Does saying or typing out this word equte to making a racial remark?
If a person says “nigger” is that person a racist?
If you answered “yes” to the above questions you need to get off the internet and go to college. Reggin although it means nigger backwards does not have the same meaning as the actual word nigger. You may say “time is (=) money” but is “money = time?” No, because words lose meanings if reversed in a linear spatial order.
That was easy but what about number 2? Racism is a social theory which in general professes the superiority and authority of one group of people over another. Saying “nigger” doesn’t mean that person condones of racism.
Moreover, racism is a socio-cultural and socio-political theory which only exists as long as people believe it exists. Consensus reality is dependent on people and is therefore relative. Relativistic theories are dependent on conditions and if it can’t be shown to be consistently true and better yet: absolutely true the theory can’t have any truth value. If you can’t show me that racism exists as a universal constant all I have to do is believe it doesn’t exist and so it doesn’t. Its truth value is dependent on the condition of belief and thus I can will it out of existence or will it to be false (and so it is).
Besides, racism is a weapon of the minority. Psychologically, what are black people inclined to say and think if a white person doesn’t please them in anyway? “Oh he is a racist”
Also, which word is more powerful, “Nigger” or “Racist”? The societal implications of being branded a racist are far vaster than simply being subjected to a word of historic abuse. This leads to the point that racism is largely a function of political and social power. Ipso facto, the theory of racism is not tenable sub specie aeternitatis.
(PS: what the fack happened to this site, it used to be free)
However, how many people do you know when confronted with a racial issue instinctfully make the kind of deduction you just described? That’s your sample.
I don’t understand exactly your question. Perhaps you could be a bit less nebulous?
I am assuming you mean how many people think logically if they are called a nigger. Well, not many because humans use different cognitive processes. Some are more emotional in nature whereas others are more logical and rational. The problem is that using emotional reasoning leads to informal fallacies such as the ad hominem, the red herring, etc
Racism is a differentiation of treatment based on race. I don’t really understand what you’re trying to deny, but if you’re actually claiming that differentiation of treatment based on race doesn’t exist, then it isn’t something you’re going to accomplish with a semantic argument.
Right, right…I’m talking about speed at which we make our decisons. When someone confronts a racist situation be it a remark or gesture, they make a split decision analysis about the situation and react. I see what you are saying, but sitting down philosophizing about racism and making a decision when confronted with racism abruptly are two different things. I wish people thought about their actions or words before acting…not a lot of people do.
If it can’t be shown to be universally constant, then it lacks substance. If it lacks any substantial basis it is purely a made-up belief about reality. As a result, any ethical practices that stem from it can’t be universally professed on any other basis than through power.
I don’t by into the whole PC crusade for pluralism because it is a sophist device to secure the minority vote among other things.
Do you really believe that one’s life opportunities are subverted by being called a “racist?” Because I’ve been called a racist, and that hasn’t been my experience.
The only way I can see being called a racist “sticking” and having an impact is with some evidence. It’s equally dangerous to label someone a racist without compelling evidence.
Why should we buy your naive relativism in the first place?
Besides, words have, you know, meaning. “Nigger” has, as part of its meaning, the implication that the person to which the word applied is inferior. You can’t use a word and ‘withhold’ part of the meaning, because individuals don’t decide the meaning of a word; common usage does. So using the word ‘nigger’ is racist.
A thing can be a social construct, and yet at the same time real. Law is a social construct, for instance. It only exists because we all agree it does, but at the same time, if I kill you, I’m still either going to jail or getting the needle.
Racism is similar. If people think that blacks are inferior and treat them badly because of it, for instance, that’s obviously a problem. It may just be the belief of racists that blacks are inferior, but that subjective belief has objective effects, that are bad for both the person discriminated against and the society.
First, being called a nigger or nigga is contextual. As a rule, if you aren’t running the risk of being called one, you don’t get to call anyone else that. That people will, at times, get offended upon being called nigger is… well, I think generally very defensible.
Even in the post I quote above a person who is more sensitive might detect a tone of racist stereotyping (emotion vs logic).
A couple side notes:
Using the logic in your post, words don’t exist either. Only representations of them. If you’ll concede that, you are at least intellectually honest, if not playing semantics with an otherwise significant topic.
Side note 2:
In many instances emotion is MORE logical than pure logic. Love, empathy, revenge, anger, hurt… all work to create what scientists are learning to be a stable model for society. Logic would crumble much more quickly than emotion. I’m tired of assertions of logic being superior to emotion. It ain’t. Not as absolute. It is situational. And in the proper contexts… logic is far superior to emotion. And the inverse is true.
Side note 3:
Screw logic. Screw emotion. Why can’t we just try to be rational?
Heh, ever had that happen in high school? People who have been accused of crime but have been acquitted in a court of law have been persecuted by their communities post-festum despite NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE.
I am not professing relativism, learn how to read critically before you say something that is the opposite of what I wrote. Black people use it all the time, isn’t that common usage? Are you saying Black people are racist against their own people? If so, then the theory of racism collapses because Blacks cannot be both inferior and superior at the same time over blacks. Your reasoning is exhaustively flawed.
I’ve no idea what this is meant to prove. Numbers also lose their meaning if you reverse their order. 21 does not equal 12, but pointing that out doesn’t invalidate the field of mathematics.
Nigger is, by history and by definition and at least since the 17th century, a racially based pejorative; even on the rare occasions when it is used against people who aren’t dark-skinned* it is used to compare the subject to or reference those who are black/dark skinned. Obviously context and intent determine whether it’s user is racist in a given situation, but the word itself is always racist just as the word Whig is by its definition and history political.
*I have heard it used against people of Indian or Arabic ancestry.
There are laws that can be shown true sub specie aeternitatis, such laws are substantial and not relative. Such laws can only be discovered, not made up through consensus. The former is always epistemically stronger.