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

[NiRv4n4]

One of the odd ones.. Seeing as Polak is Pole in Polish.

Well, that is why I added "not linguistically or nationally", because in America at least it is used as a racial slur against Polish Americans (who mostly have no/negligible knowledge of the Polish language). Obviously it isn't offensive in Poland, you think I don't know that ?

Calling a Pole a Polak is like a Spanish person calling an Englishman English instead of Ingles. It really out to be less offensive. (Well, calling a Polish woman a Polak instead of a Polka could be offensive, but no more than referring to Latino women.)

See above.

See, Arwon, that's the proof that there is such thing as "political correctness". R-Word? I mean, really? What are we, stone age bushmen afraid of saying some words out loud because it might anger some vindictive god?

It's the same with "n-word" and other crap like that. The words on themselves are not offensive. They can be used to offend, sure. But you don't need them to offend anyone.

Censoring words does not destroy our ability to offend. I understand the orwellian purpose behind such practices, but it does not work like that.

Yes, censoring doesn't lessen our offensiveness, it simply lessens our resistance to potentially offensive stimuli. We should try to be respectful to each other, and avoid unnecessary provocations, but we should not shy away from the challenge of letting go of anger or frustration regarding slurs. Why must we live in a plush, fur coated existence?

 

[Traitorfish]

See, Arwon, that's the proof that there is such thing as "political correctness". R-Word? I mean, really? What are we, stone age bushmen afraid of saying some words out loud because it might anger some vindictive god?

It's the same with "n-word" and other crap like that. The words on themselves are not offensive. They can be used to offend, sure. But you don't need them to offend anyone.

Censoring words does not destroy our ability to offend. I understand the orwellian purpose behind such practices, but it does not work like that.

Perhaps this is just a cultural thing- I don't know if they do "letter-word" in Brazil- but I don't think that you're interpreting the practice at all correctly. It's not intended to disguise the word, because, as you say, everyone still knows full what what you mean; that is, in fact, the whole point of saying it. Rather, the purpose is to explicitly acknowledge that you are aware of and sensitive to the offence that can be caused by the word, and are considerate enough to make sure that they are aware of this. It's quite simply good manners.

Or would you call someone who said, say, "I'm just going to visit the restroom" an Orwellian censor, because they didn't have the good democratic decency to just stand up and say "I'm off to the crapper"?

 

[NiRv4n4]

Perhaps this is just a cultural thing- I don't know if they do "letter-word" in Brazil- but I don't think that you're interpreting the practice at all correctly. It's not intended to disguise the word, because, as you say, everyone still knows full what what you mean; that is, in fact, the whole point of saying it. Rather, the purpose is to explicitly acknowledge that you are aware of and sensitive to the offence that can be caused by the word, and are considerate enough to make sure that they are aware of this. It's quite simply good manners.

Or would you call someone who said, say, "I'm just going to visit the restroom" an Orwellian censor, because they didn't have the good democratic decency to just stand up and say "I'm off to the crapper"?

Well, the fact is that calling a black person literally "n-word", or a mentally ******** person "r-word" will be little less offensive than flat out calling them the slur. So I don't really see any reason for an activist to say "r-word" as opposed to ; they mean the same thing, and what do they expect to get from not saying the word flat out?

Your analogy regarding restroom isn't really the same; such euphemisms like "powdering my nose" or "restroom" as opposed to "crapper" or "take a p..." are less insulting because they are examples of good manners, not pointless self censorship. If I thought that saying "r word" as opposed to "" had any benefit, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. Issue is, it doesn't.

 

[Masada]

I knew several black guys in high school who said that they wished white people were less hung up on the n-word... They liked that I was one of the few white guys who did not get embarrassed and automatically censor direct quotations that included the word.

great. good for you. i know people who would beat you to a living pulp for so much as thinking it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the fact is that calling a black person literally "n-word", or a mentally ******** person "r-word" will be little less offensive than flat out calling them the slur. So I don't really see any reason for an activist to say "r-word" as opposed to ; they mean the same thing, and what do they expect to get from not saying the word flat out?

Your analogy regarding restroom isn't really the same; such euphemisms like "powdering my nose" or "restroom" as opposed to "crapper" or "take a p..." are less insulting because they are examples of good manners, not pointless self censorship. If I thought that saying "r word" as opposed to "" had any benefit, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. Issue is, it doesn't.

I already explained the point of euphemisms like "r-word": that they're good manners, because they show consideration. Hence the analogy to other euphemisms which are good manners, because they show consideration. 2 = 2.

Honestly, did you even read my post?

 

[TheLastOne36]

It's about interpretation... Luis Suarez recently got fined in the Premier League because he called another player a 'Negrito' and the other player took offense, whilst in Spanish, Negrito has no negative meaning and no native speaker would take offense to the word.

 

[Zelig]

Some significant number of people are offended by it.

Therefore it is offensive.

 

[Communisto]

Yeah, it's called not being a big fat jerk.

No it isnt, its not being offensive.

And "Offensive" is such a subjective concept and what offends different peoples varies so much as to almost render the word meaningless. Being offended isn't a right, its just a feeling. It doesnt matter if you feel offended. You're offended, thats the end of it.

