Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:30 PM
DPRK DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I think I have a possible compromise solution - non-AAVE-speakers should endeavour to only have the word nigger pass their lips when it is immediately following the 2 words "the word". So it should only be used in the phrase "the word 'nigger'", never standalone. That would make the use/mention distinction clearer.
Let's say, if this is an issue someone finds him or herself struggling with on a daily basis, then something is really, really wrong.
  #52  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:50 PM
DPRK DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I figured there was a niggard, but it sounds like it faded from common usage a while ago.

Is "niggle" used commonly any more? I'm not really moved to reconsider my assessment of "niggardly" as an orphan if you cite relatives that are long dead.
"Niggle", "niggard", and "niggardly" are all words I was taught as school vocabulary, and have heard and seen used (though note I like to read a lot), and I am not long dead. "Nig" is the variation I think may be archaic. But what does that anecdotal evidence matter- I might be an eccentric lexicographer or merely taking the piss.

Your question and similar in this thread have made me think, as far as hard data, perhaps someone with better Google-Fu can download a corpus of English text covering, say, the past 10 years, count the frequency of occurrence of "niggard" & its inflections- , same with 'niggle'- say it turn out to be the 12345th-most frequently used word- and check what are the other words around that place on the list. That should mostly settle the question of whether those words are in fact archaic yet.

NB if you say 'thou niggard' out loud-in print there is no chance for error- then I suppose it might be misheard leading to an embarrassing misunderstanding, but that in no way affects the use of the word(s) the op is worried about
  #53  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:11 PM
coffeecat's Avatar
coffeecat coffeecat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I think I have a possible compromise solution - non-AAVE-speakers should endeavour to only have the word nigger pass their lips when it is immediately following the 2 words "the word". So it should only be used in the phrase "the word 'nigger'", never standalone. That would make the use/mention distinction clearer.
Unless you're discussing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Or the works of Joseph Conrad. Or you're a great poet like E. E. Cummings.

Bigots will find a way to be offensive and hurtful even if you give them a list of naughty words to avoid. That's why the mods can't say, "Don't use the following words, and you won't be banned for sexism." George Carlin was right: The problem isn't a word, it's the racist asshole who uses it.
  #54  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:12 PM
DPRK DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
That should mostly settle the question of whether those words are in fact archaic yet.
The niggling question, I meant to write.
  #55  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:22 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,645
Like a Google ngram?

I think this should work:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...niggle%3B%2Cc0
  #56  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:25 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,645
Miserly was less common than niggardly until around 1975

https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...iserly%3B%2Cc0

But from the graph above, niggard and niggle were uncommon.
  #57  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:27 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
Let's say, if this is an issue someone finds him or herself struggling with on a daily basis, then something is really, really wrong.
Also this.
  #58  
Old 01-05-2019, 11:41 PM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,132
Magic isn't real, saying or writing this or that particular word doesn't manifest evil things into the world.
If magic was real and someone could snap their fingers and utterly remove the word nigger from existence the sort of people who used it as a slur would simply use other words. Prejudice and bigotry exist beyond what words are used to express it.

Frankly the way some people speak about this reminds me of the bit about the knights who say ni! in Monty Python's The Holy Grail.
It's farcical and stops being funny when the principle is used, in effect, to dis-empower people by instilling in their minds that a word has power over their sense of self worth instead of the realization that the use of slurs against people speaks entirely about the moral character of the person using the slurs.

With all that in mind the existence of slur words concerns me much less than the existence of people who want to control what can or can't be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously.
  #59  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:00 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Like a Google ngram?

I think this should work:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...niggle%3B%2Cc0
Oops -- "Niggard" would have been a lot more common (especially in the 1800s) if I hadn't capitalized it. Anyway, once you get to the page, it's easy to play around.

