But an honest question: is there a difference in time and place? Meaning, is there a difference between you being on the street and four people walking up and using "tranny" in a sentence, versus a written or spoken reference to same?
Hypothetically, if I were to read that word in a written or online context, it would admittedly be a lot less impactful on me, as it's much easier to either block or ignore people who use it in a derogatory way. That doesn't make me less angry about people hating me for no reason, but I'm certainly not
as afraid for my safety. That said, I think it does still contribute to general fears about how broader society could react upon hearing me coming out, even if it's unlikely that I'd ever encounter that specific person.[/quote]
This might be too personal to discuss; I'm not sure I know you well enough - nor you me - to really dig into this. Suffice to say that I think there are multiple facets to this and not just "the use of a word".
I'm not quite sure what you're implying here, but if you believe there's no valid use of a word, it should be pretty easy not to use it, right?
No, just the opposite. ALL words have SOME valid use, and negating that because of bad uses is what I'm questioning. It's the "common sense" gun argument. We know about
common sense at this point. For me, who lives and dies by the word, and spends a lot of time, professionally and personally poring over words, I get their power, but I also get that some of this is not about power at all. It's more than that (I alluded to that "more" in my previous post, I think.).
We've decided that "n*****" has negative power in the context of race relations. Presumably, then, when a white person says "n*****", four main things happen (there are other options, but you can fold them into the main categories):
- Some black people ignore it and move on, in apathy or disgust.
- Some black people get outraged and/or are scared for their future
- Some white people ignore it and move on, in apathy or disgust.
- Some white people get outraged and fuel their pre-existing hatred.
We can debate the relative quantities; I generally guess that the majority of people are in the first and third categories; there is a loud but not that large contingent in the second one, and an even smaller contingent in the last. But we've heard now that when an African American says it, it's EMPOWERING and "takes ownership" of the word. But we can suppose what happens when Jay-Z says the word; it might look something like this:
- Some black people ignore it and move on, in apathy or obliviousness.
- Some black people get empowered and/or feel vindicated.
- Some white people ignore it and move on, in apathy or obliviousness.
- Some white people get outraged and fuel their pre-existing hatred.
The point here is that IF the word has power, the power is not in the intent of the user, but in the intent of the RECIPIENT. We've already accepted that use of a word by a minority is an "empowering" act - you could say the same about the LGB community, with things like "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy", and others - and my argument is that this undermines the idea that there is safety in focusing on the words. A targeted minority is arguably not any safer if we're not using "n*****" or "homo" or "tranny" in a sentence.
This seems to bolster that argument. No doubt YOU feel better personally - and that's not a minor, small thing - but it's not about the safety of the group, unfortunately.
I respecfully disagree with this. Part of the problem with the whole issue is that "consequences" mean different things to different people, and also has a broad scope. For example, if I go up to someone and say "hey moron", what should the consequences be? A lecture? Should I lose my job? Should I be punched in the face? Jailed? Executed? We've sort of messed up the notion of "consequences"; there are too many examples to give where the CONSEQUENCES have been assumed ("guilt by accusation"). The fact of the matter is, Brett Kavanaugh is, technically, guilty of NOTHING. There have been no charges, no trial, no verdict, no sentencing, and yet he is very much feeling the consequences of the ACCUSATION.
I don't know who Brett Kavanaugh is, but when I say "consequences" I mean the effects that your words have on other people, not the punishment of the person saying the words themselves. I don't think "moron" is derogatory enough to hurt anyone specifically, but the fact of the matter is: if you go out of your way to use derogatory terms about minorities (even if they're not directly used against minorities), I think it's unreasonable to expect that no-one will be offended. Especially in a workplace environment, they create a passive feeling of non-acceptance & judgement. I think that being fired, punched, jailed, or executed based solely on any one specific word is a bit extreme, but if someone says "can you not use that word? it's stigmatising towards [x group]", that isn't someone imposing on your free speech or whatever, it's someone using their free speech to criticise your word choice.
