You think the 1950s were the last time folks thought individual freedoms and not collective freedoms were important? This is about a greater concept than just what word a particular individual can use. It’s about the idea that group identity is more defining and important than individual rights and actions. It’s the exact opposite of what the non-woke portion of the left used to be in favor for before the woke left took control.
Now, everything has to be filtered through 100s of years of selective historical ‘analysis’ which is ever changing and retroactively applied. It would be nice to see push back against the insanity by those who value(d) individual liberty and not group privileges and prohibitions.
An example of how it is problematic is it’s use after the Superbowl in 2014 to describe Richard Sherman. People were expressing disapproval over his calling out Michael Crabtree, and touting his superior ability. That is, people disapproved of his speech after the game.
He was repeatedly called the N-word, and “a thug” in response. Both terms on social media, but overwhelmingly “thug” in TV and media commentary. To express disapproval of something he said. Not because he had stolen something, or because he had physically attacked someone, or broken up a strike, or been associated with a gang, or engaged in vandalism.
And this is not to say that everyone who used that term, or even most of them, used it intentionally as a substitute for the N-word. Things happen unconsciously. You see a black person do or say something you disapprove of, and the word “thug” comes to mind, because there’s an association. It can be both racist and unconscious. But if you’re aware of the association you can stop yourself.
The 1950s, when vast swathes of America were excluded from politics and society based solely on their membership to a racial group? That’s when you think America valued “individual freedoms?”
You do understand that everybody else sees the words “individual liberties” and hears them as “I’m free to be a bigot without consequences,” don’t you?
That’s been the official position of conservatives throughout history. There never was a golden age of individual rights, just various conservative interests smashing their boots into the faces of those they thought were lesser. Nothing defines conservatism more than this unvarying continuity.
Yet this does not make the term “greaser” racist and one does not need to remove it from their vocabulary. And if a Mexican is dressed up for Halloween as a fifties style cool you’re welcome to call him a greaser and he is not culturally appropriating 50s whiteness.
Oh please. I’m clearly talking about in general terms. If make a snide joke about watermelon eaters, that’s racist. But that doesn’t mean that the term in general is problematic. This absolutism is fucking ridiculous.
What’s ridiculous is your yammering about “absolutism” and “outlawing” words. You’re arguing against some ridiculous straw man saying that anyone who uses the word in any context should be judged as a racist and publicly flogged. Nobody in this thread or in any of the cited articles has said anything of the kind.
You brought up the N-word, not me. I was pointing out that it’s irrelevant with my dismissive response, so agreed there.
And no, words do not “become racist” simply because they are used in a racist context. The N-word is racist in all contexts. It’s unquestionably a slur, just like lots of other slurs. There’s no need to apply context to it because it’s a racial slur, full stop. Thugs, which requires context to understand the speakers intent, is not a slur. Literally anything can be turned into a racist statement based on context, we’re a long, long way from “thug” being racist in all contexts. If you’re eager to create another racial slur, this silly debate is how you go about it. By shunning those that use it in non-racist contexts you necessarily only leave racists using it. And voila , it’s now a slur.
We had a quite prolific poster on the boards who was quite certain that his use of nigger was not a racial slur. He would only use it when (in his opinion) black people were acting like niggers.
I specifically said it was OK to use it in particular contexts. No one has to remove it from their vocabularies. You keep insisting that if a word is OK in one context, it’s OK in general. Context is important.
Is it OK to call a Mexican a greaser who is not dressed up as a fifties teen?
No, it matters how they are used. Sergio used the word in a racist context. Shame on him. This is not a case of him accidentally offending someone by using a taboo word, this is him being racist…even if you think he wasn’t necessarily being malicious, he was clearly being racists…and not because of his word choice.
We’re going around in circles at this point. Perhaps some people have been absolutist about the use of “thug,” but I and others have not. You’ve just admitted that “watermelon eater” could be racist in context, which is really the same thing I’m saying.
The cost is not you choosing to find a new word. The cost is when a guy who is NOT trying to be racist get canceled because he uses a word that some reactionaries have deemed taboo. Google David Howard.
Um, did I make that claim? But anyways, we could say that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were nominally about freedom even though slavery was, and I suppose is technically, legal. And broad based support for individual rights does not mean that there is unanimity. Also, broad based support doesn’t mean everything is perfectly implemented either.
But I don’t care about unanimity or perfection. I care that at least lip service was paid to the concept of individual liberty. A time when the ACLU actually worked for civil liberties. A time when we didn’t push for segregation in colleges or work places based on immutable or mostly immutable factors. In many ways we are moving backwards and it seems to be by design. Where the idea of something being so-called racist is so toxic that the mere accusation is enough to make taboo any word or concept so targeted. As I’ve said before, this is no different than the medieval church and their exploitation of the concept of blasphemy and sacrilege in order to subjugate others. Instead of the Inquisition now we have cancel culture and an online mob. Maybe a better analogy would be Maoist China and the struggle sessions.
But it was Colibri who made that suggestion about the 50s, not me.
That’s a whole different discussion. I’ll just say, I’ve been called that word so often it can’t be intrinsically a racial slur. I don’t think any word or symbol has intrinsic meaning anyways.
Wouldn’t it be more useful if people didn’t choose to attack people based on the color of their skin at all? The problem isn’t that loudmouthed assholes came at him with the term “thug”, the problem is that they came at him for no fucking reason other than his race. Had they raged at him using different language if would not have been magically less racist.
It’s a god damn turn of phrase. Of course I’m not saying any laws are being passed about language. You’re the second person to accuse ME of a strawman…look in the mirror champ.