WORMS: Racism or context?
M Blaze Miskulin
viewpoint is, but I'm curious to hear the reactions of a larger population.
I'll try to relate the events as unbiased as I can.
In a BDSM forum, a thread was talking about labels and how they can hurt
people. I took up the position that words are only words and the only
power they have is that which we choose to give them.
One person on the other side of the argument describes himself as
"queer". I made the following statement:
"Queer used to be a serious insult, along the lines of "towel
head","nigger", or "kike". But it was co-opted and now has lost its
power as an insult."
An acquaintance of mine IMed me saying:
"Do you hate all black people? Or do you just want people to hate you?"
A friend of hers (who is (at least partly) black) came into the thread
and posted:
"Please say that in my presence so that the next thing you say can be
"how did I end up on the floor?""
/* end neutral commentary */
Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
use of the word is racist.
My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
Opinions?
--
Brother Blaze
The Unintentional Monk
Order of St. Brendan, Navigator
Barbara Bailey
news:ZD4Qk.22858$Dm5....@newsfe01.iad:
I'm with you, but then you are arguing from the POV that the word only
has as much power as the hearer chooses to give it. They are clearly
coming form the other position: that it has an intrinsic power that no
amount of context can remove. To someone who holds that position, there
*is* no non-insulting use, the very existance of the word is an insult.
I think that the truth is somewhere between the two positions; there are
a very few words that are so contaminated by past usage that they have
acquired a certain level of power that context can, at best, reduce but
not do away with completely.
Canth
In the context of the USA, I understood it to be racist. One could
argue a case that discussing the word itself is not racist per se, but
applying it to a person to be so. In that context, you usage would
not have been racist.
However, the problem with words is not what we mean by them, but what
our listeners mean by them. There are some people who invest some
words with so much power that they cannot hear the word without
reacting.
We have had some discussion (and at least one court case) about the
"Nigger" Coombs Stand at one of our sporting venues. "Nigger" Coombs
was a brilliant rugby player for Queensland. He was white, almost
albino - in typical Aust reverse slang, he was nicknamed "Nigger" at
an early age, from I might add the name of a popular brand of shoe
blacking.
I understand that there is also some discussion going on about a
remake of the movie, the Dambusters. The head of the squadron had a
black dog named "Nigger"; it figures in the book and in the original
movie. However, there are those who want to rewrite history & either
leave the dog out, or give it another name. To me, that is PC
rampant.
Purple
I agree with you, and next time a black asks you that, ask them if all
the young black people running around using that word hate black
people.
With that said, you have to realize that there is an "in" group that
can use words like that and get away with it. You are not a part of
the in group that can use "the N word" without getting into trouble
for it.
My belief is that that particular word has become shorthand for a
certian type of black person. If we were talking about the same kind
of white person "White Trash" would be the phrase we use.
Dave
>
> Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
> use of the word is racist.
>
> My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
> Opinions?
>
suppose you could have said something about the "n-word", but the use
of that particular construction always seems to be a bit of a cop-out
to me. I suppose this is like sexual harrasment - legally, it doesn't
matter what your intent was, it's all about how it was seen by the
person on the other end. That being said, are your correspondents as
equally upset about the casual use of the word between two homeboys,
as in "hey nigger, what's up?" Personally, my view is that if it is
to be a "bad" word, then it has to be a "bad" word all the time and
can't be used in a non-racist sense some of the time, depending on the
speaker's skin color and/or intent.
Dave
The TheatrElf
news:ZD4Qk.22858$Dm5....@newsfe01.iad:
We are each responsible for our own reactions. In the context
you used, you were not slinging insults around, you were making a
valid attempt to put a word into correct context.
But you can't choose how someone else decides to react. All you
can do is say "I'm sorry you chose to interpret my statement that
way."
This fellow has chosen to let certain words dictate his world;
it's sad and even pathetic, but there's not much one can do.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
My, don't we all look _smashing_ in red.
Dave
<snip>
>
> I understand that there is also some discussion going on about a
> remake of the movie, the Dambusters. The head of the squadron had a
> black dog named "Nigger"; it figures in the book and in the original
> movie. However, there are those who want to rewrite history & either
> leave the dog out, or give it another name. To me, that is PC
> rampant.
