I mean especially in terms of the argument that black people use it all the time but white people can't even mention it. As if "it" referred to one word. Cue great resentment. My own view is that mentioning "nigger" should be OK as long as it's done with some sensitivity and awareness, including of the fact that black people do not generally either use or mention this word, but a different word in their own dialect. What I would object to though is making an issue out of wanting to mention it when it has or is likely to offend.

Yes, and that kind of complicates the use/mention thing, which gets infected by user/context/falsely attributed phonetic variant issues, confuses people, and leads to general strife on both sides.

Science and common sense are happily married on this one. :up:

Funnily enough, you were in the discussion I was referring to. But it was on the old PF. @Hanover was in it too. It centred around the general status of AAVE/BVE.

This article gives a fairly straightforward picture of the linguistic angle I'd be closest to on the issue. Essentially the argument is that nigger/nigga are in an important sense different words rather than just differently pronounced variants of the same word (this shouldn't be particularly surprising if one recognizes the existence of AAVE and understands a little about how dialects/sociolects work. "Dope" and "sick" are words whose meaning can vary to the point of incomprehensibility to fellow English speakers not familiar with their dialectical use.)

Anyhow, here's the crucial point of departure for any sensible conversation on the issue:

"One of the most potent slurs in American English is the racial epithet nigger (we warned you!). However, many white people oblivious to history and privilege don't hesitate to muse, "why can they [read: "black" people] use it, then?" Their observation - that some black Americans use what sounds like the same word - is valid, although insisting that makes the use of slurs OK is not valid."
...
"So when some speakers of AAVE use the word nigga, it is understandably interpreted as an r-less variant of a word that underlyingly has an r. However, the supposed r never shows up, not even intervocalically (jargon for "between vowels").

When people maintain that they're two different words, there seems to be good evidence for that. Note to white people: This does not give you license to use either. If you do not speak AAVE, and chances are you don't, you don't get to use either word. You WILL offend people, and no one will like you."

My bolding. And this is not just opinion. It's backed up by mounds of evidence, some of which is mentioned in the article (pdf of original study here ).

The authors go on to discuss the technical term "semantic bleaching", which refers to the phenomenon of words losing shades of meaning over time. "Nigga" is one such word.

Re this important point:

I happen know people in black London sub-cultures who have close white friends in those sub-cultures who use the word just like they themselves do. They know how to use it in a way Hanover never could, not only or even primarily because he's not black, but because he's not of that sub-culture. — jamalrob

It's addressed here:

"[Nigga] is not inherently specified for race, like nigger and other epithets are. In fact, race is often added to it, so the authors may be referred to in our neighborhoods as "that white nigga" and "the black nigga who was with him." Others include "asian nigga," and even "African nigga."

Among those who use the term, it is now a generic term like guy.

This shift in meaning seems to have happened some time after 1972-ish, possibly in conjunction with the rise of the Black Power movement, as an attempt to reclaim the word, similar to some feminists reclaiming bitch, and cunt. It was a necessary prerequisite for the super cool grammatical change our paper is actually about."

So, yes, it's not about skin colour or genes as such but being a member of a community broadly considered the black community but encompassing sub-cultures where you don't have to be black.

The article goes on to argue that "nigga" is actually becoming a pronoun rather than a noun and there's data to support that, but that's less relevant to the issue being discussed in this thread.

What do the admins and the moderators and other old timers think? — ssu

:cheer:

Actually, I called you a retard. And if you weren't so retarded, you would have got the joke.

I'm disappointed. >> :sad:

No, because you can't invent social reality. It invents you.

It's somewhat insulting to those parents of the intellectually challenged who would rather not have their already struggling children considered as subhuman. — Hanover

Give your mum my apologies.

You'll have to ask the black community who's in the black community, obviously. But again, we've been through all this before: "nigger" vs "nigga", BEV etc. You can bemoan the fact that linguistic communities have insider/outsider conventions wrt language use and that the "nigger/nigga" pair is a prime example, but that's just social reality.

I don't see a big problem. Because the cost of not offending here is one syllable. What is the major issue for you? Go ahead and present your argument.

