I wouldn’t go quite that far.
I agree with this. One of my pet peeves is that a word is so unspeakable that we have to treat each other like children, even when discussing it academically.
Grownups can distinguish between “John said Apple, and people were angry.” and “Bill is an Apple.”
The thing is, though, that once a controversial word and its euphemism(s) are that well known, there’s no longer any need at all to use the actual word in order for people to understand exactly what word you’re talking about.
Everybody knows what the phrase “the N-word” and similar are referring to, so the circumlocution doesn’t impede communication in the least.
(Likewise, it doesn’t interfere with reading comprehension when Victorian novelists or some Orthodox Jews write “G-d” for the name of the deity. It’s clear what they mean.)
At that point you’re not trying to slip information past the uncomprehending ears of the innocent “children” or anybody else. You’re just avoiding the explicit rendering of a word widely considered inappropriate.
But we don’t apply that to any other word that I know of. I’ve seen all manner of curse words and other racial epithets quoted in news stories and the like. And while credible news outlets don’t generally publish words like “fuck” or “shit” they will at times, if they feel the situation warrants.
It’s to the point where I doubt very much that a movie about triumphant civil rights advocates in the 60s would utter that word, even to show what assholes the antagonists were. That’s treating the audience like children.
This isn’t about a desire to see that word- I’m all in on team “bad word.” But it isn’t Voldemort.
Who’s “we”? I just gave an example of another word that is indeed “redacted” in the same way by some people in contemporary communication, namely “God”.
Yes, at present the “N-word” appears to be by far the most commonly redacted word in the English language, but that doesn’t mean that the practice of redacting it is automatically invalid or wrong.
No, it isn’t. I really don’t see where you’re getting this feeling about the choice to redact the explicit expression of some word somehow being condescending or infantilizing towards one’s audience. Okay, you apparently feel that way about it, but plenty of other people don’t.
I personally happen to agree that redacting the N-word in a supposedly realistic historical dramatization of Civil Rights Era struggles would come across as unconvincing and unnecessary, but it would not strike me in any way as “treating the audience like children”.
I’ve definitely seen similar constructions used for “cunt” and “faggot.”
Those words are redacted by some, but by no means is that a cultural norm that one ignores at one’s peril.
We let grownups see, hear, and read things that might be upsetting. So to my mind, if a movie producer were to “disallow” that word because it was upsetting, infantilizing is exactly what it would be.
Back in the early 80s, I distinctly remember an episode of “Gimme a Break” where that word was used to drive an anti-racism plot. Do you think that could happen today? If not, is the reason that this high-minded episode was misguided, or is it because people would be outraged at the word itself?
See my response to Kimstu. All “bad words” are censored some times, by some people. But both “cunt” and “faggot” will see use without uproar. You used them here in an entirely appropriate, clinical manner. But would you do the same with the N-word?
I think I could type the word “nigger” out in a context, such as this one, where there’s a clear distinction between “use” and “mention,” without encountering significant blowback.
If I weren’t trying to make a specific rhetorical point, I’d probably still type “n-word,” because typing it out in full makes me feel kind of gross, but it’s not out of fear of a woke mob coming at me with pitchforks and downvotes.
Although it’s not redacted universally. Because, of course, it’s a “reclaimed” word that’s used liberally by some Black people. That implies that just hearing or seeing the word is not in itself triggering regardless of context.
So if the raw intrinsic emotional impact of the non-redacted word is not the reason, why the necessity to redact when it’s mentioned in reported speech or discussion?
Perhaps the strict taboo is because racism is still so rife, to ensure that racists have no loophole to introduce the word gratuitously and claim that they were mentioning the word rather than using it.
Im sorry, but i worry about the folks who feel obligated to use that word in conversation.
Sure, but we also let grownups decide not to write, say or broadcast things that they or their audiences consider unnecessarily and/or gratuitously upsetting. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they think their audiences aren’t mature enough to handle being upset, just that they are choosing to avoid this particular upsettingness as a needless distraction from their message.
To my mind, your interpretation comes across as way too touchy and oversensitive, looking for insult and condescension where none may be intended. Do you similarly feel “infantilized” if an author or producer decides to depict, say, an aggression situation without explicitly showing the details of gory acts of violence? In your view, can content providers ever choose to avoid potentially upsetting explicit depictions without “infantilizing” their audience?
I’m not familiar with the show, but are you referring to this episode?
Sounds like even back then, the adults in that episode thought that the mere fact that the daughter even said the N-word was pretty bad and offensive, even though she wasn’t directly using it as a slur herself.
(What I think might be considered really “undepictable” these days is a supposedly sympathetic character’s threat to physically beat his tweenage daughter, thereby frightening her to the point of locking herself in a bathroom, escaping through a window, and stealing a vehicle that she can’t legally drive in order to get away from him, but that’s another issue.)
Anyway, if a TV producer today decided not to use such a plot device in order to avoid the explicit use of an offensive racial slur, from an artistic standpoint that might be a good decision or a bad one, depending on context. But it would not automatically be “infantilizing” the audience to decide not to broadcast an offensive racial slur on the grounds that the audience (or at least a significant part of it) strongly dislikes the word.
ISTM that the mindset of instantly jumping to the conclusion that such a decision is “treating the audience like children” is “infantilizing” itself.
Same here. It’s one thing to say, for instance, “yeah I think that movie about Malcolm X’s life came across as less believable because it never showed anybody using the N-word”. But it’s kind of a different thing to insist that the creators of an artwork absolutely MUST be willing to use the N-word or else they’re “treating the audience like children” and need to be scolded for it.
Perhaps I was unclear. If we are talking about a prohibition imposed by the collective, then yes. Obviously artistic choices are another matter.
Not quite what I was trying to say. The word was recognized as an unacceptable slur, even then. It is so now, including by me. But they used the actual word, rather than sanitizing it as “the n-word.” I don’t think that would fly today.
I’m trying to remember the last time I heard the N word on broadcast television. IIRC Boston Public had a whole episode about the word’s origin, baggage and current use. They didn’t censor but did have a warning before the episode.
About 5 years ago, I saw the musical Big River (based on Huckleberry Finn) in Connecticut. Naturally, the N word is peppered throughout the dialogue. There was a warning before the play began.
Still unclear, sorry. Did you actually mean not “yes” but “no, content providers can’t choose to avoid potentially upsetting explicit depictions without ‘infantilizing’ their audience”, if that choice stems from “a prohibition imposed by the collective”?
And what is this new goalpost-shifting condition of “a prohibition imposed by the collective”, anyway? Is it just a way to make the concept of “current cultural standards of acceptability” sound all nasty and totalitarian?
Not sure when this dates from, but it’s a Chappelle sketch entirely based on the term and various racial stereotypes.
Chappelle’s Show - The Niggar Family - Uncensored - YouTube
Is this historically accurate? My impression is that it’s not a “reclaimed” word, but rather that Black people always used it and never stopped.
This is how I see it. @Miller mentions feeling kind of gross typing it out, and I do get that, but I don’t feel any better using third grade terminology either. At the very least, could the news media just say “racial slur”?
I’ve seen Chappelle’s show and the Boondocks show on Cartoon Network. I may have used the wrong word. I meant over the air, non cable television.
When our high school reported that there was a “hateful racial slur” painted in the boys bathroom, there was a clamor from the right wing nuts to be more specific because “people are offended at everything these days”
The actual phrase was “Kill all n-words” with of course the word spelled out. For all the talk of cancel culture the culprit got a one day suspension.
The 2013 film 42, starring Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson, had a racist baseball manager played by Alan Tudyk say the word so many times it’d make your head spin.