I remember my grandmother telling me that when she grew up (in turn of
the last century Canada) that the family had a black cat that they
called "Nigger" and that they used to stand on the porch and call the
cat by yelling "Here, Nigger, Nigger, Nigger" I can't imagine the
pandemonium that would result if that happened today!
Dave
The TheatrElf
news:8sm1h4tpfj9pldbhe...@4ax.com:
People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
YOU kill it -- I'm bitter.
Ree
The trouble is that a conversation is a two way street. You tried to
make it clear that you did not take those words seriously as insults but
the problem there is that their take on it is just as valid as yours in
a discussion.
Sure, they have the option to take control of those words and their
meanings so that the words are not insults even in a world that has
trained them otherwise. But, besides me of course, who the hell is
perfect? :-P
I would suggest that you explain that you don't see those words, for
your own reasons, to be insults and that you mean no insult to the
people involved because you don't consider being homosexual or black to
be an insult because it's not a bad thing. That could smooth the waters
enough to be able to discuss this meaningfully. Or it may not. But
when you are hitting peoples hot buttons, those are the chances you take.
Also remember that when someone uses an insult toward themselves or a
close friend/family member, there is an automatic understanding between
the giver & reciever of the insult as to what it means. That is not
there between strangers of course so one is more polite with strangers.
I realize you were not calling anyone names in this conversation but
since they didn't realize it, and it hit a hot button, it's time to pull
out "stranger level" politeness.
Just my take.
Ree
D.J.
]
]My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
If African-Americans can use it, so can anyone else. Otherwise,
African-Americans need to stop using it as well.
D.J.
--
http://star.drivein-jim.net/ Starship deck plans
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ Oct, 2008 AD&D pages
Ree
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:11:07 -0600, M Blaze Miskulin
> <bl...@geekniche.com> wrote:
> ]Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
> ]use of the word is racist.
> ]
> ]My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
> If African-Americans can use it, so can anyone else. Otherwise,
> African-Americans need to stop using it as well.
>
> D.J.
Haven't you ever used language toward yourself that you would never
allow someone else to use toward you? If so, I'm impressed because most
people are very good at insulting themselves and bringing themselves
down. It's very different for me to have called my dad an old fart or
something that I would not say to a stranger because they don't know me
well enough to judge how much I really mean it.
I've said before to people: "You bitch! I like it!" in response to
something but those are friends who will know how I mean it and not take
offense therefore. I would not call anyone that if I didn't know that
they would read me correctly.
So words that can be used in a particular context can be anathema in
another. I think the big thing is that, if in doubt, be respectful.
Ree
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>
>People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
And it's merely the most scathing condemnation of racism ever written.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
The TheatrElf
news:tus1h4hrof5mc6ph9...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:36:02 -0600, The TheatrElf
> <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
>
> And it's merely the most scathing condemnation of racism ever
> written.
>
Word!
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Try enjoying yourself. Everyone else has.
Denny Wheeler
>The trouble is that a conversation is a two way street. You tried to
>make it clear that you did not take those words seriously as insults but
>the problem there is that their take on it is just as valid as yours in
>a discussion.
Well, no.
If I observe (in conversation with you) that "bitch" and "slut" are
insulting to the women called by the terms, have I insulted you?
That's an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's not even, "if I were to call you 'slut' it'd be an
insult,"--which could be misheard as actually calling you by that
term.
They have the right to take offense if anyone uses whatever term to
describe them, or even others. Blaze did no such thing.
Wes Struebing
<bl...@geekniche.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, words (as you've found out) DO carry baggage. And
words DO have power (consider a name - lots of power in that word...)
I realize you were only trying to make a point, but since we are
human, especially those who HAVE been hurt or been close to someone
who has been hurt, they are like daggers in one's soul.
AFAIK "nigger" still carries (as it should, imho) really heavy
negative baggage. The word you're looking for, I believe, is
"nigggah" Still too close for me, and it seems a lot of my older
African-American fiends and acquaintances, one of whom ROUNDLY chewed
out a young black male for using it in front of her.
Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
words...