Silly. You don't get to be part of the black community by spending time in a tanning salon or suddenly discovering some black genes despite life-time entrenchment outside it.

I think I actually am going to come teach there. Just to piss you off.

No, because it's not the same speech behaviour. We've been through this. Activate your memory circuits.

But that doesn't mean that this isn't a moral issue, and that doesn't mean that you're right to trivialise it as you're doing. You're not even addressing the issue. Of what relevance is it supposed to be that you'd be a-okay with being a lap dog to political correctness in academia? — S

So easy for someone who's never been in a similar position of responsibility to say that. My moral issue as a teacher is first and foremost the welfare and education of my students. So, my moral risk would be, for example when teaching in China, saying something concerning human rights that might upset the authorities there but would have a potentially positive effect on said students. The idea that, if I were teaching in America, I should further the goal of helping my students by potentially insulting a significant number of them on some bogus free speech anti-PC trip, is, frankly, retarded.

You weren't just doing that, you were repeating some tired old recycled stuff about black people using it etc. that we hear regularly from the morons on Fox News and don't expect to see puked up across the pages here by one of our more esteemed commentators (there you go, a backhanded compliment).

Holy suffering Christ, if the moral issue of the day is the right to say 'nigger' rather then 'The N-word' to a bunch of bored college students then gawd help us all. I've probably said both at one point or another during my teaching career, but I'd have zero problem following an explicit convention not to use the former. Anyway, good luck on your crusade. I suggest a primer around your local neighbourhood. At least you've got the NHS to sort things out for you when it all goes south.

I can't relate to the childish joy you get out of being ignorant about this. There are historical and linguistic reasons for the differences in context between how the word is used amongst black people and how it's used by white people about black people. We've been through it all before. But go ahead and drool over your own rebelliousness at not understanding some basic stuff.



You can shoot yourself in the foot to prove that you bleed or you can be a grown up and not make an issue out of it.

The solution to the problem is common sense. If you need to use it in an academic context or otherwise, do it sensitively. E.g. Don't keep repeating it over and over unnecessarily like the Dem apparently did.

My thought, as a fairly conservative Republican, is that she ought not be censured and forced to apologize because her intent was not to do harm. — Hanover

Agree. She ought to simply be given a lesson in how not to be stupid with words. Speaking of which:

Blacks (African Americans, err, Negroes... niggers?) use "nigger" in the same way that cock suckers use "queer". — Bitter Crank

Maybe you can stop being an idiot about this now especially as this was discussed before and it was explained in detail to you where you were going wrong.

Random noise.

I should have written to avoid ambiguity: "You're suggesting that I both... "

I’m not a massive fan of proofreading... — I like sushi

Neither am I, but it's another hat I wear (though apparently the fit is a bit loose). :)

:lol:

I didn't say you said that. You misread the word 'both' as referring to you and Isaac rather than two things Isaac did and thus misinterpreted me as saying I said you said I misinterpreted Paglia. Funny that.

I do apologize for the excesses of my rhetoric... — VagabondSpectre

In future try being completely clear and straightforward like me. :halo:

Well, at least we can laugh about it. Out there in the real world there is somewhat of a loss of a sense of the absurd, and of humour, and an embrace of a feeling of threat on both sides. So we wear the ritual masks lest we be turned to stone by the sight of our own shadows posing as ophidian foes. Whereas what's underneath is likely a wormery of confused righteousness rather than a snarling serpent aimed at our souls.

Dammit, I'll need a bit of time to come up with something as poetically engaging as this. I've given up on winning the argument. But I may at least be able to blind you with colourful rhetoric.

I've got to say, having researched this a bit more, the following is abusive and counterproductive and reminds me of students shouting 'Nazi' and suchlike at Jordan Peterson. These kids are being foolish at best and ought to keep things in perspective.



(Kicks off at 48:00)

She does come off better in a fuller context.

