So, a HUGE disclaimer, that, like “nigger”, “uppity” can certainly just mean “some black person who pissed me off who I want to insult”. But that insult certainly has connotations, which are:
(1) Sass/backtalk/not-knowing-ones-place. IE, if a cop pulls over a car with two black people in it, and the cop is asking questions, and one of the black people is politely but insistently questioning the precise legality of every request the cop makes, while the other one instantly complies, the first one is more likely to be called “uppity”
(2) Rising above one’s station IE, going to college, getting a good white collar job rather than remaining part of the eternal underclass. This is particular likely if the “uppity” black person has achieved a higher social standing than the speaker
(3) Not conforming to stereotypes of appearance, manner and lifestyle IE, speaking “standard” English, wearing a suit, having a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and a neatly mowed lawn. Again, this is particularly likely if the “uppity” person is perceived as now being “above” the speaker in some fashion
Obviously these are vague and subjective issues, and many of them, as you have pointed out, convey a lot of meaning about the speaker.
The super-left-wing professors of African-American studies would be doing these studies to show the myriad ways in which the term denigrates and has been historically used to denigrate African-Americans, and aimed at an audience which did not appreciate the full magnitude of the offensiveness. In that specific context, the two sides are “extremely offensive in all sorts of ways” versus “sounds sort of obnoxious”, then promoting the first position is highly PC.
Here, the two sides are “evil but with some additional descriptive/neutral aspects mixed in” and “just absolute pure evil”, so the more PC position is going to be the second. By arguing against the second, you’re contrasting yourself with the “just absolute pure evil” position, and thus seeming to downplay the negative aspects of the term.
Again, it’s not a logical issue. It’s a matter of how you appear and what your relative position is in the discussion (which is one reason it’s so context-dependent). But it’s a powerful force, especially for someone who cares, which is why you’ve been very much on the defensive throughout this thread.
This clearly shows that the speaker thinks a black person who questions legality of every request is “uppity”. This says nothing about the recipient except that the recipient is black. It also conveys the fact that the speaker is a racist moron.
This clearly shows that the speaker thinks a black person going to college, getting a good white collar job, having high social standing is “uppity” It says nothing about the recipient except that the recipient is black. It also conveys the fact that the speaker is a racist moron
This clearly shows that the speaker thinks a black person speaking standard English, wearing a suit or having a house in the suburbs is “uppity” It says nothing about the recipient except that the recipient is black. It also conveys the fact that the speaker is a racist moron.
See how it works? Using “uppity” as a descriptor only shows what a racist moron thinks an “uppity” black person is. It does nothing to describe the recipient, except show that the recipient is black. Same for other words being tossed around in this thread.
I’m not inclined to get involved in this “uppity” discussion. But I will point out that there seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the term “conveys information”, and Max and manson are using it differently.
Max is saying that it conveys information in the opinion of the speaker. manson is apparently taking that to mean conveys accurate information.
It certainly seems to be the position of many/most in this thread.
Again, it is in this thread.
Not only can you not say the word, nor discuss the word, you can’t even think the word.
Who in this thread is explaining what is in other people’s heads? AFAICT it was triggered by Annie X-mas saying what was in her head. I assume she is capable of explaining that. Much of the rest of the thread is people saying “That means you think less of all black people!”, i.e. explaining that they know what’s in her head better than she does.
That’s strange, because I thought it was just the opposite. Max is saying that it conveys information that everyone would know what the speaker would mean by saying “uppity” and I’m saying it could be anything that the speaker thinks is “uppity” and thus meaningless.
Focus on the bold parts of Max’s post. These are the concepts that the speaker is trying to convey. The asking questions, going to college etc. examples are just the basis for the speaker’s opinion.
Your post amounts to an assertion that the basis for the speaker’s assertion is invalid and therefore the outside observer does not learn anything real about the subject of the epithet. I don’t think Max disagrees with that. But he does maintain that you can understand what the speaker is conveying: that in his (invalid) opinion, the subject is above his place etc.
Yeah, the “funny” thing about racial slurs is that they slur the entire race. That’s what makes them different from words like “asshole” and “fuck-head”, which apply to the specific individuals targeted, and why racial slurs are frowned upon in a way that those last two words aren’t.
But I guess that is rocket science to some folks. It’s not like you can call Bill a nigger and then have Jim, who is also black and is sitting right next to him, not feel like he is targeted as well. In fact, if I were with one of my black friends and he was called a nigger, that would trigger a emotional/protective response in me (a white guy) that would generally not happen had he been called an asshole.
Sure, but that does nothing to show whether or not the recipient is, in fact, above his place, etc.
Like I said, it says nothing about the recipient, only about the speaker.
