Serious PC thread

[brokenshoelace]

Would you concede that among black people there isn't a consensus on this though? I mean, a sizeable number do not want the word to be used (guys like Larry Elder etc ), ever, even among themselves. Others see no problem using it freely, among themselves of course. Maybe it is a bit more complicated , this issue?

Well, there IS one consensus: A white guy should never be able to say it. Choosing to focus on why black people are allowed to say it, while probably a valid question (even though, again, the answer is fairly obvious), isn't even in the top 10 problems associated with the N word...not when white people continue to use it so freely anyway. I'm aware the two aren't mutually exclusive but it's just an odd point to hang on to. It's not like black people not using it will make any white person less racist.

Here is an impossible situation that actually happened. Rapper Kendrick Lamar invites a person from the audience on stage to join him and sing a song. The person is a white lady. The song has the n word, multiple times. She starts singing it and KL tells her she has to bleep all those words out, the crowd starts booing...You are telling this person, and all your none black fans, you can listen to me, by my album, pay to come to my concert, but you cannot sing my songs the way I wrote them, or maybe only when you are alone in the shower or something.

I'm aware of this and he put her in a very awkward spot. Almost set her up to fail. This though, is such a specific example that it almost doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things...When the N word is still such a big part of society and continues to be used to racially abuse black people, I'm not too concerned with whether white people are or aren't allowed to use it when singing lyrics.

 

[tented]

Chris Matthews bites the dust. Another victim of the Metoo movement. FFS what next are we going to revisit MLK out of his historical context because of his infidelities?? I've no doubt some of the women who he interacted with took exception to his advances...

I’ve occasionally heard a few people refer to his infidelities in a clear effort to diminish his accomplishments and character. It’s appalling. But of course they have no problem voting for someone who has cheated on his wives and has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault.

 

[mrzz]

even though, again, the answer is fairly obvious

I take this observation as an opportunity to jump in the discussion. And I do not think the answer is obvious, because you have to take into account that language is dynamic. Obviously I get that one thing is the use of the word within the group, and a completely different one outside (note: it can get even more complicated, as people who are true friends and/or intimate can use the word referring to someone in the "offended" group and still be ok). What is fairly obvious is the context in which the word is "acceptable" today, but I think the question is broader than that.

When you consider the fact that languages evolve, and groups mix with each other, there is one and only one possible final result (even if in 100 generations): the complete normalization of the word (if the "offended" group "took ownership" of it). On one hand, young people of all groups will start to use it freely, or at least with less negative meaning to it. A white kid growing up with black kids in the neighborhood might start to use the word -- and his friends may well not bother (he is in for problems in the future though, but you get my point). On the other hand, different groups may get some "license" to use the word as well (remember, boundaries between groups are not always that clear), and, again, fast forward some generations and the picture will change. The dynamical aspect of language simply will not let this "okay within the group" situation to last. There will be always some word which is okay within the group, but the particular words themselves will evolve and "escape".

So, I think @Murat Baslamisli 's question was a very pertinent and to the point. I think he deserves a Cilantro trophy, or in short a Cilantrophy, not to be confused with Cilanthropy, which is the promotion of the welfare of others by large donations of Cilantro.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I take this observation as an opportunity to jump in the discussion. And I do not think the answer is obvious, because you have to take into account that language is dynamic. Obviously I get that one thing is the use of the word within the group, and a completely different one outside (note: it can get even more complicated, as people who are true friends and/or intimate can use the word referring to someone in the "offended" group and still be ok). What is fairly obvious is the context in which the word is "acceptable" today, but I think the question is broader than that.

When you consider the fact that languages evolve, and groups mix with each other, there is one and only one possible final result (even if in 100 generations): the complete normalization of the word (if the "offended" group "took ownership" of it). On one hand, young people of all groups will start to use it freely, or at least with less negative meaning to it. A white kid growing up with black kids in the neighborhood might start to use the word -- and his friends may well not bother (he is in for problems in the future though, but you get my point). On the other hand, different groups may get some "license" to use the word as well (remember, boundaries between groups are not always that clear), and, again, fast forward some generations and the picture will change. The dynamical aspect of language simply will not let this "okay within the group" situation to last. There will be always some word which is okay within the group, but the particular words themselves will evolve and "escape".