Reporting rape late and to the wrong authority makes it far less likely that the perpetrator will be caught, which is a neglect of one's duty to others. Being a victim oneself does not absolve one of one's moral duty to others. You may not agree with that position, and therefore disagree with the strategy of displaying a lack of sympathy for those who neglect this perceived duty, but it is disingenuous to add weight to your argument by trying to demonise those who think differently. — Isaac

You're both suggesting I misinterpreted Paglia and that I disagree with the interpretation I didn't make, which is a rather confused argumentative strategy. And the charge that I demonised her is trumped up. I demand that you be fired. Or I be fired. Or, well, someone better suffer anyway...

@frank's interpretation is consistent with what Paglia said as in the university not tolerating a late complaint is consistent with them ignoring it, and the video makes clear Paglia's lack of sympathy for, not to mention mockery of, assault victims who don't immediately report. Should she be fired for that? No, in my view. And she hasn't been. She's suffered nothing more than some angry blowback from liberal activists.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/17/university-arts-rejects-calls-fire-camille-paglia

('Scuse me if I kinda strawmanned you there btw. I wanted to get that out. :razz: )

But it feels like we've just discovered a new kind of siege technology, and it's changing the landscape: — VagabondSpectre

But is there suddenly a dearth of whacky, objectionable, and generally fucked-up ideas out there? Has the volume on reactionary voices been turned so far down that we can no longer hear the anti-immigrant, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist trumpets blowing? Or is the fear for a dystopic future where public figures are not allowed to be assholes and therefore we all forget how to think?

I don't see it. From the evidence of the thread I see:

1) The curmudgeonly unfortunately-not-yet-mummified Scruton losing one of his sidelines as a government advisor for some ill-judged use of language with the accusations against him appearing to be at least partly trumped up.
2) Camille Paglia being unsuccessfully assailed by some students exercising their free speech rights to try to punish her use of her ivory tower to fire thoughtless missives against sexual assault victims.
3) Major talking turd Alex Jones falling foul of social media company guidelines that, like our guidelines, result in the banning of minor talking turds on a regular basis.

The ideological warfare seems to be getting along fine and fears of peace seem greatly exaggerated.

In short, it's a power thing. — Shamshir

:up:

This misses the point that the reason given for euthanasia of animals is benefit for them, i.e. an end to their pain.



It's easier to 'other' animals and then confabulate reasons why we want to be rid of them when they become a burden. Harder to do that with our fellow humans as they hold up a much clearer mirror to our fears for ourselves.

So, are unsightly ivory towers a bug or a feature of a healthy discoursal landscape? I say, on the whole, a feature, as are the marauding hordes of liberal activists trying to pull them down. Neither an endless flatland of liberal pasture nor a spiked vista of impregnable minarets is as fertile a ground for ideological exchange and development.

I don't want to offend you btw @Devans99. I just think in this case you fell short.

Makes no more sense to me than saying:

4. For the first cause to cause the first effect requires an internal driver, IE A motor
5. So there exists a timeless, motorised first cause.

But I said I wasn't going to debate it so...

Probably because this is a better version of the skeletal post you made: — I like sushi

It's true its skeletal low-effort nature was a contributing factor to it being taken down. More attempt at reasoning through even apparently nonsensical arguments (as the end of this, in particular, is) might justify the OP being given a chance.

Yes, I did read it. Here is the OP in its entirety for the record. Again, I don't think a proxy debate here is appropriate. But just in case anyone is wondering:

1. If there was no first cause, there was no second cause. No second cause means no third cause, etc… to the conclusion the universe is nothing.
2. So there must be a first cause
3. The first cause cannot itself have a cause so is beyond causality, IE timeless
4. For the first cause to cause the first effect requires an internal driver, IE intelligence
5. So there exists a timeless, intelligent first cause.

Sorry, Devan, but you don't get use feedback as a proxy for debating deleted OPs. A significant number of the responses to your OP characterised it as nonsense and gave reasons why with which I concur. At least the way it was presented. Hence the deletion.

It was taken down for low quality. It wasn't even a decent attempt at a logical argument.

Jake was a he I thought. Anyway, for the record, while I found his recent insinuations that he was the only one who cared about quality here annoying, he was generally fine and made some decent posts. And there was nothing wrong with his suggestion except it wouldn't work.