Does Not Illustrate: N Word Privileges

The N-Word Privileges page required a major cleaning-up a while back to remove misuse by people who were using it just to mean, "Someone used the N-Word" as opposed to what it actually means, which is "there is a standard at play in which a slur is acceptable only when said by someone within the group the slur targets or is otherwise granted special dispensation by that group," (e.g. "black people can say nigger without causing offense but white people usually cannot"). For examples, just check the page source; most of the misuse is still there commented out in case there's further context that would make them valid examples.

Anyway, misuse still crops up from time to time and needs to be cleaned up, and it occurs to me that part of the problem is that the page image is itself Not An Example; it just has a character using the (asterisked-out) word "nigga" and then acting shocked. It's funny, largely thanks to the art (and the fact that they're squirrels), but it doesn't illustrate the trope.

I tried to find a better image; my Google Image Searching mostly turned up memes and/or Just a Face and a Caption (as well as some truly horrifying racism; googler beware).

About the best I found was this◊, from an article attempting to answer the age-old "but how come they can say it and I can't?" question. With the proper caption (something like, "from inside to outside, most acceptable to least acceptable") it might work. I'd be open to better options if anyone can find one.

Even if we can't, though, I'm of the opinion that nothing at all would be better than the misleading one that's up now.

edited 21st Jan '16 6:35:17 AM by HighCrate

I'm going ahead and opening this one. I found two strips from Sinfest that we can use to cover this better than the current. 1, 2

Something like frames 2+4 of the first and 1 of the second?

That sounds like it can work.

Would look something like this...

FTW

Yeah, #5 perfectly illustrates this trope.

edited 22nd Jan '16 8:36:20 PM by Komodin

5 is good.

I don't think the image illustrates much at all, it's mostly speech bubbles. It's okay, though.

edited 25th Jan '16 9:56:32 PM by rodneyAnonymous

It's a dialogue-rated trope, it's kind of necessary.

I had a caption suggestion here, but it was pulled for being bad.

edited 23rd Jan '16 1:50:17 AM by Karxrida

5 works.

5 seems good to me.

I realize it's partly necessary, but I strenuously object to using the word "illustrate" to describe merely talking about a phenomenon.

A depiction, then. We see the trope in action and that's what counts; everything else is semantics.

Bump; any other thoughts?

For the record, I think the fact that the offended party is visibly a pig adds something to the image that wouldn't be there if it were just a quote. It's not much, but it's something.

I support 5. It's a dialogue trope, so the use of speech balloons are fine. If it were just a quote, then for anyone else knows, the two parties would both be human.

edited 26th Jan '16 1:18:02 PM by Josef5678

Good enough; 5 is up and tagged. Caption?

"Any resemblance to real slang is purely coincidental."

edited 26th Jan '16 2:55:20 PM by AnotherDuck

No consensus on a caption; locking up.