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

[Communisto]

The assumption is that you wouldn't be using the word in that sense at all, but only quoting or what have you. If you're not actually able to avoid thinking of people who are mentally disable- or black, or gay, or whatever- without using a slur, then your problems are more fundamental than the word itself, whether or not you mince it. If you don't have the basic self-discipline to catch yourself when you're thinking like that, then obviously no amount of polite word-choice is going to save you from acting in an offensive manner. I honestly though that was so obvious as to go without saying.

No, I dont mean that you have to use expletives to describe black/gay/mentally challenged people

But what youre saying is that if youre going to reference those slurs, it is proper to do so with an abbreviation. My assumption being that you're saying something along the lines of "that rude man called my mentally challenged son the 'r-word,'" in which case the adult thing to do, imo, would be to say the word and take full responsibility for the conversation you mean to have. Instead of creating some third, fairy tale context.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I dont mean that you have to use expletives to describe black/gay/mentally challenged people

But what youre saying is that if youre going to reference those slurs, it is proper to do so with an abbreviation. My assumption being that you're saying something along the lines of "that rude man called my mentally challenged son the 'r-word,'" in which case the adult thing to do, imo, would be to say the word and take full responsibility for the conversation you mean to have. Instead of creating some third, fairy tale context.

Why is a direct quote necessary for you to deal with the issue in an adult manner? That's a claim that I honestly just don't understand.

 

[Communisto]

Why is a direct quote necessary for you to deal with the issue in an adult manner? That's a claim that I honestly just don't understand.

Because things like racism, homophobia and bigotry against the mentally challenged are serious issues and when you spell things out like you're trying to avoid your child from realizing that grandma 'D-I-E-D' last year, I think it reduces the issue.

If we can't even talk about these things in a direct, responsible manner, then we aren't even ready to fully tackle them as societal problems, we're still just pretending they dont exist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because things like racism, homophobia and bigotry against the mentally challenged are serious issues and when you spell things out like you're trying to avoid your child from realizing that grandma 'D-I-E-D' last year, I think it reduces the issue.

If we can't even talk about these things in a direct, responsible manner, then we aren't even ready to fully tackle them as societal problems, we're still just pretending they dont exist.

But, as I've said repeatedly, that is entirely not the point of those euphemisms. It's about expressing an awareness of and sensitivity to the loaded character of those words, not about somehow trying to shelter people from them.

 

[Communisto]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Well, this is an interpretation that I simply don't share, and quite honestly don't see any basis for. It's entirely possible to note that a particular word is culturally loaded, and to treat it as such, without reducing it to an aesthetic revulsion, because any sensible discussion is about the content of the word, and not preoccupied with the form. Frankness for frankness sake is as much an aesthetic fetish as euphemism for euphemism's sake.

Go back to that Tim Wise video I posted earlier. Now, Tim Wise is one of the most prominent writers on race and racism in the United States. He is not known for dancing around the point, and, indeed, is found objectionable by a good few because of his frankness. So how does that plug into your interpretation?

 

[warpus]

When somebody says "the n-word" to me, what i hear in my head is "<snip>" (no, not nagger)

It's not the WORD that's offensive, it's the meaning behind it.

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]

When somebody says "the n-word" to me, what i hear in my head is "<snip>" (no, not nagger)

It's not the WORD that's offensive, it's the meaning behind it.

I don't disagree for a second, which is why I'm arguing that the point of these euphemisms isn't to simply hide the word from people- as you say, it'd be an entirely ineffective way of doing it- but to express an awareness of and sensitivity to the culture status of the world. It is for the people to whom the words refer, the people who the words were constructed to denigrate, to decide whether or not they want to consider the words harmful, not us. If they don't, fine, and if they do, well, it wouldn't cost the world to show a bit of consideration.

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

 

[luiz]

When somebody says "the n-word" to me, what i hear in my head is "<snip>" (no, not nagger)

It's not the WORD that's offensive, it's the meaning behind it.

Exactly my view.

Some PC teachers, for instance, forbid their students to read <snip> out loud when they're reading Mark Twain. IMO that's complete lunacy, because one can be entirely non-racist while reading the text correctly (that is, sayin <snip>) and extremely racist replacing it by the "n-word". It's all about the intent of the reader, the tone he will use, etc.

