. In the first, the lawyers for a black defendant asked me to appraise his fitness to plead. The defendant faced charges of assaulting another black man, out of the blue, with an iron bar. The man was obviously paranoid, his speech rambling and incoherent; his lawyers could obtain no sensible instructions from him. I argued that he was unfit to plead. Whereupon the man’s sister denounced me as a racist: I had reached my conclusions, she charged, only because her brother was black. Her 15-year-old daughter started to describe to me her frequent difficulties in understanding her uncle, only to be told to shut up by her mother. The lawyers had been unable to obtain instructions from the defendant only because they were white, the sister persisted. Give her brother black lawyers, and he would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, if I had said that he was fit to plead, she could have claimed with equal justice (which is none) that I came to that conclusion only because he was black.
The second case, far more serious, ended in a man’s death; the blame was partly mine. A black man in his mid-twenties arrived at our hospital with severely cut wrists. He was nearly exsanguinated and needed a large blood transfusion; his tendons also needed an operation to repair. By all accounts, he had been a perfectly normal man, happily employed, a few weeks before, but suddenly he had stopped eating and become a recluse, barricading himself in his house until police and family broke in to reach him. His suicide attempt was not one of those frivolous gestures with which our hospitals are all too familiar. If ever a man meant to kill himself, this man did.
His mother was by his bedside. I told her that her son should remain in the hospital for treatment (you’d hardly have to be a doctor to realize this). At first she was perfectly agreeable; but then a friend of the young man, himself young and black, arrived and instantly accused me of racism for my supposed desire to lock the patient up. I tried to reason with this friend, but he became agitated and aggressive, even menacing. Whether from conviction or because she, too, felt intimidated, the mother then sided with the friend and started to say that I was racist in wishing to detain her son.
I could have insisted on the powers granted to me by law—asking a court to have social services replace the mother as the patient’s nearest relative for the legal purpose of keeping him in treatment. But I did not fancy the process: the young friend had threatened to bring reinforcements, and a riot might have ensued in the hospital. Instead, I agreed to the demand that I let the patient go home. The two said that they would look after him, and I made them sign a paper (of no legal worth) acknowledging that I had warned them of the possible consequences.
This piece of paper they screwed up into a ball and threw away immediately outside the ward, where I found it later. I had made copies, and it was one of these that I sent to the coroner when, six weeks later, the young man gassed himself to death with car exhaust. The notion of ubiquitous, institutionalized racism resulted in his death; and I resolved that it would never intimidate me again.
Rather like bullying. In UK law, it is bullying if the victim feels bullied...
~:smoking:
imo that is rather troublesome because it puts everything with the so called victim
atleast if someone is being bullied or being offended it assumes that there is another person who is doing the bullying or is doing the offending, aka the bully or the offender. but if you put the entire process of offense in the hands of the socalled victim than all you can rightly say is he FEELS offended or he FEELS bullied. this no longer needs a active engagement of a 2nd person with the intention of bullying or offending.
i see two problems 1) is already treated by Furnunculus. in the same way that it is hard to determine the intention of the offender it is evenly hard to know the true feelings of the person who claims to feel offended. everyone can feel offended by anything. as furnunculus said it is no way to build a legal system because it eliminates the effect of the guilty party...
2) it makes them the problem. this reasoning makes the victim the problem and only he has the solution. because if he feels offended he should do something about it, why should i be bothered with it? just get over it right? stop feeling offended then...?
hmmm, i hadn't considered the second point, but it has merit too.
Damn, if I had thought to try this angle several years back I wouldn't have to read those awful books... :wall:
what are you saying? :P
They would never consider removing the books because they were crappy, so you might as well try this charged angle to do it. I never did actually read the books except to pick some quotes out for papers, but even the reading sparknotes was torture enough...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
By the way, a big :no: to all the people here freely using the n-word in lieu of the phrase "n-word" or equivalent, whatever poor rationalizations of "free speech" or "non-PC" they may try to cook up. :rolleyes:
I am not claiming free speech or being "non-PC" in my use. I am simply making a point that Twain used that word for a reason. It seemed to me that if I made a post about how we need to not censor this word to keep the powerful message of the book, I would be somewhat undermining my own point by censoring the word itself in my own post and instead keep covering it up with some other designator of that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
I don't see why it is 100% wrong in every single case for someone to say the "n-word". How is that conductive to the discourse about race in America and how is it acceptable when we are talking about censorship. I felt foolish typing out the statement in my first draft, "We must protect that word because Twain wanted to show how prevalent the word was back then and he wouldn't have wanted to censor...that "n-word"."
Specific words being "taboo" is a silly concept. Especially since language is so flexible and changing. Language is a tool which we express ourselves and convey the intentions of the speaker to the listener. There are no such things as "bad words".
For example, you could simply replace a racist usage of 'n-word' with 'black' and it would just be as bad. It is obvious in the context how the statement is used.
There may not be "bad words", but there are certainly "flammable words".
Ie. words that when used will ruin most civilized debate, or "hog the spotlight" in such a way that it obscures everything else.
It is usually the context they are used. You could be around some friends singing the f-word song harmlessly, but at grandma's house, she doesn't want to know about the f-word, especially as she hasn't seen any for a good 20 odd years. However, the issue isn't in the 'word' itself, it is more the connotations and implications of that word. The n-word is a case where is it pretty much unjustifiable to use it unless you want to brand yourself 'racist', even though some people argue that people use it between themselves, it is still what it is, highlighting an individuals race.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In a mock example, "Those new neighbours are Horetores, a inferior and savage people.", "Go away Horetore, back to Norway where you belong!". It is bad enough saying 'horetore' in this context, that a bad word wouldn't make a difference. So replace Horetore with n-word, the statement is identical. No more, no less.
I was referring to when one is debating, not anywhere else.
Ie. if I call someone a conservative, its allright, even though my argument may be very critical. If I refer to someone as a "f-ing consvative", on the other hand, that is likely to overshadow everything else and it'll turn into a flame wae in no time.
For proof, I present all youtube discussions...
My comment was more directed to how freely it is being bandied about in the Org Backroom, which has standards of decency. If we were discussing the f word on the Org given the standards it has about obscenities, I don't think it would give the posters a free ride to actually say the word itself, even in referential terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
However, I'd add that in a serious discussion about race issues, I doubt people would take you seriously if you actually use the n-word. I wouldn't. I caught a glimpse of Oprah discussing the issue (NO I DO NOT WATCH OPRAH I JUST FLIP HER SHOW ON TIME TO TIME TO SEE WHAT'S ON HER MIND :stare:) and she basically had a very good talk about the n word without ever saying the n word.