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in
...or worse (imho) trying to "rewrite" it...
<sigh>
Denny Wheeler
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>words...
AND their context.
M Blaze Miskulin
> People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
Actually, my response to the threat was "I suggest you don't read any
Mark Twain".
M Blaze Miskulin
> Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
> words...
And ignore the context?
So, I'm at the mercy of everyone? I have to sit down with every person
I ever meet to ask them what words they find offensive, and then make
sure I never use that word in their presence--regardless of the intent
or context?
I must be a slave to the insecurities of every person I meet?
Desideria
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
Ah. And if I were an African-American woman (or better yet for this,
an African-American male), I'da had some choice words for the young
men I've heard referring to their girlfriends as 'bitches'.
Desideria
Leigh Claffey
> Wes Struebing wrote:
>
>> Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>> words...
>
> And ignore the context?
>
> So, I'm at the mercy of everyone? I have to sit down with every person
> I ever meet to ask them what words they find offensive, and then make
> sure I never use that word in their presence--regardless of the intent
> or context?
>
> I must be a slave to the insecurities of every person I meet?
>
No, you must be a victim to their insecurities and inability to read for
content.
--Leigh
Barbara Bailey
@newsfe01.iad:
> Wes Struebing wrote:
>
>> Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>> words...
>
> And ignore the context?
>
> So, I'm at the mercy of everyone? I have to sit down with every person
> I ever meet to ask them what words they find offensive, and then make
> sure I never use that word in their presence--regardless of the intent
> or context?
>
> I must be a slave to the insecurities of every person I meet?
>
No, but you must be aware that you are not in complete control of every
interaction you have, that as long as there is even *one* person on the
other end of the attempt at communication, you do not control it, and the
result may not be what you want, intend, or desire.
You must be aware that what *you* meant is not the sole measure of the
success of the communication.
You must be aware that sometimes, someone is going to not agrre with you,
that sometimes, someone is going to react differently than you would, or
than you expect.
If you refuse to recognze the interactive nature of communication, you will
not communicate.
That does not make you a slave or a victim.
0mn1vore
07:00:43 +0100, Barbara Bailey said:
> M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> wrote in news:hK8Qk.71222$f_7.49855
> @newsfe01.iad:
>
>> Wes Struebing wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>>> words...
>>
>> And ignore the context?
>>
>> So, I'm at the mercy of everyone? I have to sit down with every person
>> I ever meet to ask them what words they find offensive, and then make
>> sure I never use that word in their presence--regardless of the intent
>> or context?
>>
>> I must be a slave to the insecurities of every person I meet?
>>
>
> No, but you must be aware that you are not in complete control of every
> interaction you have, that as long as there is even *one* person on the
> other end of the attempt at communication, you do not control it, and the
> result may not be what you want, intend, or desire.
Ouch. True.
>
> You must be aware that what *you* meant is not the sole measure of the
> success of the communication.
>
> You must be aware that sometimes, someone is going to not agrre with you,
> that sometimes, someone is going to react differently than you would, or
> than you expect.
>
> If you refuse to recognze the interactive nature of communication, you will
> not communicate.
>
> That does not make you a slave or a victim.
No, just unlucky.
Patrick.
--
Email to; 0mn1-sneaking(a)sneakEmail,com
but fix the (a) and the comma first.
He who lives without folly is less wise than he believes.
Beth Jackson
>>>People are trying
<empathizingly-mischievous undervoiced comment;>
Yes; they *are*...
Very.
(At least sometimes, e.g., in this instance)
>>>to ban Huckleberry Finn
>>>for its language.
Denny Wheeler:
>>And it's merely
>>the most scathing
>>condemnation of racism
>>ever written.
(...or at least one of 'em... I don't personally happen t' know *all*
possible examples of it, y' know..;)
Xjahn/The TheatrElf:
>Word!
<grin; borrowing slang from a couple of my younger male co-workers>
"*Word UP!!*"
--Canary,
offering a VR version of a happy "high-5"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Canvas Canary"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I love to paint, sing, am blonde & a bit flighty:)
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/canvascanary
*****************************
"Creative minds are seldom tidy." --Anon.
