Why? Words that sound similar aren't offensive, nor should they ever be considered so. If someone incorrectly thinks that a word is racist in origin then they should just politely be corrected. I would if it would used in the correct context and not used with the intention of trying to get a reaction, because that's exactly what they are being. That is a very clear example of ignorance. If some uptight English ignoramus got upset by misunderstanding some tourist innocently saying they were looking forward to seeing the royal regina, who of the two is the idiot? The world shouldn't be dumbed down to pander to ignorant people. Really, if someone got offended because they thought that the word had some kind of racist origin, and they were informed that the word was a thousand year old scandanavian derivative, unless they thought the person was deliberately misusing the word to try and be provocative, could they still be annoyed about it? What exactly would they have to be angry about? Is just using a word which sounds a bit like an offensive one is supposed to be wrong now? Then again, I suppose the USA is the country that had to change the spelling of titbit as people couldn't be trusted with a word which was partly made up of a mildly rude one. It's a good job Scunthorpe never made it to the premier league, or FSC would have to go off air when they played.
If you're interested in words and word change this is an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejoration Down in the notes, #2, there's a list of reasons for word change that includes: "aesthetic-formal reasons (i.e., avoidance of words that are phonetically similar or identical to negatively associated words)." BTW, we have something called a Fanny-pack. We also pat each other on the fanny. How about you?
the word hasn't changed though. It's been needlessly censored. That's very different. If people were starting to pronounce the word nyggardly (rhyme with high) that's be a change. This is just someone saying the word is offensive, when it shouldn't be to anyone prepared to listen to reason. What's next? Complaining that niggly could sound a bit offensive to some people too, and censoring that? How about the phrase spick & span? Couldn't that phrase be racist if said to a Mexican cleaning woman? People here laugh at that, but wouldn't be offended. And it's still a different thing. Your example is one word with different meanings. N***** and Niggard are two completely different words with completely different meanings. It would be like being offended by the word bullocks because it's a bit like bollocks. Being offended alone should never give someone the moral high ground, but being right usually should. Regardless, must dash. I have to write a letter to the national society of zoos, telling them to refrain from using the term "Pachyderm", so as not to offend people from the indian subcontinent.
Is fanny the same thing in England as Australia? I haven't been following along, but just a note about the censor - we haven't censored the word ni ggardly, we just seem to get the racists who don't spell too gud.
Where in any of my posts do you find any suggestion that the OP in the thread you're complaining about is a sophisticated lampoonist of racists? He has the right to object to what he sees as the unfair implication of racism. He has the right to employ the rhetorical hyperbole he employs (however ineffective and damaging to his own position I think it may be), and just as we owe anyone else the same consideration, we owe him a moment of reflection to discern his intent behind deploying those words. The coupling of the incident with the Obama campaign is the sort of demagoguery that's typical of the right nowadays and it certainly needs to be challenged, as it has been in that thread. But the sort of censorship you're advocating is neither fair nor an effective way of doing that work. Furthermore, my care in choosing where and when I accuse someone of racism is a result of my respect for the value of the fight against it, not dispassion. I resist the implementation of a blunt instrument like the concept of numbness as you employ it for the same reason. If you think it's useful to categorize as "numb" both a) an argument that we consider intent when trying interpret meaning and b) entrenched and institionalized racism, then either you've got the concept wrong or it's a crappy idea to begin with.
Again, there's something in addition to "a" and "b," that is not the "entrenched racism" that we are so sure we're not part of, and is unaffected by conscious intent. It's the most insidious form of race bias because it's in people who are so sure they don't have race bias. That's implicit race bias. Semi-subconscious, unexamined reactions in ourselves that we don't categorize as race bias. As the old fashioned KKK types go further and further underground, it's these unconscious impulses in ourselves which will add up to the entire problem of racism in society. Using the hideous meme satirically feeds implicit race bias, as it's only used for one race. Simple association.
It's funny that whilst we continue this aloof intellectual debate around terms like Niggardly, words like 'slut' can be used with gay abandon
Well, use that word to the wrong person and you'll also get a punch in the nose. That's the whole point. All of these are aloof intellectual issues when you're not the one insulted. I'm all right, Jack.