Last edited by puzzlegal; 01-06-2019 at 12:00 AM.
  #60  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:21 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Magic isn't real, saying or writing this or that particular word doesn't manifest evil things into the world.
If magic was real and someone could snap their fingers and utterly remove the word nigger from existence the sort of people who used it as a slur would simply use other words. Prejudice and bigotry exist beyond what words are used to express it.

Frankly the way some people speak about this reminds me of the bit about the knights who say ni! in Monty Python's The Holy Grail.
It's farcical and stops being funny when the principle is used, in effect, to dis-empower people by instilling in their minds that a word has power over their sense of self worth instead of the realization that the use of slurs against people speaks entirely about the moral character of the person using the slurs.

With all that in mind the existence of slur words concerns me much less than the existence of people who want to control what can or can't be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously.
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that people who point out the hurtful impact of the use of certain language on society and individuals are a bigger problem than those who decide to use the problematic language? Perhaps you could expand on what problem you see here? As posited, you are positioning those who harm our society above those who seek to improve it.
  #61  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:49 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Magic isn't real, saying or writing this or that particular word doesn't manifest evil things into the world.
If magic was real and someone could snap their fingers and utterly remove the word nigger from existence the sort of people who used it as a slur would simply use other words. Prejudice and bigotry exist beyond what words are used to express it.
So what word is that? I know a few bigots who want to get ahead of the curve; if the N-word was suddenly and magically blipped out of existence, what term with centuries of historical baggage and implied hostility will instantaneously take its place?

(Yeah, it's not really that simple.)

Quote:
It's farcical and stops being funny when the principle is used, in effect, to dis-empower people by instilling in their minds that a word has power over their sense of self worth instead of the realization that the use of slurs against people speaks entirely about the moral character of the person using the slurs.
Yeah that's not how things work either. It's not about the word itself. It's about the signal you send by saying it. Both individually ("I think you're less than human and am willing to say that, regardless of the societal consequences, to hurt you") and societally ("Society at large was mostly people like me until very recently, and even now there's a lot of us"). Nobody is telling people of color that the N-word has power over them. But the reality is that there are plenty of shitty racists out there who do have power, and use that power in shitty, racist ways. You try living that reality for a while, see how it feels.

Quote:
With all that in mind the existence of slur words concerns me much less than the existence of people who want to control what can or can't be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously.
How very privileged of you.
  #62  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:12 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that people who point out the hurtful impact of the use of certain language on society and individuals are a bigger problem than those who decide to use the problematic language? Perhaps you could expand on what problem you see here? As posited, you are positioning those who harm our society above those who seek to improve it.
I said "people who want to control what can or can't be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously", not merely people who point out certain language is hurtful; it was very clear stated.

What you did there, is one of the reasons why I find the notion of blasphemy (in whichever form) and people being in a position to control language abhorrent, because it's the easiest thing in the world to misrepresent something as being blasphemous based on the definition, redefinition, interpretation, context, ignored context whim and agenda of the Inquisition du jour.
Specially because it's pointless, other than as an exercise of power (and the less people who like to exercise power over others are in power, the better, IMO), as I said you can ban the words but it would not solve any underlying issues, if anything it would only exacerbate them, cruel people will use language to try to hurt others regardless of the specific combination of letters and sounds it takes... plus now there is a mechanism in place to limit the freedom of speech of people.

For example it wouldn't surprise me in the least if in their own minds neo Nazis in Germany don't use the the fact that symbols and speech related to Nazism are banned there as a validation to the necessity of their "struggle", probably some variation on the drivel on how the Jews control everything.

Now, if you agree with the notion that certain words should be banned you could explain under whose authority and what form of punishment should be used to enforce it.
Also, if that is limited to specific words or would it include what can be interpreted to allude to specific words. If you were in favour of banning the use of "nigger" as a racial slur, how about "the N-word"?, how about "niger"?, reggin?, yelling at black people on the street "hey NEEEEEElam"?, ("honest officer, I thought it was my good pal Neelam across the road!"), etc, etc.. Does it begin to feel futile yet?