*****************************
"I'm out of bed, and dressed;
what more do you want?!" --Anon.
D.J.
]Haven't you ever used language toward yourself that you would never
I don't remember of-hand. It is possible.
Tonnie
<rabr...@yayhu.comm> wrote:
>No, but you must be aware that you are not in complete control of every
>interaction you have, that as long as there is even *one* person on the
>other end of the attempt at communication, you do not control it, and the
>result may not be what you want, intend, or desire.
>
>You must be aware that what *you* meant is not the sole measure of the
>success of the communication.
>
>You must be aware that sometimes, someone is going to not agrre with you,
>that sometimes, someone is going to react differently than you would, or
>than you expect.
>
>If you refuse to recognze the interactive nature of communication, you will
>not communicate.
>
>That does not make you a slave or a victim.
Wow, I love this answer - and one day my English will be good enough
to write the same ;o)))) BOYC?
--
"We live only to discover beauty. All else is a form of
waiting." Kahlil Gibran
Ree
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:56:44 -0500, Ree <ge...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
>> The trouble is that a conversation is a two way street. You tried to
>> make it clear that you did not take those words seriously as insults but
>> the problem there is that their take on it is just as valid as yours in
>> a discussion.
>
> Well, no.
>
> If I observe (in conversation with you) that "bitch" and "slut" are
> insulting to the women called by the terms, have I insulted you?
No, but those are not exactly hot buttons for me though I instinctively
feel revulsion toward the second term in particular. Such early
training! So I do immediately react to the term. So stating that "if I
don't mean anything when I say it to you, you shouldn't take offense" is
a, possibly even more, insulting thing to say.
>
> That's an apples-to-apples comparison.
>
> It's not even, "if I were to call you 'slut' it'd be an
> insult,"--which could be misheard as actually calling you by that
> term.
>
> They have the right to take offense if anyone uses whatever term to
> describe them, or even others. Blaze did no such thing.
>
> -denny-
What I'm saying is that people don't always hear the same thing you did
when you made a statement. So, in a potentially very inflammatory
situation such as this, one has to be extra careful if one wants to be
understood. Easier in actual, vocal, speech than in print such as this
of course. But they deserve extreme respect in the reply so as to
counteract the past experience that has made it a hot button. Not
necessarily because you attempted to be offensive but because they need
more consideration since they've received so little in the past. IOW,
sometimes people just need more respect and it doesn't cost that much to
give.
But what do I know, I'm just a woman! ;-) :-P
Ree
Barbara Bailey
news:8tu2h45sdfqarbih7...@4ax.com:
Thank you for the compliment, Tonnie. I'll have a cup of Sumatran coffee,
black. (It's only 7:00 am here.)
Tonnie
>What I'm saying is that people don't always hear the same thing you did
>when you made a statement. So, in a potentially very inflammatory
>situation such as this, one has to be extra careful if one wants to be
>understood. Easier in actual, vocal, speech than in print such as this
>of course. But they deserve extreme respect in the reply so as to
>counteract the past experience that has made it a hot button. Not
>necessarily because you attempted to be offensive but because they need
>more consideration since they've received so little in the past. IOW,
>sometimes people just need more respect and it doesn't cost that much to
>give.
>
>But what do I know, I'm just a woman! ;-) :-P
And a nice one ;o)) Shall we have a drink together? <g>
--
Eigenlijk praten we alleen tegen onszelf, maar soms praten wij
luid genoeg zodat anderen ons kunnen horen. Kahlil Gibran.
David
>I've run this situation past friends, and I certainly know what my own
>viewpoint is, but I'm curious to hear the reactions of a larger population.
>
>I'll try to relate the events as unbiased as I can.
>
>In a BDSM forum, a thread was talking about labels and how they can hurt
>people. I took up the position that words are only words and the only
>power they have is that which we choose to give them.
>
>One person on the other side of the argument describes himself as
>"queer". I made the following statement:
>
>"Queer used to be a serious insult, along the lines of "towel
>head","nigger", or "kike". But it was co-opted and now has lost its
>power as an insult."
>
>An acquaintance of mine IMed me saying:
>
>"Do you hate all black people? Or do you just want people to hate you?"