So, I think @Murat Baslamisli 's question was a very pertinent and to the point. I think he deserves a Cilantro trophy, or in short a Cilantrophy, not to be confused with Cilanthropy, which is the promotion of the welfare of others by large donations of Cilantro.

This may all well be true and you do raise good points, but I think for the purposes of the present, the answer IS obvious. Now, I'm not choosing to ignore the nuances on purpose, but I just don't understand what's so complicated about the basic premise: white people shouldn't use this word, by and large. Basically, let me ask you this, is there a situation you've found yourself in where you thought it's unclear whether you should be able to use the N word? With some common sense and a little bit of prior thought, it's reaaaaaaaaaally obvious when and how that word can be used, and by whom.

 

[britbox]

This may all well be true and you do raise good points, but I think for the purposes of the present, the answer IS obvious. Now, I'm not choosing to ignore the nuances on purpose, but I just don't understand what's so complicated about the basic premise: white people shouldn't use this word, by and large. Basically, let me ask you this, is there a situation you've found yourself in where you thought it's unclear whether you should be able to use the N word? With some common sense and a little bit of prior thought, it's reaaaaaaaaaally obvious when and how that word can be used, and by whom.

I guess it depends where you live, and this forum is very American-centric, but from my experience, white people do not use the "N-word" by and large. I can't actually recall the last time I heard it used from regular Joes. It would be a sackable offence in the workplace and frowned upon in social circles. Sure, you'll get a segment of arch racists and white supremacists but the numbers are pretty minuscule in relative terms.

 

[tented]

I guess it depends where you live, and this forum is very American-centric, but from my experience, white people do not use the "N-word" by and large.

It’s interesting you say that, because my feel is that it’s quite global. Most of the people involved this discussion, for example, are not from the US: you, Broken, Murat, Federberg, mrzz. That’s just this thread, of course, and there are a lot of Americans here, but there are plenty others from around the world, which is one of the reasons I’ve always enjoyed the mix.

 

[mrzz]

With some common sense and a little bit of prior thought, it's reaaaaaaaaaally obvious when and how that word can be used, and by whom.

I completely agree with that. But that is not the answer to the original question, that I quote: "The N word cannot really be that bad, can it, if a whole culture is using it freely every day? "

For me it was instantly obvious that Murat had zero doubts about when and how (and by whom) the word could be used -- and he further emphasized that later. The point is explicitly about the word itself, and its "ownership" being taken, and its usage. In no way he is suggesting that the word should be used. He is only pointing out an incoherence. It seems to me that only part of the incoherence is explained/justified by group usage. Of course, if people want to read that question as a justification for KKK, then there is really not much that we can do.

 

[Jelenafan]

I remember this study not too long ago that white progressive/liberal parents were astonished to find out that because they never referred to others by race, ie pretended they were color blind, that in the absence of open & frank discussion of race some of their children had developed some racist POV,’s regarding POC.

Racial dynamics is always there and then you have shared cultural/racial ties that bond in ways hard for others to decipher with the normal rules.

We went on vacation last year with a group of good friends ( younger as in their 30’s/40’s) and they started to rib each other about skin color, and it got to joking about who would have been a House versus a Field. My wife and I were a little taken back of how the word flowed freely that night, we got how they were fine with it, but I think our discomfort was OK. We were “outsiders” even if our friends felt comfortable enough to talk that way in front of us.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

So this girls goes to an all girl college. She does not particularly identify as a girl though, she says she is trans and wants to be referred to as "he". It is a pretty progressive school , most people are fine with that. "His" name is Timothy now. Timothy wants to run to be the president of a certain committee . I do not remember exactly what it is called but it is got to do with diversity. 3-4 people run for the position but they all back out later and Timothy is the last one. But people start a petition to not vote for her . Not because she is trans or anything but because she is a white male and hence, member of the "oppressive patriarchy" . One of the people who wanted her not to be holding the position said " “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected to leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.”
Timothy was fine with it . "He" said " “The patriarchy is alive and well,I don’t want to perpetuate it.”


Things we knew to be true up to 5 minutes ago we have to discard, things we have no idea about what they are, we have to accept. Interesting days.

 

[tented]

3-4 people run for the position but they all back out later and Timothy is the last one.

In other words, it’s ultimately an unimportant committee if no one else even wants to head it. If they were genuinely concerned, others would want the position.