It's useless, you may just as well try to fix a car's busted transmission by doing a new paint job.
  #63  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:31 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
The Moderator Speaks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
How very privileged of you.
Let's keep the personal cracks to a minimum. They add nothing to the discussion.
  #64  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:22 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,567
It's a form of the process seen in the euphemism treadmill, although perhaps it's a dysphemism treadmill in this case.

What makes it more annoying than polite prohibitions on other words is the idea that some people have "n-word privileges."

I dislike the idea that modern readers and listeners should privilege their understanding of the word over the way it was used in the past. I think it's important to understand and not to misunderstand Samuel Clemens's use of it, which takes education. I hate the idea that we have to, for example, whitewash the name of Guy Gibson's dog. We need to fight the idea that modern sensibilities regarding the past are correct rather than ignorant; that goes for a lot of things.
  #65  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:06 PM
DPRK DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,518
Mark Twain took care to make clear that he had 'painstakingly' reproduced various forms of (presumably real) 'backwoods' dialect. This makes the idea of a Bowdlerized edition doubly problematic.

In this vein, if it is not a fake then someone has published The N-Word of the Narcissus (!!)
  #66  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:14 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
I said "people who want to control what can or can't be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously", not merely people who point out certain language is hurtful; it was very clear stated.
Who exactly are you talking about here, then? I've not rally seen an example of what you describe. I've seen people point out that certain language is hurtful, and then I've seen the user of that language complain that you shouldn't be allowed to point out that language is hurtful, as that is controlling language, without any self awareness at all that they are in fact, telling someone else how they are not allowed to use language.
Quote:
What you did there, is one of the reasons why I find the notion of blasphemy (in whichever form) and people being in a position to control language abhorrent, because it's the easiest thing in the world to misrepresent something as being blasphemous based on the definition, redefinition, interpretation, context, ignored context whim and agenda of the Inquisition du jour.
Who is in a position to "control language"? There is no one, no one at all.

As far as who is able to frown upon another's use of language in the context in which they chose to use it, well, that's everyone, unless of course, you are trying to say that we should not be allowed to express disapproval or criticism over someone's use of language, in which case, who exactly is trying to control who here?
Quote:

Specially because it's pointless, other than as an exercise of power (and the less people who like to exercise power over others are in power, the better, IMO),
Except when it is the power over what someone is allowed to criticise, then you want all the power.
Quote:
as I said you can ban the words but it would not solve any underlying issues, if anything it would only exacerbate them, cruel people will use language to try to hurt others regardless of the specific combination of letters and sounds it takes... plus now there is a mechanism in place to limit the freedom of speech of people.
Who is banning words? What it seems is it is less that the people who are pointing out that words and phrases cause harm, but it is the people who want to use those words and phrases anyway who want to ban criticism of their usage.

Sure, you are right that there are many ways to be insulting and derogatory without resorting to words that specifically have histories of hateful bigots using them to express their hate, but most bigots aren't that clever or imaginative.
Quote:
For example it wouldn't surprise me in the least if in their own minds neo Nazis in Germany don't use the the fact that symbols and speech related to Nazism are banned there as a validation to the necessity of their "struggle", probably some variation on the drivel on how the Jews control everything.
Hateful people will always take criticism of their hate as validation of their hate. But, to bend to their will, to avoid upsetting them, to make sure that we don't criticize anyone's hate speech does not actually help. They are full of hate, and they will continue to be full of hate whether they get dirty looks for using ethnic slurs, or people applaud them for the bravery to "just call it as it is."

As the outcome is the same, that those full of hate will be full of hate wither you r criticize or applaud their hate, I'd rather not applaud, YMMV.
Quote:
Now, if you agree with the notion that certain words should be banned you could explain under whose authority and what form of punishment should be used to enforce it.
Exactly, there is none, so all this pearl clutching that you are doing in fear of banned words is entirely a strawman. It is fears that exist only in your own mind. They have no relation to reality, and the only restrictions on speech would come about if you have your way, and criticism of hate speech is banned.

