On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
While I agree with sam that we should not casually use the word "nigger" casually and that racism is very real (I witness it every day to the point that I give up trying to fight against it since it is that bad), I do not think this is so much of having class so much as it is just plain logic.
1. Words are meaningless. 2. Words are given as much meaning as society or the person receiving the word sees fit. 3. The person speaking is uttering to spread meaning through his words.
Stop the language nihilism, it is really infantile. The word queer was taken back, the word nerd was taken back, but people who want to take back nigga and faggot seem to want to use it as insults which I find to be immature. Words most certainly have meaning since society is formed around communication and civilization would not exist without it.
But then there is the other much more controversial variation "nigga" which is mostly used affectionately but there is still controversy whether non-blacks can use it and one of my buddies told me that you would not call a random person honey, baby, or dear unless they were your significant other.
Also, Jacques Derrida is the only language nihilist worth listening to when presented with this infantile pseudo-philosophy.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
no
edit: you are inferior because you are behaving badly when you know very well that you should not. if you would like to stop being a barbarian, and start being a civilized person, you would be perfectly capable of doing so. chastising a child for bad behavior, and being a racist, are not equivalent things. not all value judgments are the same, that is quite obvious. trying to turn this into a mutatis mutandis argument with racism is empty sophistry, and you know it. the childishness of your argumentation matches the childishness of your position.
edit: it's not really about what you "can" and "can not" do. it's a question about how the usage of that word reflects on your character. it makes you look ignorant, low-class, and uncivilized. don't say it. i would not be known to associate with anyone who used that word, and having that word in your vocabulary is only going to come back to bite you some day. just get rid of it, it's not that hard. english has lots of great profanity that isn't that word.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
Did you just call all black people who use the word "nigger", inferior human beings? Dat racist....
edit: I probably wouldn't approve either, if that were my community. certainly the use of that word is not uncontroversial in the black community. but here we're talking about smug overprivileged white (and asian I guess maybe, although most asians I know have better manners) children. it's not even debatable.
Given the effect that Confucianism has had on Asia, I don't think it's racist to say that Asians tend to treat elders, family members, and those of higher social standing than themselves with more respect.
Kind of hesitate to say if there's as much respect from those of higher standing towards those of lower standing.
Plus, they will call you fat if you're fat though. :O I appreciate that honesty, personally, but some might say that's bad manners.
Short version: "the usage of that word reflects on your character. it makes you look ignorant, low-class, and uncivilized. don't say it" - You deny everyone, including the very people affected, the right to use a word and you take the right to exclusively claim what it means (aka denotation). You're putting yourself in a position above them by making your opinion appear to be holy ground which is the very basis for every form of extremism. Said extremism includes racism against black people.
Long version: "Cultural imperialism (...) consists of the takeover of one culture by another: The food, clothing, customs, recreation, and values of the economically dominant culture increasingly replace those of the economically vulnerable culture until the latter appears to be a kind of imitation of the former." (Lois Tyson, Critical Theory Today, 1999)
Parallel to this form of imperialism a process called "othering" comes into play: The dominant culture defines itself by demonizing or otherwise devaluing the "inferior" culture. Along this way a "brand" is attached to the "inferior" culture. Historically these brands have been things like "Nigger", "Jew" or even "Eskimo" - all of which are used with a exclusively negative connotation at this point. Note that neither of the mentioned groups are homogenous, meaning no common nomenclature to define them as a group does exist.
The respective group is now forced into a corner and has no other choice but to stick together. In the case of Jews and black people (it's a bit more difficult to say for Inuit) it means that the members of the groups are now in need of a common name. Hence they start to identify themselves with the brand given to them by their oppressors by appointing a positive connotation - their actual identity. This is what is commonly referred to as "taking the word back".
What happened in the 1960ies with white people was that they realized the way they treated and named black people was offensive, inhumane even. Acknowledging their highly negative connotations within certain words they pretty much "denazificated" their language. In the early 70ies we're now looking at a total taboo for white people and the "N-word".
At the same time a movement called "Black nationalism" shows up ("Black Art" was written in 1965) which, in a nutshell, claims that after all the suffering black people endured at the hands of white people it is now time to return the violence and the oppression. When you look at connotations in this period you will see that certain words, while still having a negative connotation, are now used as a tool to show white people what they have done in the past because it's their most vulnerable spot at that time. The important thing to note is that in this process the insult is now being used as a weapon by the people it meant to insult.
