I never said it was a 1:1 correlation. The point is just because there are many derogatory terms, that does not mean we give up on not using them because there are too many of them. As to your point about words that describe behavior as opposed to being just insults, another false correlation. Now that direct insults are not accepted (well, obviously, you accept them) people have to start misappropriating words.
It gives oppressed people a tiny modicum of power in an area where they are traditionally powerless. It upholds the dignity of an oppressed class in an area where they are traditionally without dignity.
It’s the least we can do. Literally.
No, hey, if I can use a term that describes the exact same people the exact same way, and this somehow upholds the dignity of completely different people, I will mystifiedly keep slinging synonymous pejorative after synonymous pejorative at folks who entirely deserve it while earning commendations for my diction.
Hey, I don’t want to be patronizing but thanks for discussing this with us and considering taking better options
I read that 3 times, and I still don’t understand it.
Thank-you for being unambiguous about your position. However, I’m unwilling to stop calling black people thugs when they are being thugs. I understand that it can have a racist tone, and so am careful not to use it when black people are not being thugs.
This strikes me as hyper-sensitive PC nonsense, and I’m especially not receptive to the idea that certain groups of people can use certain words, but other groups can’t. If a group wants me to stop using a word, the first thing they need to do is stop using it themselves. Then I’ll consider it.
Because its easier to type. And its childish to pussyfoot around the word in my opinion.
I don’t get the vapors when I hear it in a rap song (accidentally that is). Nor when I read it in Huck Finn when applied in a more neutral tone. Or when Fred Sanford used in traffic court on national television.
1- I thought you were doing it just to try and goad me
2- That episode of Sanford and Son was hillarious
Huh? Why don’t you believe it’s offensive to me. How big does a minority that is not “widespread” have to be before you have to listen and change your speaking habits?
That sounds good. I wish I could explain it to a degree that you would no longer be mystified, but your willingness to do the thing that clearly has the right effects even while unsure how those effects come about is admirable.
Because in context you put it forward as a what-if type example, not as something you were claiming actually to find harmful to yourself.
Let’s say I claimed it that way. Are you willing to stop using it?
You said you are not receptive to the idea that certain groups of people can use certain words but other groups can’t. “Not receptive” covers several acres of semantic space so let me get clarity on that. Are you intending to imply that white people ought to be allowed to call black people niggers? Or how about “boy”?
As to the passage you failed to understand after three readings:
Bobot said (paraphrasing) that there are people in this thread who are unclear as to when “thug” is supposed to be inappropriate.
You misinterpreted him as saying (paraphrasing) that there are people in this thread who are unclear as to when “thug” is inappropriate.
You asked for examples.
I provided an example (you) of someone who fits the first description.
You rejected it, incorrectly, because it is not an example of someone who fits the second description.
What do you find unclear about the above, still, if anything?
No problem. I merely note that, as connotations attach and those options dwindle away one by one, I’ll remain as decent a chap as ever despite running out of ways to show it. And at that point, I’ll presumably be back to expressing my race-neutral sentiments using terms that can’t help but offend, and then we’re back to square one.
Apologies in advance for the day when synonyms run dry and accuracy prevails.
I’d apologize and stop using it when I know you are around to hear it.
Post #258? I wouldn’t change for one person obviously but if a word like widespread, or poppycock, or whatever, if it could be demonstrated to me that it actually bothered a group of people then yes, I would most definitely consider using another term.
Apologies in advance accepted, but they need not be offered really because language doesn’t work like that. Its flexibility makes your imagined vocabularitive apocalypse impossible.
So you’re willing to stop using the word “widespread” on this board? Thanks.
I am sure I can find a couple of people who would agree with me, if only to see if you stop using the word.
In reality I don’t think it will be a problem. In 10 years we will have a climate where coded racist lingo won’t be a thing,it won’t happen. Or at least I hope. Maybe 20. I’m not talking about an atmosphere of oppression or censorship, I mean we will finally outgrow it as a society.
If you did find the word’s use harmful to you. But you don’t.