I already explained the point of euphemisms like "r-word": that they're good manners, because they show consideration. Hence the analogy to other euphemisms which are good manners, because they show consideration. 2 = 2.

Honestly, did you even read my post?

Tbh, I've always found this mindset, well, ********. When you say the "r-word", or the "f-word," or any other letter-word combination in the presence of adults, it sounds childish and silly. If youre going to say the word, say the word. A grown person should be able to handle it and understand the context.

If youre bringing up "the f/n/r/whatever-word" in the kind of company or situation where it needs to be censored, then it probably isn't the place to be discussing that topic in the first place.

 

[Traitorfish]

Tbh, I've always found this mindset, well, ********. When you say the "r-word", or the "f-word," or any other letter-word combination in the presence of adults, it sounds childish and silly. If youre going to say the word, say the word. A grown person should be able to handle it and understand the context.

If youre bringing up "the f/n/r/whatever-word" in the kind of company or situation where it needs to be censored, then it probably isn't the place to be discussing that topic in the first place.

Again, the point isn't censorship- it'd be piss-poor censorship if it was- it's a deliberate gesture on the part of the speaker to show that they are aware that the word can cause offensive, and that they are considerate enough of the feelings of others not to go about doing so willy-nilly. It's a form of communication in itself, not just an attempt to obscure some existing form of communication. It's just polite.

Seriously, how many times I am going to have to repeat myself here? Feel free to disagree with me, but at least disagree with me, and not just what you imagine I might've said.

Anyway, Tim Wise has comments on the n-word, and the basic logic transfers to other such terms.


Link to video.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Yeah, but Tim Wise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with quoting audibly.

A written quote really ought to be worse than a spoken one, because in speech the tone of one's voice is enough to make clear whether it is meant to be offensive.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, but Tim Wise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with quoting audibly.

That's an entirely secondary point.

 

[NiRv4n4]

That's an entirely secondary point.

Well, the part I don't understand is why the word is inherently offensive; to me, it completely depends on the context in which the word is used.

If someone is described of as being mentally ********, and indeed they are, then I see no issue or potential for offense. However, if someone who is mentally ******** is called <snip> every other second, then there is an issue. Not necessarily because the word was being used, but because of harassment.

Therefore, an organization trying to end the pejorative usage of the word <snip> should not be afraid to use that word in PSAs. Do they think that by saying "r word", some people will never learn the word <snip>? Because that is kind of ridiculous...

EDIT: just realized that the word <snip> is censored automatically by the website. That makes things a little more complicated on a thread like this....

Moderator Action: Yes, please do not evade the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Again, the point isn't censorship- it'd be piss-poor censorship if it was- it's a deliberate gesture on the part of the speaker to show that they are aware that the word can cause offensive, and that they are considerate enough of the feelings of others not to go about doing so willy-nilly. It's a form of communication in itself, not just an attempt to obscure some existing form of communication. It's just polite.

I think the problem is that me and many others feel it to be immature to be offended by a mere word regardless of the context and naturally one wouldn't want society to bow before such perceived immaturity. Which is I think not as irrelevant as it may seem. As we all know people in general are swayed by outside expectations. So I don't want society to expect its people to be so immature as that the mere pronunciation of a word it deemed too offensive.
Another thing is that this actually empowers those words. Afro-Americans sort of use it as a means to project power. "We can say it and you can not. And we say it all the time. Haha!" - which is actually a very efficient way to remind people that race does matter. Of all the people I met, Americans swore with the most passion when in private. And to tabooize a word actually being the only available direct verb for sexual intercourse has its own load of issues attached to it.

It was said being offended is just an emotion and that is it. But as with every emotions, it needs guidance by the mind. Making a big taboo out of the pronunciation of loaded words is not the kind of guidance I'd like.

 

[stormerne]

It may not be offensive, but it's usually unnecessary. It's rarely accurate and it tells you more about the person saying it than the person they're saying it about. Lazy thinking, lazy speaking.

 

[Narz]

You don't call ******** people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they're acting ********.

Yeah pretty much.

Actually, so far I agree with what most people have said (on page 1 anyway) more so than almost any other thread.

 

[Syterion]

Um, of course? It's unfairly making fun of someone for something which they did not choose. It's hurtful, unnecessary, and beneath the civilized.

 

[Arwon]

I think it's quite telling that anyone who decides to have a gripe about this "political correctness" thing has to define it first, and you often get five different definitions from five different people. If this thing that you people think is a bad thing is really a thing, you should at least have a consistent idea of what the thing is.

Basically: use crude and inconsiderate language all you like, just do not have the temerity to pretend you're some sort of oppressed freedom fighter for doing so when you get called on it. That's just bizarro logic.

 

[Masada]

Basically: use crude and inconsiderate language all you like, just do not have the temerity to pretend you're some sort of oppressed freedom fighter for doing so when you get called on it. That's just bizarro logic.

wrong. you don't need to pretend. you could fighting for the freedom to be a bigot. on the list of things to fight for that has to be above letting nazis and holocaust deniers live.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah, it's called not being a big fat jerk.

No, I mean completely across the board, not just "lack of being an insensitive person."

 

[Domen]

Considering that the Brits changed "********" into "intellectually challenged" - yes, it must be.