Speaking of which, since you want to ban criticism of hate speech, under what authority, and what form of punishment should be used to enforce it?
Quote:
Also, if that is limited to specific words or would it include what can be interpreted to allude to specific words. If you were in favour of banning the use of "nigger" as a racial slur, how about "the N-word"?, how about "niger"?, reggin?, yelling at black people on the street "hey NEEEEEElam"?, ("honest officer, I thought it was my good pal Neelam across the road!"), etc, etc.. Does it begin to feel futile yet?
Hmmm, it seems you are operating under the impression that cops would be arresting people for misuse of words. Given the nature of your objections, it seems more as if you would be wanting cops to arrest someone if they were to object to or criticize someone for using an ethnic slur.

So, we do end up with a similar issue here. If you belt out some ethnic slurs along with threats and intimidations at a group of minorities, and I say "Hey!"(honest officer, I thought I saw a pile of hay across the road), etc, etc.. do your attempts at policing other's speech in order to avoid any criticism or consequence seem futile yet?
Quote:
It's useless, you may just as well try to fix a car's busted transmission by doing a new paint job.
Or try to keep the crows out of your field by complaining about them.
  #67  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:40 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...former President of the United States Barack Obama used the n-word in a public venue which was widely reported. It was relatively uncontroversial. It appears that intent and context does matter. Can you make a case that it does not?
It was so uncontroversial that it was widely reported?
  #68  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:07 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
It was so uncontroversial that it was widely reported?
"Widely reported" and "controversial" aren't the same thing.
  #69  
Old 01-07-2019, 05:12 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,052
There's a huge difference in entertainment/media between portraying evil and endorsing evil.
  #70  
Old 01-07-2019, 06:27 PM
jaycat jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
The niggling question, I meant to write.
Oh Johnny!
  #71  
Old 01-08-2019, 12:43 AM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 181
Personally, I do not care if the word is used by former President Obama or not. The word has no place in polite society. Context does not matter.

There is no need at all for it.
  #72  
Old 01-08-2019, 01:08 AM
drivekiller drivekiller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
The inherent risk is that there will always be people using "Hey, I'm just referring to the word by quoting Mark Twain." as cover to say the word 1,000 times a day.

Arguably, some would question what your intent is on even starting this thread. As the "just asking questions" trope is also cover for looking for an apology to justify using the word publicly.

Yes the word is toxic, no you can't use it. If that's a BIG DEAL to you, then that says more about you than the word or society at large.
Yalls don't listen to hip hop I guess.
  #73  
Old 01-08-2019, 01:17 AM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivekiller View Post
Yalls don't listen to hip hop I guess.
Can you expand on this usage (person who only has 29 posts in 13 years) ?
  #74  
Old 01-08-2019, 05:56 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
Let's say, if this is an issue someone finds him or herself struggling with on a daily basis, then something is really, really wrong.
They might work in academia studying 19th century literature, or they may be a pop music reviewer, or an expert on the work of Quentin Tarantino...
  #75  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:15 AM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Maybe you want to start a new thread. This one is about the taboo for the word under ANY circumstances (capitalization from the OP).
What I said was directly relevant to the OP if the OP is interpreted in any realistic way.

"...implicit in the OP, maybe the OP should have stated it, but anyway it's obvious from your reference. The issue in non-black people using the word in any context in public."

If OP really meant the word is completely taboo including use by black people, including in rap lyrics (by black rappers at least), then it could be a one post reply thread: 'that's ridiculous, the word might not be universally accepted when used by anyone, but it's obviously not a taboo for black people to use it'. End of thread.

A realistic discussion would be about a ban 'under any circumstances' by non-black people. Which is becoming the norm, as in Netflix firing where the CEO said that it so many words:"For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no context in which it is appropriate or constructive..."