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

 

[warpus]

I don't disagree for a second, which is why I'm arguing that the point of these euphemisms isn't to simply hide the word from people- as you say, it'd be an entirely ineffective way of doing it- but to express an awareness of and sensitivity to the culture status of the world. It is for the people to whom the words refer, the people who the words were constructed to denigrate, to decide whether or not they want to consider the words harmful, not us. If they don't, fine, and if they do, well, it wouldn't cost the world to show a bit of consideration.

I agree, but if the word itself if so shunned, then any other words or phrases that imply it should be avoided as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find it completely non-offensive, if it is used in the right context. I think it's very descriptive of some types of developmental difficulties, and is a proper shorthand for them. I avoid using it because I know it causes offense, but only out of politeness. I'm only get 'offended' by someone using it in order to tease them by faking outrage to embarrass them.

 

[NovaKart]

Well, this is an interpretation that I simply don't share, and quite honestly don't see any basis for. It's entirely possible to note that a particular word is culturally loaded, and to treat it as such, without reducing it to an aesthetic revulsion, because any sensible discussion is about the content of the word, and not preoccupied with the form. Frankness for frankness sake is as much an aesthetic fetish as euphemism for euphemism's sake.

Go back to that Tim Wise video I posted earlier. Now, Tim Wise is one of the most prominent writers on race and racism in the United States. He is not known for dancing around the point, and, indeed, is found objectionable by a good few because of his frankness. So how does that plug into your interpretation?

Interesting video, first time I've ever heard of him. I have a friend back home who's black who sometimes calls me 'my <snip>' so if I also called him that he probably wouldn't be offended but generally, yes it's very offensive. It's interesting what he said about redneck, I'm from the south and I've routinely referred to people as redneck and trailer trash even though I have relatives who live in mobile homes and are by all definitions very redneck , some of them even have those little dolls with the skirt that cover the toilet paper rolls and you can't get more redneck than that but at the the same time when someone from new york or california talks about rednecks it is a bit different.

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, but if the word itself if so shunned, then any other words or phrases that imply it should be avoided as well.

But again, that's not the point. It's not about avoiding the word- if that was the case, you wouldn't even refer to it directly- it's about expressing sensitivity as to the nature of the word.

 

[warpus]

But again, that's not the point. It's not about avoiding the word- if that was the case, you wouldn't even refer to it directly- it's about expressing sensitivity as to the nature of the word.

Yeah, I get it, but to me it makes no difference whether someone uses the PC version of the word or not - in my mind I still hear the "bad" version. So when that happens, it's like the person saying it cheated - they still made me hear the bad word in my head, but they didn't say it themselves.

If you're gonna put bad words in my head, at least say them yourself as well. Then we can both suffer

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Note: In the following post I will differentiate between positive racism and negative racism. I'll do that because applying racism solely on actions orientated by race which hurts a certain race is IMO misleading, a typical case of fighting with biased word-definitions. Racism alone should solely mean that race is an important factor - for whatever.
Now in that context: Positive racism is the kind of racism benefiting a specific race (as Affirmative Action) and negative racism is racism meant to handicap a certain race (classical racism).

@Traitorfish
To have <snip> be a taboo has three main effects you agree on or I suspect you agree on:
(1) It lessens the risk for black people to be insulted and gives them a strong sense of backup.
(2) It contributes to stigmatizing negative racism in a way that it is more or less off of the public radar. So society is at the very least on a superficially level less negatively racist, while all the more positively racist.
(3) As a consequence of 2, peer pressure is created to not act negatively racist.

So there are decent arguments for such a taboo. People are coerced to be less negatively racist by peer pressure, black people have a stronger standing and less emotional trouble due to direct insults and on the surface we are all generally less negatively racist, which is in itself good, too.

However, I am convinced that there are also good arguments against such a taboo of the n-word other than aesthetics.