If you want to say “It means the recipient conforms to the behaviors that the speaker thinks are uppity” then I say those behaviors could be ANYTHING, and thus the word conveys no information.
In the original OP premise, Annie would mentally call 2 people niggers. What behaviors do you think she thinks warrant calling somebody that? Could be anything. I know one fact with absolutely surety though. Actually 2 facts. The 2 people are black, and Annie is a racist. That’s it. Any behaviors anyone thinks of could be true, or not, or somewhat, or only a little, or a lot. Could be anything. And thus, no information is provided about the recipients.
My question below is directed primarily at Fotheringay-Phipps and WOOKINPANUB in correlation to their last posts to me, but I would also appreciate responses from MaxTheVool and Shodan to the same.
You have all, to varying degrees, noted that there are many of us who believe the use of the word “nigger” in the thoughts of Annie-Xmas (or anyone else) means she believes blacks to be inferior, and that therefore, she is a racist. As I understand it, you have argued that the conclusion is improper. Here is what I would like to understand from each of you. Do you believe:
[ol]
[li]It is completely unreasonable to think that if Person A is thinking or uttering a racial slur against Person B, that Person A actually has any negative feelings about Person B’s race.[/li]
[li]It is reasonable to think that Person A might have negative feelings about Person B’s race, but unreasonable to feel it is likely.[/li]
[li]It is reasonable to think that Person A likely has negative feelings about Person B’s race, but unreasonable to feel it is definite.[/li]
[li]It is reasonable to think that Person A definitely has negative feelings about Person B’s race, but unreasonable to declare you have proof of it.[/li][/ol]
In an ideal world, I’d love for each of you to describe which answer gets closest to your actual feelings on the subject, but I’m not declaring that any of the four has to be an exact match for what you’re saying. Feel free to elaborate.
I feel that at least two of you are claiming that there’s really nothing at all that any of us should be gleaning about Person A’s feelings on Person B’s race (my Option 1 above). If that’s an unfair characterization of your position, I’d like to know that and understand why.
Let’s go back to the original Annie post that seemed to have started this. She tells us that there are two people she knows who she would mentally call nigger. She MUST have some sort of behaviors in mind that correspond to the word. And since she didn’t say what those behaviors are, she MUST assume that everyone would already know what they were. She thinks she is conveying information about the two people, when she is really not, since I don’t know what behaviors she means. So, she hasn’t conveyed ANY information about the 2 people, other than they are black.
I would think a lot depends on what type of inference you’re using. If you’re saying that the use itself logically implies that the person must have negative feelings about the entire race, then I would stick with 2 as a rebuttable presumption. If you’re looking at it in a statistical sense and saying “what percentage of the population who uses such terms has no negative feelings about the entire race?”, then I would go with 3. But that too is a rebuttable presumption, and you would have to consider other factors like personal history and context and such.
Do you feel this way about other types of slurs too? For example, if you heard someone called a “faggot” and then the speaker said “No, I don’t hate all homosexuals, just the ones who act like faggots” would you feel similar to the way you seem to be implying in this thread?
Thank you. We can (and I’m sure, will) continue to disagree, but I appreciate understanding better what it is we’re actually disagreeing about.
For both 2 & 3, you say the presumptions are rebuttable. I think history (both generally and personally) provide the context that makes those presumptions both fair and very difficult to rebut. The impression I have gotten in this thread’s conversation is that some folks believe we should start from a neutral place when we encounter someone who has a slur as part of their vocabulary, and I don’t think that would be possible for me, at least, even if I thought I had reason to try.
That aside, I couldn’t say. I’m not nearly as familiar with popular and historical usage of the term “faggot” as I am with the term “nigger”, and I don’t really know if it has any specific connotations beyond “gay”.
It’s probably true of the term “wetback”, though. Probably others as well.
Fair enough. Plus substitute “thinking” instead of calling.
Still trying to figure out what connotations there are to the n-word. I have family members who call any black people who are living in a house with an unkempt lawn that word. Is that the connotation you meant? Does Annie mean the two people who she considers that word are black people with unkempt lawns?
The context of this discussion is someone being pitted, which implies a high degree of certainty, and having her explanation rejected, which implies even more. My point has been that the explanation given is rationally conceivable.
I don’t recommend using such terms, regardless of what it does or doesn’t prove about the speaker/thinker.
I’d say somewhere between 2 and 3, but closer to 2. Especially since the person in question is thinking it rather than saying it, and says that she doesn’t think it about black people in general.
Would it be accurate to say that you believe that thinking the term is enough to prove conclusively that the thinker is a racist and looks down on all black people? And that the person in question doesn’t really understand that she does look down on al black people?