>
>A friend of hers (who is (at least partly) black) came into the thread
>and posted:
>
>"Please say that in my presence so that the next thing you say can be
>"how did I end up on the floor?""
>
>/* end neutral commentary */
>
>
>Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
>use of the word is racist.
>
>My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
>
>Opinions?
I think that they saw the word and forgot to read the context.
--
David
No email replies please.
So I'm right. Period.
Anyone who believes different is retarded.
(Stolen from JJRussell, alt.funnytown)
(Originally posted by Jami JoAnne in alt.folklore.urban)
David
furiously:
That's not my take on what was written at all. I read in the statement
that the word "queer" used to be an insult but is not now while the
other words used are still considered to be insults. Of course I could
be wrong.
Fnord Prefect Fnord
>
> One person on the other side of the argument describes himself as
> "queer". I made the following statement:
>
> "Queer used to be a serious insult, along the lines of "towel
> head","nigger", or "kike". But it was co-opted and now has lost its
> power as an insult."
>
"'Nigger' is a serious insult" is what I extract from that. Doesn't sound
hateful to me.
Lots42
> Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
> use of the word is racist.
>
> My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> Brother Blaze
Apart from the socilogical context, such as this very thread, I would
have to say yes. Using it is racist.
Lots42
> I agree with you, and next time a black asks you that, ask them if all
> the young black people running around using that word hate black
> people.
It's possible to self-hate, which I believe is going on with the use
of that word by black people.
The useage -is- affected by people who will be offended by hearing it;
it is like if you know someone has an irrational fear of alligators,
and you bring in your stuffed gator to their house.
Jette
But "queer" isn't so much. Which was the point Brother Blaze was
trying to make.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
The Rocket Scientist
> viewpoint is, but I'm curious to hear the reactions of a larger population.
>
> I'll try to relate the events as unbiased as I can.
>
> In a BDSM forum, a thread was talking about labels and how they can hurt
> people. I took up the position that words are only words and the only
> power they have is that which we choose to give them.
>
> "queer". I made the following statement:
>
> "Queer used to be a serious insult, along the lines of "towel
> head","nigger", or "kike". But it was co-opted and now has lost its
> power as an insult."
>
>
> "Do you hate all black people? Or do you just want people to hate you?"
>
> A friend of hers (who is (at least partly) black) came into the thread
> and posted:
>
> "Please say that in my presence so that the next thing you say can be
> "how did I end up on the floor?""
>
> /* end neutral commentary */
>
> use of the word is racist.
>
> My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> Brother Blaze
> Order of St. Brendan, Navigator
A good friend of mine, who is black (his preferred term) once told me
that the word is contextual. Blacks often refer to their friends with
that particular word, and intend it in a humorous or even a loving
manner. Those same blacks will, however, take umbrage to a non-black
using it, no matter what the intent. He compares it to Italians using
the words "Wop" or "Dago" among themselves as a joke, but who will be
angered when a non-Italian refers to them with those words.
Apparently, membership in the target audience negates any racist
intent.
My friend refuses to use the word, except to note that it ought to be
applied to deserving persons regardless of their skin color.
Chris Zakes
caused M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> to write:
>Wes Struebing wrote:
>
>> Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>> words...
>
>And ignore the context?
>
>So, I'm at the mercy of everyone? I have to sit down with every person
>I ever meet to ask them what words they find offensive, and then make
>sure I never use that word in their presence--regardless of the intent
>or context?
>
>I must be a slave to the insecurities of every person I meet?
Of course. Haven't you been paying attention? The 29th amendment to
the US Constitution gives everyone the right to never be offended.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise
them missionaries for dinner.
-H.L. Mencken
The TheatrElf
news:0z8Qk.40$6X1...@newsfe01.iad:
> The TheatrElf wrote:
>
>> People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
>
> Actually, my response to the threat was "I suggest you don't
> read any Mark Twain".
>
>
The sad part is that they are probably already working to remove
his books from their local schools.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Quantum Express: When you absolutely, positively, don't know
where it's going or when it needs to be there.