Fast forward to the 80ies/early 90ies you have a new black generation (born in the middle of the sixties) with people like Chris Rock who have never experienced the extreme discrimination their parents and grandparents had to endure. This is also the category most of the early rap and hip hop artists using "derogatory words" fall into (Niggaz Wit Attitudes e.g. was formed in '86). These people had a overall mostly equal life in high school and later university. While still experiencing discrimination it is now more an occasional phenomenon.
As a result of such an integration it is now obvious that white people tip-toe around certain words, for example using "African American" instead of black. While initially amusing this soon turns into anger: The very act of being careful in ones choice of words is offensive because it implies weakness and pity for the other side. This is no sign of a strong and equal culture. Cultural imperialism is still completely successful in keeping certain words with the negative connotation that was initially forcefully imposed by an oppressive regime.
This is the point where the "inferior" culture takes the words and starts using them with positive connotations in an effort to establish themselves as an equal culture on equal footing and equal terms. By using those words they provoke attention - it is impossible for a white person to ignore a black person making a jokes about "niggers" but they also have trouble just accepting it as a joke because they've been conditioned to trust in the negative connotation that their parents and grandparents imposed on the word.
Fast forward another 10-20 years. We now have a generation born in the 80ies (sup?) which grew up listening to black groups calling themselves "Niggaz" and calling their best buddies "Nigger" and watching black comedians cracking jokes about "blacks versus niggas". This is where "naturalization" comes into play, the acceptance of things as completely normal. This is where the black Mr. White can walk into my classroom, refer to himself as the "ratio nigger" and everyone, whites, Indians, Eastern Europeans and Jews can laugh about his joke with him together. This is where a buddy of mine can walk in afterwards, wearing gold chains, baggy pants and a baseball cap and I can say to him "Wow you look like one of those New York Gangster Niggers" and he can happily show me the finger while laughing together with me, Mr. White (African American) and a Jewish kid.
This is an equal, integrated and strong society. This is also the world where I want my kids to grow up in, this is the kind of world black people fought for in the last 50+ years.
And then people like you come along. Closet supremacists who try to extend the power their grandparents wielded by attaching the same connotations as they had to certain words, by forbidding other people to move on and by extending their personal "freedom" and "cultural values" to the point where it invades other peoples freedom. Radical, extremist and without any historical or social basis.
a words meaning changes when the word itself is used. if you try to select sort of set of words whose meaning when the word is used have a perceived negative influence on something, it implies that there could exist scenarios where using a word whose meaning has a negative influence at the moment, will contribute towards the words meaning converging towards having a positive influence over time. in this scenario it would be in your best interest to encourage use of the word.
it doesn't rule out the option of abstaining from using a word in its entirety being the best course of action for a period of time in some cases, or the opposite for that matter, but this doesn't necessarily always apply. my point is that it is not a binary problem, and if you seek to control something you're not automatically making it easier on yourself by limiting the ways you can influence the process.
edit: and there are certainly conceivable scenarios similar to this one where it would be a bad idea.
I think its strange that anyone should de facto say how and when people should use a word, and set such a universal standard for every human being on Earth. If the victims of slavery themselves wanted to change how the word is perceived and used, so as to divorce the negative connotations associated with that word and free them from remembering their past, what moral right do we have to stop them? If anything it is immoral to force them to associate such a word with bad memories. Of course it might not work in the darkest of cases - and so this is also a matter of cultural sensitivity, and being aware of who you are talking to and what you are saying. When in doubt people should probably avoid saying such words.
So I have to agree with R.Evo, and many others in this thread. That context matters, its very strange (to put it mildly) to suggest that a word is universally bad, and will be so for all time, and therefore bringing it up in any other context, or trying to change it in any way, is wrong...let alone barbaric! There are surely exceptions, and many contexts in which it is both appropriate and makes a positive contribution in people's social lives, which may also take the form of self-empowerment.
On April 03 2013 16:09 sam!zdat wrote: no, it's not like that.
there are some things that are so obviously bad manners, that anybody who thinks it is up for discussion is really too much of a smug, self-centered child to be worth reasoning with.
if you think it is okay to use that word, you are an inferior human being because of it, and you should strive to improve yourself on this account.
jesus christ kids. have some class.
