Re: How To Say

[Goodspeed]

Yeah well, what I'm challenging here is the view that the word is offensive in the first place.

That's not up to you. Like you said, it's perception. And when your perception differs from the perception of others, which will inevitably happen, a mature person takes that into account. An edgy teenager, on the other hand, considers their perception to be the only correct one.

Would you be offended if I called you the N-word?

I'd raise one eyebrow and think you're a very strange person who I probably wouldn't want anything to do with, but no, not offended.

[Amsel_]

Show hidden quotes

Yeah well, what I'm challenging here is the view that the word is offensive in the first place.

That's not up to you. Like you said, it's perception. And when your perception differs from the perception of others, which will inevitably happen, a mature person takes that into account. An edgy teenager, on the other hand, considers their perception to be the only correct one.

Would you be offended if I called you the N-word?

I'd raise one eyebrow and think you're a very strange person who I probably wouldn't want anything to do with, but no, not offended.

Is there anyone who could offend you by using that insult?

[Goodspeed]

No.. Get to the point

[Amsel_]

No.. Get to the point

Do you think calling someone the N-word is worse than insulting someone for being bald, short, funny looking, stupid, etc?

[Horsemen]

Nigger

[occamslightsaber]

This is not about me, I'm not proposing a new meaning of the word based on some kind of personal understanding of its semantics, I'm just saying that what makes it offensive is not the literal meaning, but a certain historical connotation. In itself the word means nothing but black, an exotic, borrowed form from a Latin-based language.

Except you clearly are trying to single-handedly redefine the word "nigger". Yes, the Latin word niger and Spanish word negro both mean "black". "Nigger" used to mean "black" as well. Now, however, the dictionary definition for the word is "an insulting and contemptuous term for a black person". Words change over time and "nigger" has come to a point where you cannot separate the negative connotation from its literal meaning anymore. Even then, you insist that the word still just means "black", although every dictionary and everyone in the United States disagrees with you. Note that I don't necessarily disagree with your idea that "nigger" should mean just "black" as it once did. I'm saying that two of us won't be enough to change the definition.

The reason why white supremacists use it is because it's taboo. If you forbid something, you can be 100% sure someone will eagerly try to use that.

I seem to recall that white supremacists created the word and it was a derogatory term even before emancipation, when black people had little choice but to accept whatever white supremacists called them. Terms like "black" and "African-American" weren't prevalent until the late 20th century. So clearly, white supremacists would have used the term regardless of whether the word became a taboo or not, which by the way isn't always a bad thing. It's a pretty convenient way for anyone to tell who's racist and isn't.

By avoiding the word, you are confirming the power of the word and so perpetuating the idea that the original users were doing something right. I'm not saying you are doing this consciously, but that you are unaware of this effect of confirming the power of the original connotation by supporting the idea that the word shouldn't be used.

How is avoiding the word "perpetuating the idea that the original users were doing something right?" That doesn't seem to logically follow at all. It's not inconceivable for a word to die out, especially if it was used to "describe populations that they thought were inferior" and thus no longer relevant in a society that believes everyone to be equal regardless of race, sex or religion. There was a ton of misogynistic words and offensive terms for Native Americans as well in English, but many of them became obsolete before the 21st century.

I don't see what this has to do with "the way they'd like to be addressed as". No writer ever asked his characters how they would like to be addressed as, what's the point of such a suggestion? You are addressed how you happen to be addressed. The way you react to it is your choice. Unless you're in a formal/legal situation in which there's a protocol (in front of a law court, in a business meeting, in a royal court), I don't see how you're owed to be addressed in a certain way.

My point was that it is "infantile" to insist on calling black people "nigger" knowing that it is a derogatory term and that a mature person would instead try to address them "the way they'd like to be addressed as" because it is the only moral and efficient way to do so. Sure, you can choose to call a black person whatever you'd like, it's your tongue after all. But why would any rational person call another person something that he/she won't respond to? Also, your word will represent the other person and it makes sense for the other person to have an input in the word that represent him/her. Likely that person knows way more about himself/herself than you and will come up with a more appropriate/accurate term. Additionally, if everyone chose a different word for the same person, social interactions would be a lot more difficult.

I'm sure a true nonconformist like you couldn't care less about morality and efficiency, but they are important factors for everyone else.

And no, I'm not making a "free speech" sort of argument, that would have been too easy and just a simple cop-out. I don't want to hide behind this kind of cop-outs like "free speech". Too American for me. I'd rather go to the root of the problem and discuss all the implications in depth and length.

You are, whether you realize it or not. You stated that "you shouldn't have to choose your words based on the likelihood of someone feeling offended" and that "I'd rather keep my language options open than first ask for a referendum on which words I'm allowed to say without someone feeling offended". I don't see any other grounds to use derogatory terms besides the need for free speech.

It's the same thing, it's the idea that if you use certain terms to refer to a category of people, you are somehow offending them. Sure, there might be some specifics that are different, but I was referring to what these cases have in common.