Ree
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:55:37 -0500, Ree <ge...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'm saying is that people don't always hear the same thing you did
>> when you made a statement. So, in a potentially very inflammatory
>> situation such as this, one has to be extra careful if one wants to be
>> understood. Easier in actual, vocal, speech than in print such as this
>> of course. But they deserve extreme respect in the reply so as to
>> counteract the past experience that has made it a hot button. Not
>> necessarily because you attempted to be offensive but because they need
>> more consideration since they've received so little in the past. IOW,
>> sometimes people just need more respect and it doesn't cost that much to
>> give.
>>
>> But what do I know, I'm just a woman! ;-) :-P
>
> And a nice one ;o)) Shall we have a drink together? <g>
>
Why t'ank you!
Ree
Ree
> Wes Struebing wrote:
>
>> Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>> words...
>
> And ignore the context?
>
> So, I'm at the mercy of everyone? I have to sit down with every person
> I ever meet to ask them what words they find offensive, and then make
> sure I never use that word in their presence--regardless of the intent
> or context?
>
> I must be a slave to the insecurities of every person I meet?
>
Yes. Just as they are a slave to the unnecessary cruelties of every
person they meet.
Ree
John W. Vinson
>M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> wrote in
>news:0z8Qk.40$6X1...@newsfe01.iad:
>
>> The TheatrElf wrote:
>>
>>> People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
>>
>> Actually, my response to the threat was "I suggest you don't
>> read any Mark Twain".
>>
>>
>
>The sad part is that they are probably already working to remove
>his books from their local schools.
That movement has been underway for a century or so.
--
John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com
The TheatrElf
news:3pe4h4letpff34g8p...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:12:41 -0600, The TheatrElf
> <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> wrote in
>>news:0z8Qk.40$6X1...@newsfe01.iad:
>>
>>> The TheatrElf wrote:
>>>
>>>> People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
>>>
>>> Actually, my response to the threat was "I suggest you don't
>>> read any Mark Twain".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The sad part is that they are probably already working to
>>remove his books from their local schools.
>
> That movement has been underway for a century or so.
But it didn't used to be black people doing it.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
The lion and the calf shall lie down together but the calf won't
get much sleep. (Woody Allen)
Wes Struebing
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:52:56 -0700, Wes Struebing
><str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>
>>Yes, words are words are words - but people have to interpret those
>>words...
>
>AND their context.
>
Thank you. Yes, and their context.
Wes Struebing
Right. It is the hearer's problem (depending on, as others have
pointed out, the context)
You, Blaze, are only "at their mercy" if you let yourself be. Take
into account the baggage they might be carrying, but were you to
adjust your actions/words completely by your audience, you'd be
frozen.
(eg. it's obvious that the one word I used upthread carries a LOT of
baggage for me, but while it would rankle, the context in which you
used it would determine whether I cringed - and went on, or whether I
would consider you contemptible. [and, no; I do NOT...])
BOYC for me explaining myself poorly?
Wes Struebing
<bl...@geekniche.com> wrote:
>The TheatrElf wrote:
>
>> People are trying to ban Huckleberry Finn for its language.
>
>Actually, my response to the threat was "I suggest you don't read any
>Mark Twain".
Good response, imho...
Denny Wheeler
<bill.the.roc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A good friend of mine, who is black (his preferred term) once told me
>that the word is contextual. Blacks often refer to their friends with
>that particular word, and intend it in a humorous or even a loving
>manner. Those same blacks will, however, take umbrage to a non-black
>using it, no matter what the intent. He compares it to Italians using
>the words "Wop" or "Dago" among themselves as a joke, but who will be
>angered when a non-Italian refers to them with those words.
There's a disconnect here.
"...will take umbrage to a non-black using it, no matter what the
intent."
and
"angered when a non-Italian refers to them"
Either the first must be amended to parallel the second, or the
comparison isn't a comparison at all.
-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'" - Carl Schurz, in 1899
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
But Blaze's context was (I think your 'sociological' is a bit narrow)
in the same vein as that of a linguist discussing the shifts in usage.
In fact, that's exactly what he did.
Matthew Russotto
>viewpoint is, but I'm curious to hear the reactions of a larger population.
>
>I'll try to relate the events as unbiased as I can.