That said, if you keep saying (let's just say) the N-word in your workplace despite several people (including black co-workers & your bosses) telling you to stop, then yes I think it should result in you being fired if you still show no remorse in doing it - but that's only because you're repeatedly refusing the requests of everyone around you, which I think would have those consequences when applied to any context, not necessarily exclusive to using derogatory language.
Could've sworn I read elsewhere you were in America; Brett Kavanaugh is the most recent member of the United States Supreme Court, widely criticized for, uh, um... an unproved accusation of sexual assault 30 years ago, and, I guess, because Trump nominated him for the court to begin with. He was confirmed, barely, but now lives an odd life; he's reached the pinnacle of his profession, but is not generally afforded the same courtesies as his colleagues, and often has to appear in public in moderate
disguise.
I'm not talking about "can you not use that word", though. I see zero problem with that approach (even if I disagree with the rationale for it), if that's all it was. "I use a word", "you voice your displeasure", "I decide whether I want to use it again or not", "you decide whether you want to engage with me, to the extent you can", and we move on. This happens in various contexts every second of every day. If I don't bring the cart back to the stall at the grocery store, they put up a sign. They might put a staff-member in the lot. But if I just flat out refuse to put the cart back in the stall, that's where it ends. I shouldn't be shamed on the internet, my boss shouldn't be contacted and informed, and I shouldn't be jeered when I sit in a restaurant with my family. It's one thing to "criticize", that's fair debate, but when your "criticism" is used as a weapon, the science says it's not a viable counter-attack to a harm-causing action, it's just "eye-for-an-eye"; I hurt, therefore YOU'RE going to hurt.
No, I highly doubt that anyone is exclusively going to commit violence against black people because of this one kid's sign. That's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that it's a reminder that extremist-racists (which still believe slavery should exist) also exist. Not to say that that kid is one of them, but surely you must agree that that reminder would put a sizable amount of discomfort & pressure on someone of African-American descent, right?
Wait a second; first, that kid was not a "extremist-racist"; all accounts are that it's a bad joke. He WANTED to date that girl and she wanted to date him. And second, whether it puts "discomfort and pressure" - sizable or not - is not the point. The fact is, when you're dealing with the existence and rights of 325 million people - in America - and 7.7 BILLION people on the planet, "discomfort" is not a standard to be used. Sure, on a personal level, it's a positive thing to make others feel comfortable; it's certainly something I try to accomplish, but it's not something anyone can demand.
Honest question: how is this different than what you wrote above? Why does intent - and the presupposition of what others MIGHT think - matter here but not above?
I didn't mean that it doesn't matter, I meant that I don't understand how any specific group could take offence to that word without majorly reaching. However, if I encounter someone that does take to it, my response wouldn't be "fuck off, let me say what I want", but rather "I'm not sure I understand why you feel that way. Could you elaborate so that I can understand it better?".
Just a rephrasing of my question, and meant to further the discussion: why doesn't it work both ways? I would assume you would be okay with me saying "I'm not transgender, so I can't really say what should or should not be considered offensive", so why doesn't that group get afforded the same courtesy? Or, in the reverse, if you can't imagine why someone would be offended, why doesn't that extend to the people that use words you don't like?
The point here is not to play "gotcha", or to box you in a corner. The point is to reinforce that we're really trying to drive the behavior of the majority through selective, subjective reactions of a few people. As much as I'd love the world to be a perfect, warm, caring, accepting place, it's not and for various reasons. I recognize that this might come off as insensitive, but I don't think it is; it's intended to be pragmatic. There's certainly a subset of people for whom this is all a matter of education; meaning, if they only had more knowledge of the state of being "transgender" or "homosexual" or "African American" they'd be far more understanding. That's a better thing for all of us, whether we're in that group or not. But even if it's simply a matter of genetics, there is ALWAYS going to be a subset of the population that, in the vernacular, just doesn't give a f***. Whether they are clinically sociopathic, or have some other "condition" or "state" that renders them insensitive to others, regardless of what group they fall into.
Topic: Are your insults politically correct? (Read 4428 times)
