Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
I generally don't need to use "offensive" words unless I'm quoting someone. I'm not sure what I'd do if I thought a topic in general might be offensive to someone I was speaking with, but unless I was seeking to entertain them I'd probably bring it up anyways.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
"That's a weird comment. Do you not understand what I meant?" - Tongpu
Did you understand me? There is no such thing as a complete non-racist. Racism is human nature. The distinction is arbitrary, and apart from it the only distinction is race.
"While many accusations of racism are off-base, racists do exist, and when it comes to the use of the word in question, a word whose association with racism happens to be so extremely well-known that even the use of utterly unrelated words that merely sound similar to it have prompted accusations of racism" - Tongpu
Again, this does not reflect so much on the people accused of racism as the people doing the accusing. It shows how prone they are to jumping to conclusions.
"it is reasonable for somebody to conclude that when a person who isn't black uses said word, there exists a significant probability that they are a racist." - Tongpu
As if someone who does NOT use the word is NOT racist?
"Regarding the topic of the thread, though, I'd say that it is not reasonable to jump to the same conclusion about comedians and other sorts who by their very essence are putting on some sort of act." - Tongpu
Where do you draw the line, then? Much of online debate involves people putting on some sort of act, would you be disinclined to regard use of the n-word in online debates as nonindicative of racism?
"IOW, you don't think usage should dictate what words mean. Well, sorry, but that's just how language seems to work." - Tongpu
Only because of those who misuse it.
"What you've noticed, on the other hand, is merely a preference on my part for impersonal language." - Tongpu
That's not what you said, though. YOU said that people have to "earn" use of these words collectively, based on either being racist or non-racist (good luck finding the latter) or on race. (The only distinction left.)
"What determines "legitimate" meaning, if not majority rule? Do you think language is some sort of dictatorship?" - Tongpu
I love how non-democratic means dictatorial now. Ever heard of a republic, where majority rule has some role but is still nonetheless kept in check? I feel that is a bit more analogous to language. Majority rule can have some role, but the majority should not get away with doing whatever it wants for no good reason. Much like a republic functions on historical precedent, so should language, rather than just being toyed with however the majority feels like.
Did you understand me? No.
There is no such thing as a complete non-racist. Racism is human nature. The distinction is arbitrary, and apart from it the only distinction is race.Do you know what the phrase "pejorative connotation" means?
As if someone who does NOT use the word is NOT racist?There is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. It goes like this:
- If P, then Q.
- Not P.
- Therefore, not Q.
In this case, P would be "person uses the n-word" and Q would be "significant probability that person hates black people".
Where do you draw the line, then? I don't draw lines. I assign probabilities.
Much of online debate involves people putting on some sort of act, would you be disinclined to regard use of the n-word in online debates as nonindicative of racism?I would assign to a person using the n-word a person a greater-than-average probability that they bear antipathy towards black people. My probability estimate would go up or down depending upon further data. It is my policy to assume that other posters are not trolls until they indicate otherwise.
Only because of those who misuse it.Can you prove that they're the ones misusing it, and not you?
Ever heard of a republic, where majority rule has some role but is still nonetheless kept in check? I feel that is a bit more analogous to language. Majority rule can have some role, but the majority should not get away with doing whatever it wants for no good reason. Much like a republic functions on historical precedent, so should language, rather than just being toyed with however the majority feels like. han anybody else.
Loser
Yeah, I think the key thing here is audience. Even if you are okay with some pretty risque or dark humor, I do not think it makes sense to make those kinds of jokes when you're around little kids, you know?
edited 20th Nov '10 2:36:32 PM by LouieW
"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d
I have a pretty dark sense of humour, but I consider my audience to dictate what sort of jokes I make. I have lots of black friends that I am comfortable going waaaay off the deep end on humor with. I call my roomate and best friend niggers all the time and make frequent slavery jokes, because that's acceptable bounds for us.
I do, however, have black co-workers I would never say those things around because I know they would be offended as shit, even if we were close friends, my sense of humor and theirs differs in that way. My humor is sort of a refuge in vulgarity, it's SO across the line that it's hilarious.
But without the right audience, I'll keep the jokes in my head and just go about my day.
"I'd have massacred Haifa too, I'd mow them down too, that situation was about as black and white as a bus full of nuns!"