Chief_Pedant:
When we proscribe or censor words like “nigger” or “faggot,” we weaponize those words, and we weaken the groups described by them.
There is no more potent way to keep “nigger” a powerful weapon for a malignant user than to ban it. Banning “nigger” turns its use into An Event. It creates a contest for the Most Offended to step up and be recognized as champions of the downtrodden; protecting blacks who are so weak that even words are enough to beat them down.
Censor it in a movie or a book, and instead of cleaning up an insult, you allow the word to retain all of the evil that ever went into it.
We do well to let the audience of language form their own opinions for any word use.
Sticks and stones is a far more powerful approach than is giving those with malicious intent words capable of inflicting maximum pain because the words are so powerful they need to be censored, and the targets of the malice so weak they need White Knights to keep them from being hurt.
I’m pretty sure the word was weaponized long before it was socially proscribed.
DrDeth
January 15, 2020, 3:31am
62
Well, that was in the original scrip for one scene, which I found really funny.
Perhaps it was censored as it is a comedy and seen as not weighty enough for that - just as nudity in Schindler’s List is broadcast uncensored, but not American Pie.
Would they do the same with a drama that has racist dialogue? For instance, is “In the Heat of the Night” censored on TCM? They show that film fairly often