Is this actually racist?

[lance_strongarm]

@Frylock

Why would you think this?

Of course intention matters when you use words. You can’t use words without intention. You’d just be babbling.

And the fact remains that I have seen no evidence in this thread (and per force no evidence has been presented in this thread) that you would actually act the way you say you would act when you have hurt someone with your usage of a word. That’s fine if you have no intention to prove it. You have no intention to prove it, and indeed, you haven’t done so. You have in fact given evidence for the opposite view, as I further explained.

And the fact remains that this is not about me, nor do I feel any obligation to prove anything to you.

No one has denied you the right. You’re not engaging with the actual issue at hand.

So if I say “I don’t think it’s wrong to call a black person a thug,” that’s my right?

Are you going to keep using the word or not?

The issue is how I decide and what happens when I decide. My decision isn’t important.

I have half a feeling you’re not going to! That even as you argue here, you’ve actually seen the merit in your interlocutors’ position and are going to adjust your own behavior accordingly, and are now just looking for something to argue about and also not wanting to admit you kind of lost the previous argument. This would certainly explain the way you just tried to avoid the question of what you’re actually going to do.

Don’t have feelings about what I’m going to do, please. Don’t think for me and don’t put thoughts in my head either.

Nobody is going to tell you the word “chair” hurts them. It doesn’t matter for this conversation what you’d do if they did, because for such a thing to happen, so many things would have to be different about how human beings work the situation would no longer be meaningfully analogous to the “thug” situation.

It’s completely analogous. I’m simply using reductio ad absurdum to show that the idea that anyone can declare a word to be offensive, and nobody can object, is absurd.

[andros]

@lance_strongarm

But then what? If we’re going to be mad at racists, we have to know who they are, don’t we?

:shrug: I don’t know about “we,” but I don’t have any agenda to identify or vilify racists. I have something of an interest in identifying racist behaviors.

Or you can simply have a rational, honest disagreement about it.

Sure. Disagreement about which part, in particular? ISTM that when discussing “thug,” there are only a few things to disagree about. Would you disagree that “thug” is used by some as a racist code word? Or that its use is perceived by some to be racist?

'Cos if not, the only area of disagreement I can see is in degree. How many use the term as racist language, whether intentionally or not, and how many perceive it that way.

And, of course, we can disagree about whether or not the risk of being perceived as racist is worthwhile, but that’s entirely subjective.

[lance_strongarm]

@andros

Sure. Disagreement about which part, in particular? ISTM that when discussing “thug,” there are only a few things to disagree about. Would you disagree that “thug” is used by some as a racist code word? Or that its use is perceived by some to be racist?

'Cos if not, the only area of disagreement I can see is in degree. How many use the term as racist language, whether intentionally or not, and how many perceive it that way.

Additional possible areas of disagreement I can think of:

-whether or not one can use a word in more than one sense, depending on context or other factors, or just plain explaining your meaning and intent.

-whether the speaker’s status matters, e.g. if a black person says “thug” (like, as noted earlier, Obama recently did).

-whether the word is often used to refer to whites, etc., which severely weakens the argument that it’s strictly a racial term

And, of course, we can disagree about whether or not the risk of being perceived as racist is worthwhile, but that’s entirely subjective.

Perception is not always reality, of course. But not everyone cares.

[lance_strongarm]

@DoggyDunnit

Thanks.

Almost always, it’s been that they straight-up think I am one.

Most of the time, it’s been strangers in public places (restaurants, waiting rooms, buses, trains, parks, et cetera) who think I can’t hear what they’re whispering about. My hearing may suck, but it doesn’t suck that much!

I’m politically active, so I have been called one to my face several times, mostly during activist events. I’ve always responded with some variation on “well then, brother/sister, you’ve managed to meet the most intelligent, articulate ‘thug’ in the state!”

I just thought of this question that’s perfect for you.

I’ve been discussing the idea here that others may define the words one uses. For instance, if others begin to use a word like “thug” in a racist way, someone like me can no longer use it without it being racist.

Suppose we turned that around when it comes to how you dress. If someone were to say you look like a “thug” because you dress “gangsta” or whatever, you know, the standard black hoodie thing, and you said you have a right to dress however you want…what if they said others have already defined your clothes as thuggish, so if you choose similar clothes, that’s your choice and they have a right to see you as a thug? If you want respect, you should put on a suit or whatever? I see an analogy between that and the discussion about language.