>
>In a BDSM forum, a thread was talking about labels and how they can hurt
>people. I took up the position that words are only words and the only
>power they have is that which we choose to give them.
>
>
>"Please say that in my presence so that the next thing you say can be
>"how did I end up on the floor?""
>
>/* end neutral commentary */
>
>
>use of the word is racist.
>
>My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
>
>Opinions?
Of course your use isn't racist. Doesn't mean that certain people
won't choose to be offended by it and a rather larger number will
defend their offense. Fact is, use of the word by a white person, or
alleged use of the word by a white person, is legitimate excuse in
many people's minds for any sort of retaliation any black person
overhearing decides to engage in.
Any word starting with 'N' and having the other two consonants is just
as suspect -- forget about talking about Niger (Nigeria is apparently
OK), or (famously) using the word "niggardly" in the earshot of the
overly sensitive.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Matthew Russotto
>
>So words that can be used in a particular context can be anathema in
>another. I think the big thing is that, if in doubt, be respectful.
But the context of D.J.s typing of the word was completely abstract.
He was discussing it _as_ an insult, not using it. If you can't use a
word in such a meta-context, it must be bad _in itself_. It's not,
IMO, possible to reconcile such a view of a word with a context where
that word is NOT bad _in itself_. Which tells me that it IS a matter
of context -- an the context is _who is saying it_. More precisely,
_the skin color_ of who is saying it. Which makes the reaction -- not
the word, but the reaction -- racist.
There's an old vaudeville routin*e (also done by the Three Stooges and
others) where if anyone says "Niagara Falls" in the presence of one
character, that character goes off violently, even if the phrase is
said in the most innocent of contexts. If a certain corruption of a
latin-derived word for "black" is that bad, as many pretend, the use
of it by black people should not be routinely accepted. But it is.
*Google "slowly I turn"
Ree
I've had that last happen. Sigh.
Ree
Leigh Claffey
Abbott and Costello used 'Susquahanna Hat Company' not 'Niagra Falls'
but it's the same routine (SHC is, IMO somewhat more aurally humorous...)
But that's a sidebar to your main argument with which I agree.
--Leigh
The Rocket Scientist
wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:28:02 -0800 (PST), The Rocket Scientist
>
You are correct, sir. It should properly read "...when a non-Italian
uses those words."
We Irish, however, don't seem to care if anyone calls us a Mick. We
just sit back and order another Guinness.
I stand corrected. BOYC?
Bill Sullivan
Lots42
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:25:58 -0800 (PST), Lots42 <lot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 4, 6:11 pm, M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> wrote:
>
> >> Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
> >> use of the word is racist.
>
> >> My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
> >> Opinions?
>
> >> --
> >> Brother Blaze
>
> >Apart from the socilogical context, such as this very thread, I would
> >have to say yes. Using it is racist.
>
> But Blaze's context was (I think your 'sociological' is a bit narrow)
> in the same vein as that of a linguist discussing the shifts in usage.
> In fact, that's exactly what he did.
>
> -denny-
??? I thought 'sociological' included linguistical.
Denny Wheeler
>> Any word starting with 'N' and having the other two consonants is just
>> as suspect -- forget about talking about Niger (Nigeria is apparently
>> OK), or (famously) using the word "niggardly" in the earshot of the
>> overly sensitive.
>
>I've had that last happen. Sigh.
As with the (in)famous example of the man who was almost fired for
recommending that his company improve its pedagogy.
Denny Wheeler
<bill.the.roc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>We Irish, however, don't seem to care if anyone calls us a Mick. We
>just sit back and order another Guinness.
>
>I stand corrected. BOYC?
Sure and I will. How about a Guinness from the Auld Sod, then? None
of the stuff we get on this side of the Pond with the Guinness label
on.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>On Nov 6, 12:59 am, Denny Wheeler
><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:25:58 -0800 (PST), Lots42 <lot...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 4, 6:11 pm, M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
>> >> use of the word is racist.
>>
>> >> My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>>
>> >> Opinions?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Brother Blaze
>>
>> >Apart from the socilogical context, such as this very thread, I would
>> >have to say yes. Using it is racist.
