I disagree. If it’s seen as more offensive, that means black people have more power to wield (soft power to be sure) against those who use the word.
The person is within their rights to say that the word hurts their feelings, and the user of the word is within his rights to keep using the word.
The question is, who’s the asshole?
You have to go by numbers of the affected persons and their offense to it to decide if it’s offensive. I take offense at the pejorative “cracker”, yet a large majority of Americans find it from inoffensive to silly. Therefore, although I don’t like it, I realize that most people don’t care about it either, and so I try not to let it bother me.
“Transgender” and “transsexual” are factual descriptions which were not created with a pejorative intent. Nor are they normally used as an insult or attack. “Tranny” has become insulting to many transgender persons because it carries an implication that it refers to a drag queen, crossdresser, or prostitute. “Shemale” (sometimes “she-male”) at one time was not as offensive as it was today (such as the biography of Cocchinelle, which was titled such), but rapidly became associated with pre-op prostitutes, and thus now is seen as offensive.
I don’t know what you’re disagreeing with, because that’s basically what I just said…and the opposite of what “reclaiming” slurs was supposed to do.
And it’s not just Ann Arbor: Queer - Wikipedia
In the future, if you are going to correct me, will you please grant me the courtesy of actually being correct? It’s irritating to have to cite shit I got right the first time. Thx.
I didn’t say you were wrong, I said that “queer” by itself fails. Genderqueer is more correct, but I agree it’s shortened to queer. I was expanding upon your answer, not rebutting it.
I guess I was thrown off because you opened up with a remark that “[Racial slurs being used less, and use of slurs connoting more severe bigotry than before] is the opposite of what “reclaiming” slurs was supposed to do.”
I was explaining that I disagree with that statement–that I think this is exactly (part of) what the reclaiming is supposed to achieve, and that it works, since it means (as you’ve agreed) the minority in question now has more social power to work with.
After what you just said, on re-reading the body of your post, I can see that we’re in substantial agreement. But I’d suggest, then, that you’re also in substantial agreement with typoink as well.
ETA: Though I said it looks like we’re in substantial agreement, I’d still disagree it’s the opposite of what reclaiming was supposed to do. Reclaiming means “it’s our word now,” which means if you (not us) use it, you’re even worse than people who used to use it before we staked our claim on it.
Yep, Frylock did a good job of elucidating what I meant.
On further reflection, though, I think there’s another element. Reclaimed words don’t become “powerless,” but there is an important shift in meaning. I think both the n-word and f-word are cases where those words used to trigger fear but now are at least as likely to trigger anger and indignation. That is, I think, a meaningful change and I do think the reclamation by the communities is partly responsible.
No, that’s not what reclaiming words means or what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to render previously derogatory terms inoffensive, the idea being that if there’s nothing wrong with being X (black, gay, etc.) then there should be nothing wrong with a word that means X. Advocates of reclaiming say that people who are X should embrace these terms with pride. This will cause them to lose power as insults, because people who are X won’t get upset when called these names anymore. There are a number of terms (including “black” and “gay”) that were once considered derogatory, were embraced by the group they described, and came to be accepted as a standard, neutral term for that group.
However, if a word once considered a derogatory term for group X instead comes to be seen as even more offensive than before when used by people who are not X, that means the word has gained rather than lost power as an insult. If this occurs because of attempts to reclaim the word by group X (which you and typoink seem to believe) then this reclaiming thing has badly backfired. Reclaiming derogatory terms wasn’t intended to make it easier for others to hurt or offend members of group X by using these words against them.
Again though, I don’t buy that attempts to reclaim derogatory terms has actually had such an effect. I think it’s even less acceptable for white people to use “the N-word” now than it was in the past because racism is less acceptable now, not because the word has been tossed around pretty casually by some popular black entertainers. But either way the word obviously hasn’t been rendered powerless, as evidenced by the fact that people in this thread (including me) have been avoiding spelling it out as if it were Lord Voldemort’s name.
That’s not what the OP was asking, though. He asked if reclaiming disparaging terms renders them less powerful as insults or can transform them into affirmative terms. There are cases where this has happened, but you’re arguing that attempts to reclaim certain slurs has produced the opposite of the intended effect and made them even more inflammatory.
How do you know this?
Can you provide a quotation or two substantiating this? Myself, I’m just working from my personal and professional familiarity with people belonging to populations that reclaim derogatory terms. My experience is, in that sense, anecdotal. What is it you’re relying on?
But above you explicitly agreed with me that in such cases, the minority population in question has gained social power as a result. That doesn’t sound like “backfiring” to me. I’m confused.
Who said anything about it being easier to hurt them using slurs? What I have said is that the social group has gained power, not because the word has become more hurtful, but because the word makes you look like an asshole when you use it.
I also wouln’t say that reclaiming the word has “caused” it to be that people who use the word as a slur now look worse. That was already happening, for other reasons. The reclaiming of the word (and the concomitant power gain) comes in the wake of that phenomenon.
Well, for starters it’s the topic of this thread. I am currently dealing with what is probably carpal tunnel syndrome, and it’s taken kind of a lot out of me to type as much here as I already have. And since I’m not the OP, I don’t feel it’s really my responsibility to spend my weekend looking up quotes to support the basic premise of this thread. Take it up with astro if you need cites.
I’ve already explained myself to you in as simple and straightforward a manner as I can. If you’re still confused then I guess that’s just too bad.
I can see that. Straight was probably used somewhat pejoratively in the beginning, but like gay, didn’t offend enough people to be a big deal, so it’s what we’ve got.
Okay, my apologies, I had thought you were making claims rather than just explicating the OP. That’s on me.
I do wonder where the OP got his/her idea from.
Haha okay you magnificent person.
Actually, no. I think provoking a response of anger or indignation IS a reduction in power vs being able to provoke fear of personal safety. I think the reclaiming use of the f-word within LGBT communities HAS had an impact on that, although, of course, increasing social acceptance has as well.
There’s no way to make somebody saying, say, the f-word completely inoffensive because that word choice has hate at it’s core. Some words like “gay” or “queer” have been very effectively reclaimed because they have been reused as somewhat generic descriptors. Some words have a bigger uphill battle.