Which is also not a different topic. It's an example directly relevant to this topic.
  #76  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:29 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
What I said was directly relevant to the OP if the OP is interpreted in any realistic way.

"...implicit in the OP, maybe the OP should have stated it, but anyway it's obvious from your reference. The issue in non-black people using the word in any context in public."

If OP really meant the word is completely taboo including use by black people, including in rap lyrics (by black rappers at least), then it could be a one post reply thread: 'that's ridiculous, the word might not be universally accepted when used by anyone, but it's obviously not a taboo for black people to use it'. End of thread.

A realistic discussion would be about a ban 'under any circumstances' by non-black people. Which is becoming the norm, as in Netflix firing where the CEO said that it so many words:"For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no context in which it is appropriate or constructive..."

Which is also not a different topic. It's an example directly relevant to this topic.
I already responded to the OP changing the context. Here's a summary:

1. It's allowable to use it in a use/mention way, as is illustrated by this very thread
2. It's allowable to use it in movies and books, as illustrated by several movies up thread

Agree or disagree? Are these "circumstances"?

There are probably more, but those are off the top of my head. This has been the case for many years IMO, and there is no "recent" taboo against using it in many other circumstances -- that same taboo has existed for decades. IMO.
  #77  
Old 01-08-2019, 01:34 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
Can you expand on this usage (person who only has 29 posts in 13 years) ?
Do not personalize arguments in this fashion. The number of posts or length of time a poster has been active does not speak to the merits of the comments offered.

[/moderating]
  #78  
Old 01-08-2019, 03:01 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I already responded to the OP changing the context. Here's a summary:

1. It's allowable to use it in a use/mention way, as is illustrated by this very thread
2. It's allowable to use it in movies and books, as illustrated by several movies up thread

Agree or disagree? Are these "circumstances"?

There are probably more, but those are off the top of my head. This has been the case for many years IMO, and there is no "recent" taboo against using it in many other circumstances -- that same taboo has existed for decades. IMO.
Disagree, basically. As I covered in my first post, to which your rejoinder, 'this is about some other topic why don't you start another thread', was off point:

The trend now is toward the word being entirely taboo, in any 'context' when
1. coming from a real non-black person (not a fictional character)
2. in public under the person's real name (not anonymously on the internet*)

As illustrated by the Netflix case:
1. apparently a 'use/mention way'.
2. the CEO's statement, Netflix's policy is that word is not allowable from a non-black Netflix employee in 'any context in public', entirely clear in itself, also strongly implies there was a 'context' excuse for the offender, but it's saying there is no such thing for non-blacks.

Nor do I think there's any reasonable argument that Netflix is out in left field on this. It's not an outlier, but an example of the new standard which is replacing the one you described.

*like all kinds of stuff people can get away with under a screen name but not under their real name on social media (if anyone bothers to look) or in straight up real life. IMO 'societal standard' refers to own name and/or real life, not what people 'can' write under screen names on the internet.

Last edited by Corry El; 01-08-2019 at 03:04 PM.
  #79  
Old 01-08-2019, 03:28 PM
Gerald II Gerald II is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post

The poor teacher who wants to stand in front of his class quoting Mark Twain has to carefully tread over his use of this hateful, racist, vulgarity. Yes, that's what lesson preparation is for. Teacher should be fully aware of the vulgarity used, and have an appropriate treatment of it if that quote is so all-fired important to be read aloud in class.
During the 80s and 90s there was controversy in having Huckleberry Finn as part of school's reading curriculum due to the n-word being used repeatedly in the book. Even the TV sitcom "Family Ties" had an episode dedicated to the issue.

