It has, and I have. I ask people not to use “that’s gay” as a pejorative around me, f’rinstance. That’s the control I have, and the control I exert. That’s how I influence language, and how I, hopefully, play a role in changing minds.
Again, do you somehow think I’m part of the Illuminati, some gnome of Zurich conspiring to force “political correctness” down your threat? Do you really believe there’s some nascent thinkpol out there, ready to force you to not say certain things? There is no secret police in the US, and we are not Oceania. No one is keeping anyone from talking, writing, hell, even screaming about the niggerskikesfaggotsspicsbitchescripsslantscommiesretards.
But they’ll be judged for it. I’m fine with that. I’ll judge you for your racist, sexist, or otherwise abusive language. I’ll judge you for saying shitty things, and if those reflect shitty thoughts I’ll judge you for those too. There’s the control I exert. In my business, I do not accept abusive or disrespectful language from my co-workers or employees. I can ask them to stop using that language, and as an employer I can make it clear what is or is not acceptable in the workplace. There’s the control I exert.
That’s not mind control. That’s not Thought Police. But maybe, when we stop calling people nigger, some of use will stop *thinking *of people as niggers, at least a little bit. That’s a benefit weighed against the cost of asking people to stop using offensive language. AFAIC, a clear net gain.
Could be that. Could also be that you’re not explaining your position very clearly. What, exactly, did I get wrong in my examples? Scenario 2 is basically what andros has been describing, and you’ve singled him out in particular as practicing mind control, so I’m not seeing why its “obvious” that isn’t what you mean. It seems to be exactly the situation you’re talking about.
Also, take a minute to look up the definition of “autonym.” It doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means.
Ah, maybe. So, maybe not? Like blowing on dice? Maybe it helps. What’s the possible mechanism you think might be operating to change people’s values and prejudices when you exert your control over which words you consider acceptable?
A possible benefit through an unexplained mechanism that might work. Whether there’s any gain from the process is far from clear, but do please lay out the weightings you plucked from thin air before ‘calculating’ the ‘net’ gain.
I think this is the key question, so I’ll answer it alone. If you’d like responses to other parts of what you said, let me know (but I think a lot of it was basically just uninteresting-internet-miscommunication).
So, does convincing people to stop saying “nigger” actually do anything? Does it actually change people’s minds? Does it actually make a difference?
I can think of at least three ways I think it’s likely to have an impact:
(1) people who are actually racist, but are just racist because they grew up being racist without ever really thinking about it. Forcing them to take a moment and stop and think every time they say “black” instead of “nigger” might make them actually also stop and think about who it is they’re talking about, make that person a little more “a person” rather than “the other”. This is the most tenuous, and I’m sure there are people for whom it won’t have that effect
(2) what children hear and learn growing up. Sure a REALLY racist person might raise children in a household in which they constantly here “those black people are lazy and stupid” rather than “those niggers are lazy and stupid”, and it won’t make much of a difference. But there will be plenty of children who are, say, the friends of those children, who are growing up with part of what they learn coming from mass media and pop culture, and part being modeled on the behavior of the teachers and parents and other adults in their lives. There’s a bit of a chicken-egg issue here, but at some point they’ll certainly learn that “nigger” is a vicious slur. At that point, what do they internalize if that’s a term that they’ve heard constantly from many adults they respect, vs. that being a term they’ve heard only very rarely?
(3) how black people themselves (particularly childreh) will feel and learn living in and growing up in this society. How likely is a black person to want to engage in social and societal institutions in a town in which the adults constantly say “nigger” vs “black” or “african american”?
What puzzles me about your position is that you seem to be taking this “you absolutely positively must prove your position” attitude, as if this were a criminal case.
Look, I think that we’ll be better off if video-game-playing-young-men stop using “gay” and “fag” as insults. So I sometimes make posts to that effect, and try to convince them to do so.
Can I prove that I am right, and that we would in fact be better off? No. It might have no effect. Or it might have a positive effect as expected but also negative side effects that would outweigh the positive effects. But, so what? I have good arguments as to why I expect it to have a positive effect, and it’s just trying to convince people to use different words. It’s not a big deal! It’s something that thousands of different groups of people have been doing for centuries. Some have succeeded. Some got laughed out of court. Some succeeded for a while and then we went back. And some are still up in the air (might we end up using “actor” for both men and women in 20 years? maybe).