(1) If you explicitly may not do something, it will occupy your mind all the stronger. So a taboo of <snip> as the core symbol of racism means that people will think in racial dimensions all the more. Just like I think of an elephant all the more when I am constantly told there is none. I once saw an interview with Morgan Freeman where he was asked how to put a stop to racism. His answer "Stop talking about it".
When we fight negative racism with positive racism, we also encourage people to think in racial dimensions in the first place. Which in the end can breed negative racism.
(2) To basically outlaw a word (not by the force of law but social forces of course) is a very heavy attack. Sure, one may argue the background of the word is equally heavy, so it is justified. However, if you push, there is always a certain amount of back-push. Metaphorically speaking: If you force something down the throat of people, they have a natural tendency to want to spit it out. If you have them take their time eating it, they will enjoy it a lot more. Accordingly, I think society needs time to naturally develop a healthy relationship to the n-word, rather than forcing an artificial relationship on society. That will mean that some more black people may have to endure being insulted. But it IMO also means a better handling of racism by society on the long run.
(3) As said superficial racism is greatly reduced by the n-word-taboo. Which also means that hidden racism can flourish all the more, as the public has alienated itself from it and no discourse occurs.
I.e. person A is kinda racist. But he could be reasoned with. That however won't happen because racism is under such heavy stigmatization that person A wouldn't dare to openly articulate his views in the first place.
To make the example more precise: Person A could make the observation that at his school the black kids act the dumbest in class. He by this builds up a racial stereotype and becomes racist. However, he keeps this racism to himself, because he fears stigmatization. In a more relaxed atmosphere, he may speak up and be educated why his observations are not a valid base to judge an entire race.

So, what do you think about that?

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

 

[NovaKart]

It is interesting how words change and the people who are described by those words don't necessarily agree with them. I heard whoopi goldberg once say, she was born a negro, became black and later she's african american. I heard another man say that he's been an indian all his life and wasn't about to start saying he was native american.

 

[Communisto]

Yeah, I get it, but to make it makes no difference whether someone uses the PC version of the word or not - in my mind I still hear the "bad" version. So when that happens, it's like the person saying it cheated - they still made me hear the bad word in my head, but they didn't say it themselves.

If you're gonna put bad words in my head, at least say them yourself as well. Then we can both suffer

Basically exactly what I was trying to say.

Y u b so concise, Warpus?

 

[Traitorfish]

(1) If you explicitly may not do something, it will occupy your mind all the stronger. So a taboo of <snip> as the core symbol of racism means that people will think in racial dimensions all the more. Just like I think of an elephant all the more when I am constantly told there is none. I once saw an interview with Morgan Freeman where he was asked how to put a stop to racism. His answer "Stop talking about it".
When we fight negative racism with positive racism, we also encourage people to think in racial dimensions in the first place. Which in the end can breed negative racism.

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:


Link to video.

(2) To basically outlaw a word (not by the force of law but social forces of course) is a very heavy attack. Sure, one may argue the background of the word is equally heavy, so it is justified. However, if you push, there is always a certain amount of back-push. Metaphorically speaking: If you force something down the throat of people, they have a natural tendency to want to spit it out. If you have them take their time eating it, they will enjoy it a lot more. Accordingly, I think society needs time to naturally develop a healthy relationship to the n-word, rather than forcing an artificial relationship on society. That will mean that some more black people may have to endure being insulted. But it IMO also means a better handling of racism by society on the long run.

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.

(3) As said superficial racism is greatly reduced by the n-word-taboo. Which also means that hidden racism can flourish all the more, as the public has alienated itself from it and no discourse occurs.
I.e. person A is kinda racist. But he could be reasoned with. That however won't happen because racism is under such heavy stigmatization that person A wouldn't dare to openly articulate his views in the first place.
To make the example more precise: Person A could make the observation that at his school the black kids act the dumbest in class. He by this builds up a racial stereotype and becomes racist. However, he keeps this racism to himself, because he fears stigmatization. In a more relaxed atmosphere, he may speak up and be educated why his observations are not a valid base to judge an entire race.?

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.

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

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

People take offense way to easily. People are way to uptight.

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

 

[Hygro]

I used to not say it, then I picked it up to be slightly ironic (kind of like how I did have am unfortunate phase calling things pejoratively gay, to be ironic) but the problem with doing things ironically is that you start doing it for real very quickly. I've been thinking of striking it from my vocabulary. The problem with "********" though is that you often mean something that's intellectually poor. So unlike other identity-pejoratives this one is linguistically appropriate. It's still not fair to those who have mental retardation to be equated with things we dislike.