 

[mrzz]

In other words, it’s ultimately an unimportant committee if no one else even wants to head it. If they were genuinely concerned, others would want the position.

And still there was outrage.

 

[tented]

They are repurposing the word for their own uses. By taking ownership of it they recycle it into something else. The community is not a monolith so it's irrelevant whether some agree or not. I'm not sure why you bring gays into this. It's a faulty parallel. We're talking about almost four centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and general discrimination. This was the iconic descriptive used to diminish an entire race for centuries, there isn't a single word used against gays that has that sort of longevity. Now a community has taken the word back. And every year their ownership of the word diminishes its pejorative context

I saw this commercial on CNN this afternoon. It’s not directly relevant to the discussion of reclaiming the N-word, but it’s worth sharing anyway, IMO, in terms of providing everyone with a historical background:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I completely agree with that. But that is not the answer to the original question, that I quote: "The N word cannot really be that bad, can it, if a whole culture is using it freely every day? "

For me it was instantly obvious that Murat had zero doubts about when and how (and by whom) the word could be used -- and he further emphasized that later. The point is explicitly about the word itself, and its "ownership" being taken, and its usage. In no way he is suggesting that the word should be used. He is only pointing out an incoherence. It seems to me that only part of the incoherence is explained/justified by group usage. Of course, if people want to read that question as a justification for KKK, then there is really not much that we can do.

Again, a quick glance at context and history answers the above too. We're really trying to be too smart for our own good here.

 

[mrzz]

Again, a quick glance at context and history answers the above too

This is what I disagree, precisely because of context. For us, that grew up in a given environment where that word had a clear meaning, context is clear. The younger the generation (depending also on the place), the shadier that context becomes. So what happens next? At some point people outside the group will start using the word (naively, because context is not clear to them), and then people from different environments/contexts (given today's world free flow of information) will jump on them calling them racists, and a lot of energy will be spent on something almost futile (because it could explained by context). And in the meantime racists will still be racists.

In other words, regarding the particular discussion we had in this thread, it all comes down to how you read the original intention behind the poster who initially asked the question. If you start from the assumption the person was looking for justification to use the word right now, then, again, all the discussion is pointless. (well, maybe you were referring to that in your post above. In that case, sorry, it was not immediately clear to me).

 

[Moxie]

Some of you here may or may not agree with this, but I did find it somewhat illuminating of what goes on here in the trans- discussion. By a British trans writer: Transphobia is Everywhere in Britain. Anything to it?

 

[Federberg]

Some of you here may or may not agree with this, but I did find it somewhat illuminating of what goes on here in the trans- discussion. By a British trans writer: Transphobia is Everywhere in Britain. Anything to it?

I read the article, and the thing that jumped out at me is the absolute certainty about the validity of the writers own views on the matter. This is a person who is clearly subsumed within the progressive bubble and has no doubts about their own righteousness and virtuosity. I started off irritated and in the end I was shaking my head chuckling. I have been sent clips recently about Labour politicians and their views on trans-rights. I guess the fact that others have seen fit to post these things on YouTube is proof that by your, and the writer's, definition that there is trans phobia in Britain, even if most of us on this side of the pond just think we have a bit of common sense. Or perhaps, by another measure, the writer is drunk on identity politics. Take your pick

 

[Moxie]

I read the article, and the thing that jumped out at me is the absolute certainty about the validity of the writers own views on the matter. This is a person who is clearly subsumed within the progressive bubble and has no doubts about their own righteousness and virtuosity. I started off irritated and in the end I was shaking my head chuckling. I have been sent clips recently about Labour politicians and their views on trans-rights. I guess the fact that others have seen fit to post these things on YouTube is proof that by your, and the writer's, definition that there is trans phobia in Britain, even if most of us on this side of the pond just think we have a bit of common sense. Or perhaps, by another measure, the writer is drunk on identity politics. Take your pick

This is why I asked you how it read to you. No need to be rude.

 

[Federberg]

This is why I asked you how it read to you. No need to be rude.

I didn't mean for you take it as me being rude about you. I was directing my focus on the writer!

 

[calitennis127]

Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate

Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate

An inmate at Illinois’ largest women’s prison says she was raped by a transgender inmate and claims Illinois Department of Corrections officials conducted a “sham investigation” to help cover up the incident.

news.wttw.com

 

[Federberg]

^Similar thing happened in the UK!