What’s so sinister and horrifying? Why is trying-to-get-people-to-use-different-words so shockingly dangerous that it demands an incredible burden of certainty before it’s reasonable to even begin?
There was no question (not even a rhetorical question). There was a call for evidence.
Yes, but not the thing it aims to do. Mostly it creates resentment, eg, towards ‘those uppity niggers making demands about what you call them now’.
No, it changes their words, in your company. They revert to ‘nigger’ at home.
A difference to what? I suppose it might make some racists more creative in the way they express themselves.
Likely? Hmm.
If they didn’t get any of that from the civil rights movement etc, then the dice-blowing of changing the words won’t have any more effect than it does when you play craps.
But ‘nigger’ isn’t a vicious slur - the slur is not in any particular arrangement of letters, it’s in the attitude with which it’s used. It’s superstition to suppose otherwise.
Ah, will nobody think of the children! Again, it depends how it’s said - and whether they’ve been indoctrinated with your superstition. If all the adults say ‘black’, but never invite the niggers to dinner and warn their own kids from playing with the ‘blacks’, what’s been achieved? Your dice-gods have been appeased, is all.
I do use ‘actor’ regardless of gender, though I occasionally meet actresses who insist on that label.
Part of the ‘big deal’ stems not from your own position, but from those adamant that language must be controlled in order to control minds (and who, failing to support their own ideas, resort to ‘vicious slurs’ of their own).
It’s not that I think of it as dangerous, so much as unnecessary, misguided and superstitious. I also find it tiresome having to keep up with whatever this season’s terms are.
Ah, so not “the population at large,” but a specific population. They wore no jackboots, they did not try to enforce anything with force. They did not succeed. Had the school adopted their ideas, we could have a different discussion.
Nope, nor do I believe that anyone is ‘sub-human’. I just think that the viciousness and the slur are separate from any given arrangement of letters. In South Africa, for example, ‘black’ can be just as vicious a slur, and yet several decent, honourable posters recommend it.
By the way, isn’t following someone from one thread to another to have a go at them strictly against the rules? It’s the Pit, so you can claim I’m racist and I can say you’re a kiddy fiddler, but that you’re doing it because we disagree elsewhere is against the rules for perfectly good reasons. Back in your box, eh.
“What is this lan-gwich you hyoo-mons use” is an imbecilic tack to take in any discussion.
That’s news to me. It’d be news to the Blacks, too.
Gosh, which poster have I seen accuse me of stalking before…
Erm, no, I *responded *to your idiotic statement here, by pointing out it’s similar to an idiotic statement made elsewhere recently. That’s not calling you racist (and if you followed the link, you’ll see i wasn’t calling Steophan a racist either), that’s pointing out you’re an idiot.
It seems to me an imbecilic tack would be the best way to deal with an imbecile…but I don’t recognise (or, frankly, understand) the ‘tack’ you imply I’m taking. Try to exert whatever intelligence you generally leave languishing and see if you can’t follow the reasoning. Suppose, for example, a black rapper calls another ‘nigga’ - is it a slur? Apparently not, proving that the slur is *not/i] in the arrangement of letters.
As for South Africa, when apartheid racists referred to ‘lazy blacks’ for example, the word ‘blacks’ was a slur (and no doubt still is for racists there). Or are you suggesting it was a compliment?
I have no idea who’s accused you of stalking before - do you do it a lot? I do recall suggesting once before that someone had followed me from one thread (the same thread I assume motivated your comments here) to another. Was that also you? You do do this a lot, eh Again, try to understand why it’s considered very poor form, there’s a good chap.
If you weren’t calling me a racist, by your selective quote and implication of acquaintance with someone who, according to your link to a thread about ‘sub-human blacks’, thinks that blacks are sub-human, then you might be better served by communicating more clearly. I didn’t really read through your link (again, if you were trying to communicate, that’s not a particularly good method - why should I care about this stranger you want to link me with (or you for that matter) enough to read a whole other thread?) Do try to think these things through, eh?
Isn’t the Pit fun? The one place you can call someone a troll. The word seems to have lost any real meaning now though, of course, as it just gets used to mean “I don’t like you, and I’m pretty thick so I can’t really argue or discuss or debate so’s you’d notice, so I’m going to call you names instead.” For the record (and though a certain rule may be applicable here), I’m putting you back in your box.
Again, try to understand why it’s considered very poor form, there’s a good chap.