So what word is that? I know a few bigots who want to get ahead of the curve; if the N-word was suddenly and magically blipped out of existence, what term with centuries of historical baggage and implied hostility will instantaneously take its place?
(Yeah, it’s not really that simple.)
Yeah that’s not how things work either. It’s not about the word itself. It’s about the signal you send by saying it. Both individually (“I think you’re less than human and am willing to say that, regardless of the societal consequences, to hurt you”) and societally (“Society at large was mostly people like me until very recently, and even now there’s a lot of us”). Nobody is telling people of color that the N-word has power over them. But the reality is that there are plenty of shitty racists out there who do have power, and use that power in shitty, racist ways. You try living that reality for a while, see how it feels.
I said “people who want to control what can or can’t be said by fiat and more often than not capriciously”, not merely people who point out certain language is hurtful; it was very clear stated.
What you did there, is one of the reasons why I find the notion of blasphemy (in whichever form) and people being in a position to control language abhorrent, because it’s the easiest thing in the world to misrepresent something as being blasphemous based on the definition, redefinition, interpretation, context, ignored context whim and agenda of the Inquisition du jour.
Specially because it’s pointless, other than as an exercise of power (and the less people who like to exercise power over others are in power, the better, IMO), as I said you can ban the words but it would not solve any underlying issues, if anything it would only exacerbate them, cruel people will use language to try to hurt others regardless of the specific combination of letters and sounds it takes… plus now there is a mechanism in place to limit the freedom of speech of people. :rolleyes:
For example it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if in their own minds neo Nazis in Germany don’t use the the fact that symbols and speech related to Nazism are banned there as a validation to the necessity of their “struggle”, probably some variation on the drivel on how the Jews control everything.
Now, if you agree with the notion that certain words should be banned you could explain under whose authority and what form of punishment should be used to enforce it.
Also, if that is limited to specific words or would it include what can be interpreted to allude to specific words. If you were in favour of banning the use of “nigger” as a racial slur, how about “the N-word”?, how about “niger”?, reggin?, yelling at black people on the street “hey NEEEEEElam”?, (“honest officer, I thought it was my good pal Neelam across the road!”), etc, etc… Does it begin to feel futile yet?
It’s useless, you may just as well try to fix a car’s busted transmission by doing a new paint job.
It’s a form of the process seen in the euphemism treadmill, although perhaps it’s a dysphemism treadmill in this case.
What makes it more annoying than polite prohibitions on other words is the idea that some people have “n-word privileges.”
I dislike the idea that modern readers and listeners should privilege their understanding of the word over the way it was used in the past. I think it’s important to understand and not to misunderstand Samuel Clemens’s use of it, which takes education. I hate the idea that we have to, for example, whitewash the name of Guy Gibson’s dog. We need to fight the idea that modern sensibilities regarding the past are correct rather than ignorant; that goes for a lot of things.
Mark Twain took care to make clear that he had ‘painstakingly’ reproduced various forms of (presumably real) ‘backwoods’ dialect. This makes the idea of a Bowdlerized edition doubly problematic.
In this vein, if it is not a fake then someone has published The N-Word of the Narcissus (!!)
Who exactly are you talking about here, then? I’ve not rally seen an example of what you describe. I’ve seen people point out that certain language is hurtful, and then I’ve seen the user of that language complain that you shouldn’t be allowed to point out that language is hurtful, as that is controlling language, without any self awareness at all that they are in fact, telling someone else how they are not allowed to use language.
Who is in a position to “control language”? There is no one, no one at all.
As far as who is able to frown upon another’s use of language in the context in which they chose to use it, well, that’s everyone, unless of course, you are trying to say that we should not be allowed to express disapproval or criticism over someone’s use of language, in which case, who exactly is trying to control who here?
Except when it is the power over what someone is allowed to criticise, then you want all the power.
Who is banning words? What it seems is it is less that the people who are pointing out that words and phrases cause harm, but it is the people who want to use those words and phrases anyway who want to ban criticism of their usage.
Sure, you are right that there are many ways to be insulting and derogatory without resorting to words that specifically have histories of hateful bigots using them to express their hate, but most bigots aren’t that clever or imaginative.
