Is the word ******** offensive?

[Communisto]

I am half french canadian. No one makes more french and canadian jokes than I do. Sometimes I introduce my self as a hoser.

So many things wrong with this.

 

[squadbroken]

But that's exactly what youre doing. It stems from a fear of being thought a racist/bigot/homophobe.

If you say 'the n-word,' you are relegating that slur to some kind of voldemort-esque collection of sylables that cannot be spoken, instead of the simple, ugly thing it is. We have to say these words like adults and in doing so accept responsibility for choosing to bring up these words and issues in conversation. Otherwise the issues surrounding them never really get addressed. You can express your sensitivity to those affected by a slur without acting like youre talking to a child.

I agree. In my opinion you cannot fight bigotry by euphemising it or covering it up. It must be confronted head on, unceasingly and openly, and this requires not being afraid of the language that bigots use. When someone says "n-word" to refer to someone saying "<snip>" (ugh, and there's the enforced censorship) they are just apologising for the speaker when they should be calling them out with their own unvarnished words.

Moderator Action: Please do not use words blocked by the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree. In my opinion you cannot fight bigotry by euphemising it or covering it up. It must be confronted head on, unceasingly and openly, and this requires not being afraid of the language that bigots use. When someone says "n-word" to refer to someone saying "<snip>" (ugh, and there's the enforced censorship) they are just apologising for the speaker when they should be calling them out with their own unvarnished words.

But why? What does that actually achieve?

Moderator Action: Please do not quote words blocked by the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[squadbroken]

But why? What does that actually achieve?

Just to clarify, in case you're wondering: I'm not talking about using the word in question in any sense other than what I specifically referred to, which is confronting the usage of said word.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But is there any reason to believe that this will actually work? No other social problem is imagined to go away just because you stop talking about it. Tim Wise, again, has insightful comments:

I agree that one can not literally just not talk about it and hope it goes away. But that we naturally don't talk about race unless in a fairly harmless context as "I really like the asses of black chicks" should IMO be the finale aim and for that I think it is necessary that all kinds of racial profiling should be frowned upon. Negative as well as positive racism.
You don't want to hire the guy because he is black? No can do.
You want to hire the guy because he is black? No can do.
You want to verbally attack the guy because he is black by saying the n-word? No can do.
You want to forbid saying the n-word in whatever context to support blacks? No can do.
Don't concern yourself with poverty of blacks. Concern yourself with the poverty of people. etc.

At first that gives black people a weaker stance, that's for sure. And that's why for instance Wise probably opposes this. But over a longer time I think such a policy would do greater good in fighting racism than using positive racism to fight negative racism. With the holy end aim that race actually really is not of much greater importance than a preference for brunette or blond hair. As long as we employ positive racism, I don't think we can ever get there.

That's an argument that you cold perhaps put forward in the 1960s, but now? When we've had fifty years to get over it? Three generations to get over it? In which the majority of the population have never lived in a world in which that word was acceptable? It honestly just feels like pandering.

If we feel the need to taboo a word we obviously have not gotten over it.

Is that actually how people acquire racist views in the real world, though? Can racism be meaningfully addressed as various individuals coming to independently absurd conclusions, and not as a society-wide phenomenon with centuries of history behind? You're already addressing the fact that individuals do not live in a vacuum by noting the stigma against racism, so why would you then assume that his propensity towards it is purely individual, and not similarly acquired from others? It simply doesn't gel with any of the serious studies of race and racism, contemporary or historical, that have been made.

Well it was only an example to illustrate. Maybe a bad one. The point behind it is that to imagine the world around you in groups is normal. And fundamentally different physical appearances are an awesome template to do such grouping. And then you also have actual social tendencies of different races due to historic reasons. So racism is naturally provided with great potential. It is sort of natural itself one could say. And that's a fact we can't help and IMO should acknowledge. Because that makes it easier for people who have such views to open themselves up to the misleading nature of racism.
IMO Stigmatizing the hell out of negative racism is hence harmful in this instance.
But please don't confuse this with not opposing negative racism. Of course we have to oppose it and also in principle stigmatize it. The question is how, with what tools, with what kind of pressure. The n-word-taboo in a context not meant to hurt is for me a good example of applying too much / the wrong kind of pressure.


In conclusion, I think the n-word-taboo is part of a policy (employing positive racism) that fights racism seemingly well at first, yields good measurable results, but starts to be counterproductive in a bigger frame of time for the reasons mentioned.