On April 10 2013 14:18 sam!zdat wrote:
because i think some things are not a matter of discussion. you kinda just have to set norms. because of what you say above (that it's not really possible to derive social norms from first principles - they're not objective, they're intersubjective, so sometimes the appropriate response to a question takes the form of a demand).

You're assuming the point of the extremist that has no arguments to back up his position besides "I think I'm right, you're wrong and my position is superior and nothing you say matters to me anyway. I'm just here to punch you into the face with my opinion until you're on my side. If that doesn't work you're inferior as human being. (...therefor I can call you pig in the next step and then justify slaughtering you for food.)"

If this is about "You don't fart into someones face while he's eating", I'm very sure the majority would agree with you. Since this is about a - apparently - controversial argument an extremist position doesn't contribute anything to the discussion besides noise.

This is like trying to discuss whether to change immigrant policy and on one fence there's the guy shouting "LET THEM ALL IN" and on the other the guy "OMG OUT WITH ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE", both trying to yell so loud that their "opinion" drowns the other guy out - neither of them can be taken seriously. Both believe their opinions are utterly superior, both are supremacists.

sam!zdat

United States5559 Posts

April 10 2013 17:11 GMT

#143

On April 10 2013 21:46 r.Evo wrote:
Since this is about a - apparently - controversial argument an extremist position doesn't contribute anything to the discussion besides noise.

that's not true, though, because you know who i am.

i think it's wrong because society disapproves. who is society? society is us. i am one of us. and i disapprove. (edit: it's not like I made this up. that word is not acceptable in polite society. it's not just a matter of my opinion, it's a fact about the way that society is. anyone who doesn't understand this is, in my eyes, just sort of ignorant about a basic element of good manners, and one which isn't worth questioning. what good would possibly come of people saying "nigger" all of a sudden? leave it alone. people only want to give "arguments" for why it's okay to say because they're looking for cheap transgressive thrills. that's a good rule, leave it alone. hone your sophistry on something else)

there's some space for the enumeration of reasons, but I don't think social disapproval of a behavior is always about reasons. sometimes you just forbid things, and ask questions later. i think the usage of this word is obviously offensive to the extent that it's not really worthy of discussion.

edit: because I really do find people who think they can use this word to be behaving childishly. when children behave childishly, there comes a point when you cannot give them a reason for why they should not do so. you have to just say "because I say so, because that is the way that we behave." you have to use social force. at the end of the day, people just kind of have to say "do I respect sam or not?" and then decide whether or not my opinion matters. it's not really about convincing people with arguments. but if someone wants to go around using that language, then we can't be friends, because I don't associate with people who have bad manners. I think that's how stuff like this gets played out, not with rational argumentation.

On April 10 2013 21:46 r.Evo wrote:
If this is about "You don't fart into someones face while he's eating", I'm very sure the majority would agree with you.

I don't see any difference. what I'm saying is that I really don't think it's controversial (in the sense of not being worthy of controversy. this is the same sense in which I don't believe that, say, gay marriage is controversial, even though the media will tell you that it is a "controversy." people who disagree are simply wrong, it's not really worth dignifying their position with a "reason" why it is wrong)

edit: as someone said before. there's no "objective" answer to the question of whether or not it is inappropriate. so why seek an "objective" answer through rational disputation? it's wrong because I say it's wrong (and everyone else in polite society agrees with me).

Helios.Star

United States548 Posts

April 11 2013 03:56 GMT

#144

On April 01 2013 08:54 Yurie wrote:
Funny thing is that there is a Swedish cookie called (translated) Nigger Ball. This is since it is black and the word had no negative meaning at the time of naming.

Since we are now a days politically correct it was renamed and only people aged 60+ call it by the old name. Now it would translate to Coco Ball, even though some variants doesn't use coco...

The word has always had a negative meaning, it was just socially acceptable at the time of the naming, just like how Brazil nuts were called nigger toes.
For everybody here defending the use of the word, would you feel comfortable using it casually in a formal setting like a job interview? Or in front of someone black you just met? I seriously doubt any of you would ask him to pass the nigger toes...

nunez

Norway4003 Posts

April 11 2013 03:59 GMT

#145

On April 11 2013 02:11 sam!zdat wrote:
I think that's how stuff like this gets played out, not with rational argumentation.

i don't think it's hard to interpret your position from a rational point of view. it could follow from assuming the use of a word with meaning in context having consequences, coupled with having some perception of how we should seek control these consequences through its use to achieve some goal (f.ex in this thread: least possible racism). a reasonable model in a lot of cases similar to this.

one of the consequences of use is the change of the words meaning, which is also fading with time. making a reasonable assumption on the average reader of this thread and taking my own experience into account would probably lead me to post mildly discouraging or mildly encouraging to achieve our goal. both seem rational. which side i would land on would largely depend on my assumption on the average reader.

but this is not an accurate model of my perceived meaning of a word. i know it's not only a function of use, but also f.ex strong feelings or the strong feelings of close ones. this unmodelled disturbance would manifest itself through significant use of the word by me or others in contexts detrimental to my goal. if that's the case i would have to make another assumption on strong feelings and expand my model to account for them if i wanted it to fit in these cases as well.

these cases aren't being discussed in these last pages. i haven't i experienced a case like that. if i did, it would still cause the result of my rational approach (to the cases actually discussed here) to differ significantly from where it would end up had i not experienced it. it would be manifested in my assumption on the average reader and/or due to some other lingering unmodelled dynamic relating to that experience.

i wouldn't be doing myself any favours trying to marginalize those people as extremist. instead trying to understand where they are coming from could give me insight into some dynamic that i have not accounted for in my model because i have not experienced it, or i have forgotten about it.

edit: tl posters are not always rational when they post.

felisconcolori

United States6168 Posts

April 12 2013 05:42 GMT

#146

Relevant:

+ Show Spoiler +

And frankly surprising I haven't seen it in this entire thread. (Of course, there's always the SNL skit he did with Chevy Chase, but that one is less comedy to me than the two of them exploring the social issue.)

MarlieChurphy

United States2063 Posts

April 12 2013 08:28 GMT

#147

I don't think anyone should be offended by any racial slurs anymore than any other negative word with a tone attached to it's context. If some guy is all in your face regardless of color and he calls you a fucking nigger or a fucking toothpaste, either way he is all in your face yelling at you. Isn't 70% of communication nonverbal anyways? Tone, inflection, cadence, etc. Also, nigger was mainly used for blacks(slaves) but it's actual definition is just as offensive to any person.

PS- How can you hate a word with such a catchy song? + Show Spoiler +

Clbull

United Kingdom1439 Posts

April 12 2013 16:55 GMT

#148

This Lil Jon track holds a Guiness World Record for Most Expletives In A Single Song at 295.

But in all seriousness, I have never and will never use it as an insult. It's amazing that when I beat a Terran with tanks he called me a "tank massing n***er."

Facultyadjutant

Sweden1876 Posts

April 12 2013 17:01 GMT

#149

I have little in regards of people who use the deragotary term nigger

Even if they are black

We don't say certain words to each other, we don't curse to each other. We set these restraints to see who we can trust and take into our lifes.

It's basic courtesy, just a deragotary word like many others, there is no fear of it. Just the knowledge of it's fucking stupid nature.