(This is an honest, respectful question based on a hypothetical only. Please, nobody read some agenda into it or whatever. That’s getting tired.)

[Frylock]

@lance_strongarm

I’ve been discussing the idea here that others may define the words one uses.

It’s just a straight up fact that, for every word you use in the English language, others defined that word for you. You defined zero of the words you use.

Go ahead and try it. Try to define a word to mean something differently from what it already means when you use it. Start using it in the new way. Insist on the new meaning all you want. See what happens. See if the word -actually- changed meaning, or see if it just turns out you’re going around -acting- like it has a different meaning from the meaning it -actually- has.

[Frylock]

@lance_strongarm

So if I say “I don’t think it’s wrong to call a black person a thug,” that’s my right?

Of course that’s your right. You have been told several times (not yet by me, but by others, and I’ve implied it) that you have a right to be as much of a jerk as you want to be.

My decision isn’t what’s important.

Your decision is literally the only thing at stake in this conversation, as in, it’s the only thing that could possibly change relevant to and as a result of this conversation. You’re already familiar with my argument as to whether anything more grandiose is at stake here.

It’s completely analogous.

This is a counter-assertion. I gave you an explanation as to why it’s not analogous.

You have every right to ignore the explanation I suppose! Enjoy your rights!

[lance_strongarm]

@Frylock

It’s just a straight up fact that, for every word you use in the English language, others defined that word for you. You defined zero of the words you use.

I disagree.

Go ahead and try it. Try to define a word to mean something differently from what it already means when you use it. Start using it in the new way. Insist on the new meaning all you want. See what happens. See if the word -actually- changed meaning, or see if it just turns out you’re going around -acting- like it has a different meaning from the meaning it -actually- has.

If I can’t do that, how are new words invented or how do they change meaning? We’d all be speaking Old English if nobody could do it.

How is it that “thug” became racist if nobody can use a word in a new way?

[lance_strongarm]

@Frylock

Of course that’s your right. You have been told several times (not yet by me, but by others, and I’ve implied it) that you have a right to be as much of a jerk as you want to be.

And I have a right to disagree about being a jerk.

Your decision is literally the only thing at stake in this conversation, as in, it’s the only thing that could possibly change relevant to and as a result of this conversation. You’re already familiar with my argument as to whether anything more grandiose is at stake here.

Nice way of saying “I’m right and you can’t disagree with me, so everything else is settled.”

I don’t accept that.

This is a counter-assertion. I gave you an explanation as to why it’s not analogous.

No you didn’t. I think the analogy works just fine. You basically said “nobody would say chair is offensive” which doesn’t address the analogy at all.

You have every right to ignore the explanation I suppose! Enjoy your rights!

Thanks.

[lance_strongarm]

@andros

My long hair, tattoos, and earrings communicate things to people; I run a risk of people judging me based on my appearance. I acknowledge and accept that risk.

So if someone calls you a pathetic ugly hippy freak, that’s entirely your fault and you should stop dressing like a pathetic ugly hippy freak? Others define you and how you should dress because their perception of you is all that matters?

(Sorry to respond twice.)

[lance_strongarm]

@tomndebb

Possibly. However, while additional info modifies it, it came across as "Some of my best friends are. . . "

I think we should stop villifying “some of my best friends are…” What if they are? Why isn’t that a legitimate point, at least sometimes?

[Peremensoe]

lance, is there anything that anyone could say to you–any account of their experiences which are not yours, say–which would suffice to convince you? If, hypothetically, 90% of black people and 50% of white people tell you that, yeah, “thug” is kinda carrying some racist connotations these days, do you still insist on a sovereign right to use it on your own terms?

[andros]

@lance_strongarm

Additional possible areas of disagreement I can think of:

-whether or not one can use a word in more than one sense, depending on context or other factors, or just plain explaining your meaning and intent.

Of course one can. Who’s questioned this? We are in part, for example, discussing the word “thug,” which I just used in a context that is not at all racist.

-whether the speaker’s status matters, e.g. if a black person says “thug” (like, as noted earlier, Obama recently did).

I guess that could be a point of disagreement, but I’m not seeing where anyone made the argument that the President is exempt from criticism because of his political office.