Hateful people will always take criticism of their hate as validation of their hate. But, to bend to their will, to avoid upsetting them, to make sure that we don’t criticize anyone’s hate speech does not actually help. They are full of hate, and they will continue to be full of hate whether they get dirty looks for using ethnic slurs, or people applaud them for the bravery to “just call it as it is.”
As the outcome is the same, that those full of hate will be full of hate wither you r criticize or applaud their hate, I’d rather not applaud, YMMV.
Exactly, there is none, so all this pearl clutching that you are doing in fear of banned words is entirely a strawman. It is fears that exist only in your own mind. They have no relation to reality, and the only restrictions on speech would come about if you have your way, and criticism of hate speech is banned.
Speaking of which, since you want to ban criticism of hate speech, under what authority, and what form of punishment should be used to enforce it?
Hmmm, it seems you are operating under the impression that cops would be arresting people for misuse of words. Given the nature of your objections, it seems more as if you would be wanting cops to arrest someone if they were to object to or criticize someone for using an ethnic slur.
So, we do end up with a similar issue here. If you belt out some ethnic slurs along with threats and intimidations at a group of minorities, and I say “Hey!”(honest officer, I thought I saw a pile of hay across the road), etc, etc… do your attempts at policing other’s speech in order to avoid any criticism or consequence seem futile yet?
Or try to keep the crows out of your field by complaining about them.
What I said was directly relevant to the OP if the OP is interpreted in any realistic way.
“…implicit in the OP, maybe the OP should have stated it, but anyway it’s obvious from your reference. The issue in non-black people using the word in any context in public.”
If OP really meant the word is completely taboo including use by black people, including in rap lyrics (by black rappers at least), then it could be a one post reply thread: ‘that’s ridiculous, the word might not be universally accepted when used by anyone, but it’s obviously not a taboo for black people to use it’. End of thread.
A realistic discussion would be about a ban ‘under any circumstances’ by non-black people. Which is becoming the norm, as in Netflix firing where the CEO said that it so many words:“For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no context in which it is appropriate or constructive…”
Which is also not a different topic. It’s an example directly relevant to this topic.
I already responded to the OP changing the context. Here’s a summary:
It’s allowable to use it in a use/mention way, as is illustrated by this very thread
It’s allowable to use it in movies and books, as illustrated by several movies up thread
Agree or disagree? Are these “circumstances”?
There are probably more, but those are off the top of my head. This has been the case for many years IMO, and there is no “recent” taboo against using it in many other circumstances – that same taboo has existed for decades. IMO.
Do not personalize arguments in this fashion. The number of posts or length of time a poster has been active does not speak to the merits of the comments offered.
Disagree, basically. As I covered in my first post, to which your rejoinder, ‘this is about some other topic why don’t you start another thread’, was off point:
The trend now is toward the word being entirely taboo, in any ‘context’ when
coming from a real non-black person (not a fictional character)
in public under the person’s real name (not anonymously on the internet*)
As illustrated by the Netflix case:
apparently a ‘use/mention way’.
the CEO’s statement, Netflix’s policy is that word is not allowable from a non-black Netflix employee in ‘any context in public’, entirely clear in itself, also strongly implies there was a ‘context’ excuse for the offender, but it’s saying there is no such thing for non-blacks.
Nor do I think there’s any reasonable argument that Netflix is out in left field on this. It’s not an outlier, but an example of the new standard which is replacing the one you described.
*like all kinds of stuff people can get away with under a screen name but not under their real name on social media (if anyone bothers to look) or in straight up real life. IMO ‘societal standard’ refers to own name and/or real life, not what people ‘can’ write under screen names on the internet.
During the 80s and 90s there was controversy in having Huckleberry Finn as part of school’s reading curriculum due to the n-word being used repeatedly in the book. Even the TV sitcom “Family Ties” had an episode dedicated to the issue.
You’re adding all kinds of provisions to the OP, even after the OP added the provision that it’s OK if you’re African American. I think a real person writing a book about taboo words would be able to use that word in a mention context under his/her own name. I have no idea what that Netflix exec’s history was so I’m not going to comment on it. The OP didn’t exclude movies and books from ANY circumstance.
I think that the taboo for non-black folks is not a recent thing, as Gerald II notes about the '80s sitcom.
Anyway, I think you need to move those goalposts back to where the OP had them, even with the OPs added provision.