Last edited by Gerald II; 01-08-2019 at 03:29 PM.
  #80  
Old 01-08-2019, 04:09 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Disagree, basically. As I covered in my first post, to which your rejoinder, 'this is about some other topic why don't you start another thread', was off point:

The trend now is toward the word being entirely taboo, in any 'context' when
1. coming from a real non-black person (not a fictional character)
2. in public under the person's real name (not anonymously on the internet*)

As illustrated by the Netflix case:
1. apparently a 'use/mention way'.
2. the CEO's statement, Netflix's policy is that word is not allowable from a non-black Netflix employee in 'any context in public', entirely clear in itself, also strongly implies there was a 'context' excuse for the offender, but it's saying there is no such thing for non-blacks.

Nor do I think there's any reasonable argument that Netflix is out in left field on this. It's not an outlier, but an example of the new standard which is replacing the one you described.

*like all kinds of stuff people can get away with under a screen name but not under their real name on social media (if anyone bothers to look) or in straight up real life. IMO 'societal standard' refers to own name and/or real life, not what people 'can' write under screen names on the internet.
You're adding all kinds of provisions to the OP, even after the OP added the provision that it's OK if you're African American. I think a real person writing a book about taboo words would be able to use that word in a mention context under his/her own name. I have no idea what that Netflix exec's history was so I'm not going to comment on it. The OP didn't exclude movies and books from ANY circumstance.

I think that the taboo for non-black folks is not a recent thing, as Gerald II notes about the '80s sitcom.

Anyway, I think you need to move those goalposts back to where the OP had them, even with the OPs added provision.
  #81  
Old 01-08-2019, 05:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Disagree, basically. As I covered in my first post, to which your rejoinder, 'this is about some other topic why don't you start another thread', was off point:

The trend now is toward the word being entirely taboo, in any 'context' when
1. coming from a real non-black person (not a fictional character)
2. in public under the person's real name (not anonymously on the internet*)

As illustrated by the Netflix case:
1. apparently a 'use/mention way'.
2. the CEO's statement, Netflix's policy is that word is not allowable from a non-black Netflix employee in 'any context in public', entirely clear in itself, also strongly implies there was a 'context' excuse for the offender, but it's saying there is no such thing for non-blacks.

Nor do I think there's any reasonable argument that Netflix is out in left field on this. It's not an outlier, but an example of the new standard which is replacing the one you described.

*like all kinds of stuff people can get away with under a screen name but not under their real name on social media (if anyone bothers to look) or in straight up real life. IMO 'societal standard' refers to own name and/or real life, not what people 'can' write under screen names on the internet.
...you've only cited the Netflix case. We don't know (and will never know) the entire context surrounding of the netflix case. And a single case does not indicate "a trend."

White people in this very thread have used the n-word and have not been sanctioned. Context and intent is important. They might be anonymous: but they are still subject to moderation, and so I don't think that those examples should be dismissed as readily as you suggest.
  #82  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:40 PM
Apollyon Apollyon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 2,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
I dislike the idea that modern readers and listeners should privilege their understanding of the word over the way it was used in the past. I think it's important to understand and not to misunderstand Samuel Clemens's use of it, which takes education. I hate the idea that we have to, for example, whitewash the name of Guy Gibson's dog. We need to fight the idea that modern sensibilities regarding the past are correct rather than ignorant; that goes for a lot of things.
My initial feeling regarding the dog was similar, but after some reflection I think there's a reasonable difference between this and say, Huck Finn. As you say, understanding its use in a book requires education; its appearance makes for a teachable moment. The same appearing as the dog's name in a film or TV series, and without the educational input, will elicit a level of reaction that is disproportionate to the historical importance of the name and its use in radio transmissions.
  #83  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:41 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
None of these are archaic words, with the exception of 'nig'.
And 'nig' is military slang - at least in the UK - for a newcomer, especially a recruit, among other things - check the link.

Nigg, of course is a suburb of Aberdeen with a bay and a golf course and also a small farming village north of Cromarty with a nice nature reserve.