Instead of making sarcastic comments, have the balls to read and understand this linked article: See No Bias Many Americans believe they are not prejudiced. Now a new test provides powerful evidence that a majority of us really are. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27067-2005Jan21?language=printer
I don't think its your business if I have balls for not. You must be biased against people who have had testicular cancer. As for the article, I don't believe anyone who says they aren't prejudiced. I think it is an unavoidable part of our mind and while the biases may change, implicit bias will never go away. Calling everyone racist and beating them over the head with PC linguistics will not solve anything. BTW, when you single out one race as showing their “subconscious racism,” it only proves what your implicit bias is.
Hmm. You mean I don't want McCain or Clinton to be president because I think they're apes? My opinion on that Asian stereotype of white people is that it should generate some good discussion.
I don't know what your no is about, but only an idiot thinks all X people are anything. However, I've pointed to Harvard's Project Implicit for those with any interest in my actual point. They seem to show the percentage of the population, of all races, that is biased against blacks at 70-80%. Again, that bias isn't necessarily self-defined. It can come as a surprise to the subject, as we're notoriously unselfaware (as proven over and over again in scientific studies).
I don't think gtgunning has ever come remotely close to making this claim. Hang yourself on a cross if you want to, but don't use my post to do it.
I actually believe that everyone is prejudiced. Prejudice is just that "gut feeling" you get about people, which may in fact bear no resemblence to the truth. Prejudice isn't always negative - it can be what makes you think that sweet little old lady is really a sweet little lovely person, even though she may in reality have a mean streak as long as your arm. I think there are more negative associations with blacks than other races, and that would certainly pan out to give survey results like those listed above. Prejudice and racism are very different things, however, and should not be confused. Mind you the most confused statement on racism I've heard goes to a mate of mine* who once many years ago angrily uttered the bizarre complaint that "Hull's fans were really racist towards our darkies". Where do you even begin to understand a statement like that? Especially when you consider that his girlfriend is from Botswana. * it has to be said he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed - on 9/11 (when news footage replaced the normal sky sports news in the bar before a match that evening) he said "I was really surprised when they showed a plane hitting the second tower - I mean, I knew they were called the twin towers, but I didn't know there were two of them."
There are two sides to this: meaning versus intent. I can say one thing and intend it to be completely harmless. Somebody else can hear it/read it and interpert the meaning to be bias of some degree. I do not admit I have bias. But I detest somebody telling me what my intent was when I spoke. (btw, where I work, I have to be very aware of my bias)
from what I gather, not that I am siding with gtg but is it ok to use the N word as long as I dont use it in a bad way or to offend? so as long as my intent is not harmless then its ok?
In scientific studies it has become very clear that there is your conscious intent, and then there is your bias, as two completely separate things. There are a million little things you do and feel that have nothing to do with your intent. People are seriously deluded about their level of self-determination.
Where do you stand on hate crimes legislation? Can we hold people’s biases against them in legal terms? Can we ever hope to stamp out everyone’s biases?
Is there an argument against hate crimes legislation? If we can execute people, we can hold people's biases against them legally. Of course you can't stamp out biases, except in the environment. Here on BS we have supposedly intelligent, well-meaning, 21st century people, and they're still ignorant of adding to the mental pollution of implicit race bias. How does the problem go away when those are the good guys? The only argument for this thread title in terms of my argument is that the association of black with president is a little air freshener in the outhouse of the black and ape association.
I not even questioning you about this thread title. I just wanted your views on other issues that have been brought up. The argument against some hate crime legislation is in how it would be applied. Just because a person of one race assaults a person of another race, doesn't mean it was because of race. There could've been some other issue as the cause. Unless you can prove that they attacked the person because of race, then there shouldn't be extra punishment. Just to make sure we are on the same page, I meant holding the subconscious bias against people.
That's the way it stands, right? Hate crimes have to be proved. Subconscious bias is for science and (self) education and personal spirituality. Using something like that in court is science fiction right now.