Not exactly. Sure, both cases have someone who's offended, but that's about where the similarities end. When Ben Shapiro (lets just keep using him as an example) calls a transgender woman "he/him", he's not necessarily being derogatory. People are genuinely divided about whether pronouns should reflect biological sex or gender identity. So Ben Shapiro may be being sincere in calling a transgender woman a "he/him", whether that transgender woman likes it or not.

The same is not true with "nigger". Unlike pronouns, "nigger" is a well defined term used to insult and express contempt to a black person. There are no ambiguities in using it and the intent is pretty clear with its use as its dictionary definition suggests. So if you call a black person "nigger" rather than "black" or "African-American", knowing full well what it means in the present day US, you are 100% being an asshole.

[Dolan]

Except you clearly are trying to single-handedly redefine the word "nigger".

No, I'm not. Which new meaning of the word that doesn't exist now am I trying to establish?

Now, however, the dictionary definition for the word is "an insulting and contemptuous term for a black person". Words change over time and "nigger" has come to a point where you cannot separate the negative connotation from its literal meaning anymore. Even then, you insist that the word still just means "black", although every dictionary and everyone in the United States disagrees with you.

That's because the currently dominant paradigm in lexicography is descriptive linguistics, which asserts that language books shouldn't prescribe what are the correct rules for using a language, they should merely describe how language is actually used. So a dictionary is not some kind of absolute and unchangeable source of truth, it's just a mirror of how society uses a certain language. So, for example, if society started shifting the meaning of a certain word, because a new attitude became prevalent, a dictionary would eventually have to adapt to that

I'm noticing such a shift in how the word "nerd" is used. It used to be a derogatory term for a dork, someone socially awkward, interested in nonsocial hobbies. But recently, people have been embracing the nerd identity as something positive, it even became a trendy thing at some point to wear big glasses and feign interest in technical stuff. There have been lots of articles in the media touting a nerd revolution with titles like "Why nerds are taking over the world". What happened? It used to be an offensive word you could use to put someone down for being socially awkward and interested in "boring", socially unexciting topics. Instead of being rejected and considered taboo, because it used to be offensive and disparaging, the term has acquired a positive connotation. For "nigger" this should be even easier, given that its original meaning wasn't even disparaging, while nerd was originally an offensive term.

I seem to recall that white supremacists created the word and it was a derogatory term even before emancipation, when black people had little choice but to accept whatever white supremacists called them. Terms like "black" and "African-American" weren't prevalent until the late 20th century. So clearly, white supremacists would have used the term regardless of whether the word became a taboo or not, which by the way isn't always a bad thing. It's a pretty convenient way for anyone to tell who's racist and isn't.

I don't think what you are calling "white supremacists" is the same thing with what we see today. If you go far back enough in history, all peoples had supremacist or nationalist beliefs. The English always believed they were the best of all nations, same for Spaniards, French and so on. They were all supremacists. It's not the same phenomenon with the more recent politically charged meaning of the word. 18th or 19th century people who used the word "nigger" because they genuinely thought they were superior didn't necessarily share Nazi beliefs, it was closer to the old attitude of thinking that your kind are better.
And again, you're assuming that racism is something that is unnatural, something that came from some kind of evil ideology, that didn't appear naturally in societies that naturally mistrusted strangers. All primitive societies were racist, they all shared a common belief that strangers were bad news. Read about the Sentinelese or other uncontacted tribes to see that this "racist" attitude towards strangers still exists in this primitive form. It seems to be inherent to the human mind, it's not some kind of fringe, unusual phenomenon that only appears in "evil people".

How is avoiding the word "perpetuating the idea that the original users were doing something right?" That doesn't seem to logically follow at all. It's not inconceivable for a word to die out, especially if it was used to "describe populations that they thought were inferior" and thus no longer relevant in a society that believes everyone to be equal regardless of race, sex or religion. There was a ton of misogynistic words and offensive terms for Native Americans as well in English, but many of them became obsolete before the 21st century.

Because the more you forbid using a certain word, the more power to offend that word acquires. Those who want to offend will exploit the fact that people think some words are too offensive to use.
What I proposed is not even new. Feminists have proposed something similar with the word "cunt" which has an even more interesting history than "nigger". Cunt used to not be offensive until a few centuries ago, it was just a lewd word, but you couldn't refer to someone disparagingly as a "cunt". And then it gradually acquired the modern disparaging meaning. Now recently, feminists have proposed to embrace it and launched their own "cunt manifesto" that aims at turning the meaning of the word back to a positive one.
It's unbelievable how I'm so progressive in my approach and everyone here is so entrenched in the old, reactionary ways.

My point was that it is "infantile" to insist on calling black people "nigger" knowing that it is a derogatory term and that a mature person would instead try to address them "the way they'd like to be addressed as" because it is the only moral and efficient way to do so. Sure, you can choose to call a black person whatever you'd like, it's your tongue after all. But why would any rational person call another person something that he/she won't respond to? Also, your word will represent the other person and it makes sense for the other person to have an input in the word that represent him/her. Likely that person knows way more about himself/herself than you and will come up with a more appropriate/accurate term. Additionally, if everyone chose a different word for the same person, social interactions would be a lot more difficult.