Last edited by Quartz; 01-09-2019 at 06:42 PM.
  #84  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:53 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,132
Relevant to the thread because it illustrates something I said, how the mere vocalization of certain sounds, even if unintentionally can be penalized: Meteorologist fired for racial slur on air speaks to CNN

The man misspoke, "fire him" said a government official, and it was so.
  #85  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:35 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Relevant to the thread because it illustrates something I said, how the mere vocalization of certain sounds, even if unintentionally can be penalized: Meteorologist fired for racial slur on air speaks to CNN

The man misspoke, "fire him" said a government official, and it was so.
I thought it was social media pressure that got him fired, unless this was another incident. Also, your link doesn't work. Can you post a proper link so I can see if it was really a government official that got him fired? I'd be really surprised.

Of course, I don't really know what happened in the case I've heard about, but I was surprised he got fired for mangling his words. To me, either they just caved to social pressure or there was some private history there that we aren't privy to.
  #86  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:27 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Relevant to the thread because it illustrates something I said, how the mere vocalization of certain sounds, even if unintentionally can be penalized: Meteorologist fired for racial slur on air speaks to CNN

The man misspoke, "fire him" said a government official, and it was so.
What “government official” are you talking about?
  #87  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:44 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
I don't think this is a positive development at all. It seems like a symptom of a moral panic, the secular equivalent of a blasphemy law. Intent and context should matter.
A news outlet or public figure reports 'so-and-so is in hot water for saying the word nigger'. Then the idiot gallery points and cackles "if it's such a bad word why did you just use it?"

They could make an effort to present the context, but the idiot gallery isn't interested in the context, they just want to say 'nigger' (or dunk on the media for doing the same). So people just work around the issue by bowdlerizing it.
  #88  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:05 PM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
What “government official” are you talking about?
It was the Rochester Mayor who called for his firing, plus the usual social media lynch mobs.

Here's the fixed link to the video I tried to post before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbcCnvTYOk

The man misspoke when reading Marthin Luther King Junior making an unfortunate portmanteau of King and Junior.
  #89  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:52 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I've already cited two places where it was used -- current rap songs and the Jackie Robinson movie, so my view is that the OP is wrong, but I'd be interested in counter cites.
Last year, a group of models have been racked over the coals and had to issue an apology for, while dressing up on backstage during some event, singing along a popular song that included the world "nigger", so it's not because it's in a rap song that you're supposed to say it. You're apparently supposed to stop singing when you should have said this word.

This attitude of thinking that a word is so bad that pronouncing it, even in a context where it should be, for instance academic, is unacceptable, and replacing it by an euphemism ("the N word" ) in these contexts, required, is plainly a Victorian attitude. The fact that many people even think that similarly sounding word should be avoided (the niggardly instance : many people think it shouldn't be used due to the risk of confusion even though they know perfectly that it's not a racial slur. It just sounds a bit like one so...I don't know...a sensitive soul might misheard it, faint, and you will have to bring the salts?) only underline this prudishness extraordinaire.

American are notorious for this kind of prudishness when it comes to "bad words", whose utterance is likely to traumatize children for life and make a kitten die and for thinking that somehow if your hear "beeep" or "N word" instead, even though you know perfectly well what word was meant, it changes absolutely everything and it's not hurtful or offensive at all anymore, but still.

If "nigger", in an appropriate context, is so hurtful, offensive and damaging that it should be avoided, the "N-word" is equally hurtful, offensive and damaging and should be avoided too. Whether one is used or the other, the context is the same, the intent is the same, the meaning is the same, both the speaker and the listener know what word is being used. The only difference is the sound you hear. And there's no possibility that a sound can be damaging in itself. So, the fact that one cannot be used but the other can be used freely even though they are exactly equivalent and carry exactly the same meaning and information demonstrates that the use of the word in context isn't intrinsically as horribly offensive as stated. If it were, "N word" would be too. It shows that, rather, it's an arbitrary taboo, like, for some people, pronouncing or writing the word "God" which is similarly replaced by "G*d".
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 01-13-2019 at 10:52 PM.
  #90  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:12 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
It was the Rochester Mayor who called for his firing, plus the usual social media lynch mobs.

