Many of us (most of us, hopefully) don’t think of anyone as that slur. For any that do, the difference is probably mostly what mood they’re in. If they’re in a good mood, black people are black people. If they’re angry, black people (or the ones nearby, at least) are ******s.
I, along with a number of others, have had the term directed at me for no reason other than being black. I think it’s fair to say that the racists in question do not see a difference between someone who is black, and someone who is a nigger. I have had a drive-by experience similar to what monstro described above. I have had it directed at me by someone who noticed me as she was getting off of a bus. I have had it directed at me while walking through Golden Gate Park. There are other examples. I don’t know what stereotype I would have been exhibiting in any of these cases.
For racists, it seems to me that stereotypes embodied by the word “nigger” would be the same stereotypes embodied by being black. Yes, there are exceptions where a racist may feel that a black person isn’t “acting black” and might therefore not warrant the “nigger” label. But these are the exceptions for the racist, not the rule. The default is that being black equals being a nigger, both in name and in action.
I am sincerely unable to understand the “you of all people” part of your post.
That word is not part of my vocabulary, internal or external. Likewise ethnic or sexual slurs about anyone else. It isn’t me in my head going ‘oh be careful, don’t go there!’ Nor is it a conscious choice I made not to use them. It simply isn’t part of my character any more than casual theft or being a bully.
And that’s where I laugh at terms like ‘virtue signalling’. I’m not showing off or saying I’m better than you, I’m genuinely surprised that it is part of some people’s brains and they think everyone is like that, because quite clearly, some of us are not.
I agree entirely with this. There are negative stereotypes associated with black people. My contention is that someone who fits, or who is perceived to fit, those stereotypes is more likely, when encountering racists, to be thought of, or called, a “nigger” than someone who doesn’t. Again, not an absolute, just a more likely. And again, it’s not right or acceptable that that might happen, but it is at some level predictable.
ISTM that by saying “for racists” you’re making your argument somewhat circular.
No doubt, there are some racists who for whom the term has the meaning you ascribe. This is because such people tend to assume that all blacks have these negative traits, such that “being black” and having these traits are synonymous. And such people will also tend to be the type of people who call people such terms while passing them in the park or the like.
But the question WRT the subject of this thread is whether there are also other people, with a different mindset than the people who yelled at you in the park, for whom the term has a different connotation. You can’t make a conclusion about what these people think by pointing to how the term is used by virulent racists, since the use in that manner by virulent racists is itself a product of their virulent racism.
Let’s say for a moment that you’re right (I don’t think you are, but I’ll agree for the moment). Now what? What does this distinction mean? In what way should this influence how we feel about the word?
Relevant question here is suppose someone fits a stereotype of black people which is not negative (e.g. they like watermelon and fried foods). Is this person more likely to be called a “nigger”?
I would guess the answer is “yes” but only for a (more racist) subset of the population. There is a bigger subset of the population which would be more likely to use the term for those with negative stereotypes but not for those with neutral (or positive) ones.
Those stereotypes frequently change – think of the most negatively stereotypical black person today, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and 150 years ago. Those are all very, very different (fictional) people – different appearances, different behaviors, etc.
What doesn’t change is that the slur is about blackness. As blackness changes (i.e. the behaviors and characteristics that society and culture assign to “blackness”), so does any behavior or characteristics (aside from being black) that might happen to correlate with being called by that racial slur.
And thus I think it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that the slur is about race (and society/culture’s beliefs on race) and not any other characteristics, except for those that society has already assigned as being associated (usually negatively) with the race.
I am probably misunderstanding your point, but I don’t think we’re talking about people with a different mindset. I’m not seeing a qualitative difference. What I’m seeing with people like the subject of this thread is that there are simply a larger number of exceptions to the rule for them. I don’t think it changes the idea that “nigger” = “standard black” for your second group.
But why do you think that?
Once you grant that these people assume a larger number of exceptions, then why would you think they must necessarily think of “nigger” as “standard black”?
Do you agree that Chris Rock was not using “nigger” to mean “standard black” in his routine? On what basis would you conclude that he’s the only guy who thinks of the term as he did and anyone else who thinks of the term must mean “standard black”?
Rock was doing a comedy routine. Comedy routines can be a mixture of deliberate falsehoods, outrageousness, snippets of truth, and much more. They’re meant to get laughs. They’re not, or shouldn’t be, the basis of opinions about race and racism.
Comedy routines draw on cultural themes that are understood by the audience. If CR used a term in a completely unconventional way, it wouldn’t have been understood by the audience or been funny.
“Who’s on First” as a comedy bit would seem include using terms in a completely unconventional way. People seem to get that, and find it funny.
I don’t think your first sentence is correct. Using a word as a proper noun is not unconventional at all, and is a concept that everyone has encountered and anyone can relate to.
And your third baseman and shortstop?
If there is nothing unconventional about the usage of the words, then whence comes the questioner’s confusion?
I don’t know and I don’t give a darn.
Man, I didn’t just walk, there’s an imprint on the wall from where I ran into that.
It got a bit stretched by that point, but the joke was clear by then. That’s why they started with the easy ones and got progressively more ridiculous as they went along. It wouldn’t have worked in reverse, and for this exact reason.
The audience is familiar with both the actual meaning of those words as common nouns and the notion of words having no meaning at all when used as proper nouns. So both usages are familiar. The humor is in not knowing which one is meant in a given instance.
It’s hard even to tell what this thread is about anymore. If you call black people “niggers”, you’re racist. It doesn’t matter if you call all black people that, or some subset of black people that. Race is a social construct anyway, and all you did was draw a different construct for a different race that you call “niggers” instead of “black”.
All the rest of this nonsense about comedy routines and stereotypes are simply beside the point. If anyone thinks it’s OK to take the position Annie-Xmas does, that it’s OK to think of certain black people as “niggers”, raise your hand and join the ranks. If you don’t think it’s OK, quit trying to make it sound like it is.
The humor in the Rock routine pretty clearly derives precisely from his abnormal use of the term. It’s obvious even from reading the text:
Do you think Chris Rock really believes that black people are more racist against black people than white people? If so, then I think you’re not really understanding the bit, which is playing with respectability politics, stereotypes, and race in unconventional ways that are precisely what made it funny.