It’s not like the guy just said it once. He said it one time, and black people were offended. Then he didn’t seem to take this seriously. Then he said it a second time. That second time is when he lost his job. So this was after he knew the rule. This is not a word that should ever just slip out.
It is extremely common for a disparaged group to reclaim a word that was used against them. When this happens, the term becomes okay for them to use, but not for others. The same thing has happened with “faggot” and “dyke.” It’s just how language works.
Getting upset about it seems nonsensical. I have no desire to use those words. I have little need to discuss those words, and, when I do, if the people affected in my audience tell me they are more comfortable with a circumlocution, I listen.
I sure as hell don’t say it again after I got in trouble at work. Hell, I know places where profanity of any kind would get you fired. Yes, even if you’re just mentioning it. Businesses can have language standards–ones that may be more restrictive than the ones you prefer. They have to cater to more people than you.
I agree that it is a ridiculous policy. Frankly this is the kind of nonsense which makes elite institutions look silly and helps to elect demagogues like Trump.
I’m pretty careful about the words I use and I did say “***just ***because of the colour of the speakers skin”
can it be “part of” the context? yes, it can be, but it is not necessarily the overriding factor.
Just because a white person uses the word, that does not mean it automatically becomes a racial slur. The bigger contextual relevance for a racial slur is that it has to actually be used as a slur.
You missed the part where he said it again, several times in a meeting with HR about the first incident. When the second time came to light, he was canned.
He wasn’t fired because he didn’t say anything. He was fired because his boss found out about the second time.
If he apologized after the first incident and they hoped that would be the end of it, why did HR need to talk to him about it again? And if he apologized and they hoped that was the end of it, why would they expect him to address it three months later?
Yes, that’s the rule, but it’s a really stupid rule.
It will get people arguing about who is black and who is white and who gets to make that decision. If I have one white parent and one black parent, am I allowed to say it? If I look black to some people, but self-identify as white, am I allowed to say it? If I look white to most people, but self-identify as black, do I get to say it? What if I’m from India, have very dark skin and have often been called “nigger”. Am I allowed to say it?
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that there are two more or less separate cultures in operation here (black culture and white culture), anyone who knows anything about linguistics will tell you that the two cultures are going to see language elements flow back and forth between them. If one culture wants to police the other culture about the use of certain words then that culture is going to need to police itself. Because cultures in close proximity borrow cultural attributes from each other most of the time. It’s part of what it means to be human.
The way I understand it is that “nigga” really is a term used in the AAVE dialect, and unless you’re fluent in AAVE (and the vast majority of white Americans are not), you’re not likely to use it correctly. And misuse can be extremely offensive for obvious reasons.
There are two issues. I was talking specifically about the Netflix rule, and I assume it covers both vainest of the word.
In the everyday world, people still exchange words all the time and they often use them incorrectly when they cross dialects or languages. My friends often talk about “going to get sushi”, but they really mean “going to get Japanese food”. I have several friends who like to have espresso in the morning and they might even order one biscotti to go along with it.
Now, none of those terms are offensive, but if you don’t want someone else to use an offensive term, then don’t use it yourself. If you do use it, then you should not be surprise when other people use it, too. Correctly or not. Language works like that.
I think it’s a bit more complicated, especially when race and the history of oppression is involved. Combine all that, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to complain that such a word is “unavailable” to us (not directed at you), and that we might get shit on pretty severely if we misuse it.
Yes, that’s an intellectual argument that one could make*. But few people go through an intellectual argument to determine their vocablulary. They pick up what they hear and go with it. So, all I’m saying is that the way to get people to not use the word is to make it taboo for anyone to use it. That won’t eliminate it’s use, but it will slow down the process of people casually picking it up without knowing what they are doing.
Personally, I don’t like any use of the word or it’s variants by anyone-- black, white or whatever. With the exception of writing it to identify it. And I think making rules that allow certain people to say “X” but not other people just serves to drive a bigger wedge between people.