You can't see how calling someone an "inferior human being" when trying to advocate not using a, in your opinion, degrading word utterly ruins any point you tried to make?
no, it doesn't. I am talking about the difference between being a civilized human being and being an ignorant barbarian. this has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word. this is about showing respect for things which do not belong to you to treat lightly.
when you utter words of hate, you become hateful. do not utter them.
edit: "tu quoque" is not gonna work for you here, that's just sophomoric
edit: also, can we note how hilarious it is that you think I don't care about science? what a joke. i'm trying to save science from becoming the object of idolatry, which is a terrible thing for everyone involved
So when you call me - and millions of other people - "inferior human beings", you're making a point and it has nothing to with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if I advocate that a word like "nigger" can be used in a non-racist and positive context I'm an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
yes
So, hypothetically, if I would call you - and millions of other people - "niggers", I'm making a point and it has nothing to do with the kind of hatred embodied in that word, but if you advocate that a word like "inferior human beings" can be used in a non-Nazi ideology and positive context you're an ignorant barbarian who is muttering hateful words?
no
edit: you are inferior because you are behaving badly when you know very well that you should not. if you would like to stop being a barbarian, and start being a civilized person, you would be perfectly capable of doing so. chastising a child for bad behavior, and being a racist, are not equivalent things. not all value judgments are the same, that is quite obvious. trying to turn this into a mutatis mutandis argument with racism is empty sophistry, and you know it. the childishness of your argumentation matches the childishness of your position.
This is so hypocritical that it defies all logic.
On April 04 2013 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: no, that's a separate issue
edit: I probably wouldn't approve either, if that were my community. certainly the use of that word is not uncontroversial in the black community. but here we're talking about smug overprivileged white (and asian I guess maybe, although most asians I know have better manners) children. it's not even debatable.
Then you say this racist shit just to put icing on the hypocrite-cake? (sometimes known as a hypocake)
ALSO, WHAT SHOULD WE CALL THIS COUNTRY:
I just hope you can educate savages like r.Evo before you come to the conclusion that he cannot be educated, as he is an inferior human being, but perhaps, he can serve some useful purpose yet by, say, doing undesirable jobs. That's where brutes like him belong, anyway, RIGHT?
Clearly the country needs to be renamed Negro, you know, to be politically correct and all.
I also think this discussion has skewed too far; Haji originally meant the usage of nigger in all context (even non offensive context in history books/ old literature/etc) disgusted him. My original point (which I should have made clearer, my fault) was that the word by itself held no meaning, and that any connotation in it's usage that was not explicit in malicious intent shouldn't be taken offensively; muchless disgust him.
On April 04 2013 06:14 wei2coolman wrote: Clearly the country needs to be renamed Negro, you know, to be politically correct and all.
I also think this discussion has skewed too far; Haji originally meant the usage of nigger in all context (even non offensive context in history books/ old literature/etc) disgusted him. My original point (which I should have made clearer, my fault) was that the word by itself held no meaning, and that any connotation in it's usage that was not explicit in malicious intent shouldn't be taken offensively; muchless disgust him.
Words don't exist in a vacuum, and one's intent or lack of intent to offend people really doesn't matter a whit if they feel offended.
People can use whatever words they like. However, there shouldn't be the expectation that the audience will derive from that word the meaning you want, and I think it's laughable that some people get all up in arms when oppressed peoples do take offense at words that were historically used to oppress them.
I'm highly amused that you put so much meaning behind this word. Given the date of the post, and how convicted it appears you feel on the subject I'm tempted to believe this is an April's Fools joke. Especially given your handle...
I understand that haji is a term used to describe someone that has completed the journey to Mecca, and therefore is religion, not race, specific. But hajji, and specifically the killing of hajjis or dead hajjis, is a term that I've heard used quite frequently in the military ... much to the chagrin of leadership.
Regardless, I like that this post is at least bringing attention to derogatory terms even if it isn't done in the most poetic fashion.
On April 04 2013 06:14 wei2coolman wrote: Clearly the country needs to be renamed Negro, you know, to be politically correct and all.
I also think this discussion has skewed too far; Haji originally meant the usage of nigger in all context (even non offensive context in history books/ old literature/etc) disgusted him. My original point (which I should have made clearer, my fault) was that the word by itself held no meaning, and that any connotation in it's usage that was not explicit in malicious intent shouldn't be taken offensively; muchless disgust him.
Words don't exist in a vacuum, and one's intent or lack of intent to offend people really doesn't matter a whit if they feel offended.
People can use whatever words they like. However, there shouldn't be the expectation that the audience will derive from that word the meaning you want, and I think it's laughable that some people get all up in arms when oppressed peoples do take offense at words that were historically used to oppress them.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.alanhoyle.com/comics/dilbert_bah.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7yQ46Nb.gif)