Well, you don't even call someone by their "race" in real life. Or that rarely happens, maybe as a joke. I think the discussion was more about whether the term should be used at all, in any context. I don't know what you mean by "addressing someone as they like because it's the moral thing to do". Do they have like a label sewn to their shirt to give you clues on how they want to be addressed?

I'm sure a true nonconformist like you couldn't care less about morality and efficiency, but they are important factors for everyone else.

I'm not a nonconformist, I'm a progressive feminist, as I explained before.

You are, whether you realize it or not. You stated that "you shouldn't have to choose your words based on the likelihood of someone feeling offended" and that "I'd rather keep my language options open than first ask for a referendum on which words I'm allowed to say without someone feeling offended". I don't see any other grounds to use derogatory terms besides the need for free speech.

And what do you need "free speech" for? Or is there anyone who has a particular need for "free speech" that they need to claim "free speech" rights?
Speech is free in any form, anyways, it's only some forms of speech that are legally sanctioned, because of the legal effects they could have. Such as "incitement to X".

It's the same thing, it's the idea that if you use certain terms to refer to a category of people, you are somehow offending them. Sure, there might be some specifics that are different, but I was referring to what these cases have in common.

Not exactly. Sure, both cases have someone who's offended, but that's about where the similarities end. When Ben Shapiro (lets just keep using him as an example) calls a transgender woman "he/him", he's not necessarily being derogatory. People are genuinely divided about whether pronouns should reflect biological sex or gender identity. So Ben Shapiro may be being sincere in calling a transgender woman a "he/him", whether that transgender woman likes it or not.

Well some countries have taken the extra step of making misgendering a legal offence. Under the Equality Act in the UK, apparently misgendering can be considered a hate crime: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/24/a ... r-student/
I'm not sure if there's any similar initiative in the US, but I know that some companies and communities are already including rules against misgendering in their "Codes of conduct". If you are proven to offend on this account, you're likely to get removed from your position in that company or community.
I'm not familiar with anything that Ben Shapiro does and I'm not sure why you brought this up in this debate. Maybe because you thought that in the case of misgendering, some people like Shapiro do it based on some formal principle, like if someone was biologically born as male then they should be addressed as that, so he doesn't necessarily mean this in an offensive way. While using "nigger" is always meant to be offensive? Is that what your argument was? That misgendering is not similar to this case?

The same is not true with "nigger". Unlike pronouns, "nigger" is a well defined term used to insult and express contempt to a black person. There are no ambiguities in using it and the intent is pretty clear with its use as its dictionary definition suggests. So if you call a black person "nigger" rather than "black" or "African-American", knowing full well what it means in the present day US, you are 100% being an asshole.

That may be true, I'm not really doubting that this is the case, but that may also change, just as it did for "nerd" and "cunt". It all depends on whether you want to stick with the past or go with another potential future.

[fightinfrenchman]

This thread and Dolan's posts in it are beyond parody. I honestly don't know how to make fun of it any more than just looking at it

[Dolan]

Did you have a point with that? Do you think not taking other people's feelings into account should grant you more social credit than it does? Do you think it unjust when people call you out on offensive behavior?
Sucks when reality doesn't go our way, doesn't it?

I really don't know what you're referring to. The discussion moved on from feelings a long time ago. I guess you didn't read the replies and assumed that the debate still revolves around the idea that using certain words shows disregard for someone's feelings. Well, anything can offend feelings, even denying climate change. Heck, if you eat meat you are offending vegans' feelings, right now. So maybe you should stop eating meat which offends their feelings. Because other people's feelings should always regulate your behaviour, obviously.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Dolan You seem to say that sarcastically but yeah, other people's feelings have a huge influence on my behavior. It's a normal part of living in society

[Dolan]

What if someone gets offended by you saying "superdreadnought rail cannon gustav max" all the time?

Maybe their ancestors were being made fun of with this phrase.

[fightinfrenchman]

What if someone gets offended by you saying "superdreadnought rail cannon gustav max" all the time?

I just start screaming the n-word at them and they usually say they prefer Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Gustav Max instead

[Goodspeed]

Did you have a point with that? Do you think not taking other people's feelings into account should grant you more social credit than it does? Do you think it unjust when people call you out on offensive behavior?
Sucks when reality doesn't go our way, doesn't it?

I really don't know what you're referring to. The discussion moved on from feelings a long time ago.

Aren't you discussing whether or not something is offensive? This has everything to do with feelings. Something can only be offensive if people are offended by it.

Well, anything can offend feelings, even denying climate change. Heck, if you eat meat you are offending vegans' feelings, right now.

Correct

So maybe you should stop eating meat which offends their feelings. Because other people's feelings should always regulate your behaviour, obviously.

Other people's feelings should definitely play a part in your behavior. How much is up to you. You have to find a balance between saying whatever comes to mind and not wanting to offend people. But if the common courtesy of not using the word "nigger" is beyond you, I'd argue you're just being edgy for the sake of it.