>>
>> But Blaze's context was (I think your 'sociological' is a bit narrow)
>> in the same vein as that of a linguist discussing the shifts in usage.
>> In fact, that's exactly what he did.
>>
>
>??? I thought 'sociological' included linguistical.
Okay, if that's how you meant it. I suppose that in its broadest
meaning, sociology would have to include language.
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:20:39 -0800 (PST), The Rocket Scientist
> <bill.the.roc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We Irish, however, don't seem to care if anyone calls us a Mick. We
>> just sit back and order another Guinness.
>>
>> I stand corrected. BOYC?
>
> Sure and I will. How about a Guinness from the Auld Sod, then?
Just curious, but doesn't the auld sod object to people calling him that?
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Firesong
<bl...@geekniche.com> wrote:
>I've run this situation past friends, and I certainly know what my own
>viewpoint is, but I'm curious to hear the reactions of a larger population.
>
>I'll try to relate the events as unbiased as I can.
>
>In a BDSM forum, a thread was talking about labels and how they can hurt
>people. I took up the position that words are only words and the only
>power they have is that which we choose to give them.
>
>One person on the other side of the argument describes himself as
>"queer". I made the following statement:
>
>"Queer used to be a serious insult, along the lines of "towel
>head","nigger", or "kike". But it was co-opted and now has lost its
>power as an insult."
>
>An acquaintance of mine IMed me saying:
>
>"Do you hate all black people? Or do you just want people to hate you?"
>
>A friend of hers (who is (at least partly) black) came into the thread
>and posted:
>
>"Please say that in my presence so that the next thing you say can be
>"how did I end up on the floor?""
>
>/* end neutral commentary */
>
>
>Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
>use of the word is racist.
>
>My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
>
>Opinions?
They are poopy heads. :)
They either have not, nor cannot read for context.
Firesong
Wes Struebing
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Denny Wheeler wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:20:39 -0800 (PST), The Rocket Scientist
>> <bill.the.roc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We Irish, however, don't seem to care if anyone calls us a Mick. We
>>> just sit back and order another Guinness.
>>>
>>> I stand corrected. BOYC?
>>
>> Sure and I will. How about a Guinness from the Auld Sod, then?
>
>Just curious, but doesn't the auld sod object to people calling him that?
Naw; I don't mind...
;-)
Robert Miles
"Chris Zakes" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t144h45dd1400omnh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:50:56 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused M Blaze Miskulin <bl...@geekniche.com> to write:
>
>>Wes Struebing wrote:
>>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
> promise
> them missionaries for dinner.
>
> -H.L. Mencken
And listen to his opponent calling him a missionary?
Clothahump
> I've run this situation past friends, and I certainly know what my own
> viewpoint is, but I'm curious to hear the reactions of a larger population.
>
> I'll try to relate the events as unbiased as I can.
>
> In a BDSM forum, a thread was talking about labels and how they can hurt
> people. I took up the position that words are only words and the only
> power they have is that which we choose to give them.
>
> One person on the other side of the argument describes himself as
> "queer". I made the following statement:
>
> "Queer used to be a serious insult, along the lines of "towel
> head","nigger", or "kike". But it was co-opted and now has lost its
> power as an insult."
>
> An acquaintance of mine IMed me saying:
>
> "Do you hate all black people? Or do you just want people to hate you?"
>
> A friend of hers (who is (at least partly) black) came into the thread
> and posted:
>
> "Please say that in my presence so that the next thing you say can be
> "how did I end up on the floor?""
>
> /* end neutral commentary */
>
>
> Their position is that my use of the word "nigger" is racist; that any
> use of the word is racist.
>
> My position is that the context of the usage says otherwise.
>
>
> Opinions?
I agree with you. Using it in the manner that you did is not racist or
offensive in the slightest. Anyone who thinks it is needs to get a life.
M Blaze Miskulin
> BOYC for me explaining myself poorly?
Nah.
My "question" above was blatantly sarcastic. I refuse to be at the
mercy of someone else's insecurities. I'm just baffled by those who
suggest I (or anyone else) should be.
--
Brother Blaze
The Unintentional Monk
Order of St. Brendan, Navigator