Here's the fixed link to the video I tried to post before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbcCnvTYOk

The man misspoke when reading Marthin Luther King Junior making an unfortunate portmanteau of King and Junior.
Sorry, but your new link doesn't work, either.

And I can't figure out what the "unfortunate portmanteau" could be.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #91  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:29 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Sorry, but your new link doesn't work, either.

And I can't figure out what the "unfortunate portmanteau" could be.
I don't know why the link doesn't work, let's try again or just copy the link text and paste it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbcCnvTYOk

The man was going to say Martin Luther King Junior but he flubbed and mashed up King and Junior, seems to me he corrected himself while saying "Kunior" at the n, the resulting sound happens to be a racial slur and in spite of obviously being neither intention of using a racial slur or even using that word at all, the man was fired.
  #92  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:46 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Sorry, but your new link doesn't work, either.

And I can't figure out what the "unfortunate portmanteau" could be.
Since Ale seems unwilling to actually type it outright:

Coon. The word he's supposed to have said is Coon. Martin Luther Coon.
  #93  
Old 01-14-2019, 06:42 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
A news outlet or public figure reports 'so-and-so is in hot water for saying the word nigger'. Then the idiot gallery points and cackles "if it's such a bad word why did you just use it?"
Also, it’s an axiom in journalism “when correcting an error, don’t repeat the error.”
  #94  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:48 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Since Ale seems unwilling to actually type it outright:

Coon. The word he's supposed to have said is Coon. Martin Luther Coon.
Thank you. Because even after having finally listened to the video, I couldn't figure out what was said. I've a poor understanding of spoken English.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #95  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:20 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
What was said was, as Ale correctly notes, gibberish; a stumble over the "K" sound in "King" and the "oo" sound in "Junior" which ended up close to "coon."

I can't see or hear any intentionality, and the idea that it was a "Freudian slip" seems bizarrely far-fetched to me.
  #96  
Old 01-14-2019, 02:46 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,052
The contradiction of dancing around the word "nigger" is that we don't dance around in the least with other phrases that are equally if not even more offensive, but simply expressed "the right way."


If a history professor said in a lecture, "Adolf Hitler said in 1937, "All Jews must die,'", nobody would object in the least. He's simply quoting Hitler's words in the context of teaching history, and everyone understands that the professor himself has nothing against Jews. And if some anti-Semitic politician were giving a speech in Congress and said, "All Jews must die," everyone would (rightfully) condemn him. Everyone knows it's context and intent, no issue here.

But somehow, with the word "nigger," we are in a situation where even if a TV anchor reports, "David Duke called Barack Obama a "nigger" yesterday" then they would get in trouble for using the word "nigger," even though he is simply quoting Duke's quote, the same way the history prof would have been quoting Hitler.
  #97  
Old 01-14-2019, 02:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The contradiction of dancing around the word "nigger" is that we don't dance around in the least with other phrases that are equally if not even more offensive, but simply expressed "the right way."


If a history professor said in a lecture, "Adolf Hitler said in 1937, "All Jews must die,'", nobody would object in the least. He's simply quoting Hitler's words in the context of teaching history, and everyone understands that the professor himself has nothing against Jews. And if some anti-Semitic politician were giving a speech in Congress and said, "All Jews must die," everyone would (rightfully) condemn him. Everyone knows it's context and intent, no issue here.

But somehow, with the word "nigger," we are in a situation where even if a TV anchor reports, "David Duke called Barack Obama a "nigger" yesterday" then they would get in trouble for using the word "nigger," even though he is simply quoting Duke's quote, the same way the history prof would have been quoting Hitler.
A valid comparison here would be if Hitler said "All the kikes must die". Some words are considered inherently offensive, and generally day-time TV practices don't allow them to be spoken, even if only reporting the words of others. Same goes for non-slur language like fuck, shit, etc.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017