-whether the word is often used to refer to whites, etc., which severely weakens the argument that it’s strictly a racial term

I’m not seeing that anyone here has made such an argument. If someone does, I’m happy to disagree right along with you.

Perception is not always reality, of course. But not everyone cares.

With respect, no shit. Not caring how one is perceived, or by whom, is always an option.

[andros]

@lance_strongarm

So if someone calls you a pathetic ugly hippy freak, that’s entirely your fault and you should stop dressing like a pathetic ugly hippy freak? Others define you and how you should dress because their perception of you is all that matters?

“All that matters?” I have no idea where you get that from what I’ve written.

I cannot control others’ perceptions of me except through my appearance, words, and demeanor. I realize that my daily appearance probably causes some people to judge me negatively. I’m perfectly happy to ignore those people, because they are outliers in my life–some idiot motherfucker wants to call me a faggot, let him, doesn’t affect my life. If I wear a “Fuck Work” tee and ripped jeans to my office job, I should probably expect a different degree of judgement, no?

We make that sort of judgement all the time. How we dress, what we say, what we drive, how we come across, we’re almost always doing it for the sake of other peoples’ perceptions.

I use profanity a lot. That carries with it a certain perception among some people of poor education, assholery, or general doofusness. I judge that to be acceptable in most my life. But I’m not going to cuss to my mom, because I know it would cause her offense.

I do not use the word “nigger” to refer to people. That carries a degree of offense and social opposition that I find unacceptable (to the degree that I have thoroughly internalized its offensiveness). But I just used it in a rhetorical way; I recognize I will still be judged negatively by some for doing so, but to a degree that I’m comfortable with.

If one purely does not give a fuck about what others think, well…fine, I suppose? But being a hermit probably gets old.

[Frylock]

@lance_strongarm

No you didn’t.

I literally did. It is an emprical, established fact that I gave my view (that it’s not analogous) and my reason for thinking the view is true. Your flat assertion here that I didn’t do this is utterly unsupportable by any observation anyone would make of the post in question.

You’re not acting like someone who is taking a conversation seriously.

[Frylock]

@lance_strongarm

I think we should stop villifying “some of my best friends are…” What if they are? Why isn’t that a legitimate point, at least sometimes?

The phrase is inevitably used to defend racist/sexist/etc behavior.

It could be a legitimate point in theory. In actuality, as far as I know, it is never a good point in context. How could it plausibly be? The racist/sexist/etc effects of an action do not turn on whether the racist/sexist/etc in question has black/female/etc friends. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fact that a person has those friends will have any bearing on the question of whether they’ve done something racist/sexist/etc.

[Frylock]

@lance_strongarm

I disagree.

If I can’t do that, how are new words invented or how do they change meaning? We’d all be speaking Old English if nobody could do it.

Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? It generally works like that.

[iiandyiiii]

@Frylock

The phrase is inevitably used to defend racist/sexist/etc behavior.

It could be a legitimate point in theory. In actuality, as far as I know, it is never a good point in context. How could it plausibly be? The racist/sexist/etc effects of an action do not turn on whether the racist/sexist/etc in question has black/female/etc friends. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fact that a person has those friends will have any bearing on the question of whether they’ve done something racist/sexist/etc.

I agree – there are many types of racism, and very few of them forego the possibility of friends of other races. There are even many forms of racism that don’t conflict with marrying or adopting interracially.

[lance_strongarm]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t think so. It’s not a huge deal. I think he used a word he shouldn’t have. It doesn’t mean he’s a monster.

Glad you’re exercising your right to quibble about racial slurs.

[lance_strongarm]

@Frylock

Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? It generally works like that.

Yes, it sort of does. And?

[lance_strongarm]

@Frylock

The phrase is inevitably used to defend racist/sexist/etc behavior.

It could be a legitimate point in theory. In actuality, as far as I know, it is never a good point in context. How could it plausibly be? The racist/sexist/etc effects of an action do not turn on whether the racist/sexist/etc in question has black/female/etc friends. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fact that a person has those friends will have any bearing on the question of whether they’ve done something racist/sexist/etc.

“You hate black people.”

“Actually, some of my best friends are black people. This disproves that I hate black people.”

Sounds like it has plenty of bearing, which is why it is used so often. It doesn’t mean one can’t have black friends and still be racist or exhibit racist behavior, but it’s certainly good evidence that one doesn’t hold a blanket hatred of blacks.