*I don’t subscribe to it, but I understand where it comes from.
No, it’s a rule that reflects reality. When it comes to slurs, sometimes the oppressed party will reclaim it. When that happens, the oppressed party can say the word without social approbation, but the oppressor party cannot. This is not only true for this word, but for slurs against gay people, lesbians, Jews, Italians, etc.
Sure, maybe the language will change. When it does, that’s when it makes sense to change the rule. Until then, rules about civility of language should reflect the unwritten rules of the society they are actually in.
Now, if you mean the unwritten rule is stupid, then that’s a practical issue. It arose naturally. There’s little reason to fight for being able to say a word you’ll never say, so most white people don’t tend to fight for it. And none of us are going to tell black people what they have to do with the word. We created the word to attack them. How dare we tell them how to use it?
The disparity exists as a reminder that white racism against black people is not over. When it is, maybe people will no longer assume a white person saying that word is being racist, and the word will spread. Maybe it will lack the power to cause harm. But, until then, it’s unlikely to spread.
I’m all for allowing people to reclaim slurs as their own.
I meant it is a really stupid rule for a company to have.
I wonder if it’s even legal. I would expect that a white person fired under this rule would have a racial discrimination lawsuit to file against the company if they actually have a rule that says you only get fired for doing this if you’re white (or not black). If, in fact, the rule is as it was presented: Black people can say it, but it’s a firing offense for white people to say it.
I understand the racial connotations and the legacy of that word, but the delivery of that word in terms of it context is absolutely vital, and this sets a very bad precedent, as it suggests that even saying the word in context of a subject matter in discussion which can relate to that word, is enough to warrant the charge of racism by proxy, which is ridiculous.
It just feels like they got rid of the guy because they didn’t want what happened to Starbucks to happen to them, fair enough, smart business move, but this has wrecked a guys career, and pretty much humiliated him publicy and will prevent him from getting a job in the industry again, even though he said the word in context about controversy in comedy.
To be fair, it seems he said it at least twice. Once after being talked to about it. And he was responsible for Communications. This was a mercy kill before he got the company in real trouble.
It never flails to bemuse, how puritanical and hypersensitive Amerimutts are about words. Meanwhile, 500+ people getting mowed down like Slavs after Operation Keelhaul (to say nothing of Sandy Hook etc. ad infinitum) and it yields not even a whimper. This, even in light of the tenuous grasp of the English language (compare: “American” [pidgin] English) that the woebegone people have – “alot”; “aluminum”, “could care less”, “begs the question”, inability to use the verb ‘to be’ correctly *(singular / plural)… :smack:
Just so 'mutt plebes understand (those of them who can read, that is): *When one takes “offence”, one is “thinking” (requires brain) using the amygdala – the emotional centre of the brain; as distinct from the frontal cortex – the logic-processing region. That is to say, by taking “offence”, one is effectively forgoing those elements of the neural process that differentiate rational, thinking homo-sapiens from animals that react purely on instinct.
Words are but words;
I never yet did hear,
That the bruised heart
Was pierced through the ear!
– Willy Shake’
Thank you for adding nothing substantive to the discussion.
I know I always appreciate someone trotting out ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.’ It’s a common defense of bullying. And also completely misses the point that for many marginalized groups, they recognize normalization of these words as the prelude to, and necessary accompaniment of, violence.
You do realise that taking the reductio ad absurdum leap from the aspiration of air and phonation of sound, in order to construct discernible communication through the vibration of air onto the eardrums – affectionately dubbed, “speaking” – to physical violence, is the very reason why the push-back of those who rebel against this kind of cognitive dissonant, Orwellian opus of 'words = actions", exists… right? :dubious:
You can also draw the parallels between said Draconian word-policing, and the strength to the arm it gives the likes of the dotard “Trump™’s” dullard droogies – providing them with a kind of ‘cause crétin’ – to overtly act out their innermost, inbred, fœtal alcoholic traits… surely?
On second thought, you probably do not–on either count :smack:
