I find the word "nigger" and all derivatives of it offensive - regardless of who uses the word. I think people's acceptance of black people using the word is based around ignorance. "nigger" is a completely derogatory term and black people who use the word are ignorant of what the word means - both literally and in a symbolic historical perspective. If I see people use that word on this forum, I'll assume they have no respect for me. Which is up to you - if you want to needlessly offend people because you feel it is your right to - that's fine. Certainly you are free to offend me as much as you like.
I do not tolerate people who I perceive as racist. I have no friends or even any contact with people who express racist views. Using words like "nigger", "nigga", "nigs" - unless I know for sure you're joking is a quick and easy way of making sure you are never somebody I have any respect for. Try going to school being one of 7 non white kids in a rural school with about 180 kids in your year and then tell me if you have any tolerance for racism.
Is this language allowed on modified?
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Lot's of groups use terms that were intended to be offensive as a way to describe themselves. Just looking at art history, their are the Beatnik's and the Fauve's. Fauve's literally mean wild beasts, and beatniks were supposed to tie the writer's of the 50's to the Soviet Union (Sputnik). Frankly, I don't think black's who use the term are ignorant at all.black people who use the word are ignorant of what the word means - both literally and in a symbolic historical perspective.
I think you are 100% wrong. I think that Black people are the only ones who really know what the word means and we have no clue, "both literally and in a symbolic historical perspective." As a matter of fact, your statement is somewhat racist.Jeremy wrote: "nigger" is a completely derogatory term and black people who use the word are ignorant of what the word means - both literally and in a symbolic historical perspective.
By using it in different variations, black people have begun to take ownership over it. Once upon a time, it was common place for every white person to call black people niggers and it was a degrading term of disrespect. Once black people really began fighting back and won the rights that were theirs to begin with, they took that word away from white people and made it their own.
With any luck we'll all be color blind some day.
Old Skool
So you're saying that it's ok for black people to use a word but not white people? How is that not racist? Either everybody can use the word or nobody can - otherwise you're saying that it's ok to have different standards for different races.
Are you saying my statement is racist because I say black people who use the word are ignorant? I also think white people who use the word are either ignorant or racist. "nigger" - is a symbol of the belief that white people are superiour to black people - it's a word that seperates people by their colour. If only black people are allowed to use the word to address other black people then it's still a racist word - it still refers to people based on their race and it gives the word more credibility. How can justify complaining about a white surpremisist using the word when you let black people use the word? By letting some people use the word and not others you are giving more power to that word and to people who use it as a degrogatory term. You're essentially saying that it is ok to give people names based on their race. So either it is ok for a white person to call a black person "nigger" or it isn't ok for anybody to use the word.
Are you saying my statement is racist because I say black people who use the word are ignorant? I also think white people who use the word are either ignorant or racist. "nigger" - is a symbol of the belief that white people are superiour to black people - it's a word that seperates people by their colour. If only black people are allowed to use the word to address other black people then it's still a racist word - it still refers to people based on their race and it gives the word more credibility. How can justify complaining about a white surpremisist using the word when you let black people use the word? By letting some people use the word and not others you are giving more power to that word and to people who use it as a degrogatory term. You're essentially saying that it is ok to give people names based on their race. So either it is ok for a white person to call a black person "nigger" or it isn't ok for anybody to use the word.
-
NotHisRealName
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: 26 Oct 2002 03:43
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
I agree with what Jeremy says...
That's kinda why I'm ok with the term. I never mean it in a racest way and use it in the way I percieve black people do.If only black people are allowed to use the word to address other black people then it's still a racist word - it still refers to people based on their race and it gives the word more credibility. How can justify complaining about a white surpremisist using the word when you let black people use the word? By letting some people use the word and not others you are giving more power to that word and to people who use it as a degrogatory term. You're essentially saying that it is ok to give people names based on their race. So either it is ok for a white person to call a black person "nigger" or it isn't ok for anybody to use the word.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
I can't believe we're spending so much time on this when their isn't a black soul on modified. Let people say whatever they want. That is the solution to this entire problem, and it saves pointless arguments about offending every hundred thousand minority groups. Are we really going to go down the list of every deragatory term and spend days arguing over it? Let people's ignorance show through. It is so much easier (And better) for the community.
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
I don't think whether black people post on modified or not has any bearing on the matter. My parents are Sth African and fled during the 70's, I was born in Australia and consider myself Australian (the moment my parents arrived they considered themselves Aussies). My mother was considered coloured though she is fair skinned, and my father was classed as Indian. I look more indian than black. This family history makes me sensitive to racial descrimination as it has had a palpable affect on my family history, as did growing up as the only dark skinned kid at school, besides my sister and a couple of teachers. No doubt others have their reasons for being sensitive to such issues which go beyond their skin colour.
I think the problem is that even though an new "code of conduct" type thing will probably not outlaw course language it will outlaw racial vilification. Subsequently it makes sense that people want to know if "nigger" falls into that context.
I think that the spelling difference someone brought up regarding the difference between nigga and nigger is bullshit, and that its all about context. I think that in speech the context makes it clear whether its derogatory or endearing. Personally I choose not to use it unless in clear parody of those who do (something I certainly wouldn't attempt online).
I don't believe the re-claiming the word for those who were once oppressed by it is really dealing with the problem at all. The other example is the word "queer" which was once derogatory but is now accepted as being simply descriptive, i don't thing the alteration of the word's use has any real affect upon levels of prejudice, you still have people perpetrating "queer bashings" and using the word as derogatory or simply discriminating against "queers" and no amount of recontextualisation of a word can change that. Clearly word usage is not as effective as education on the history of the on going struggle for racial and sexual equality.
What does all this mean modified should do? Well I think that people should be wary of using words like nigger and queer on the net where context is less clear than in speech. I don't think there should be a specific rule listing words that cannot be used or outlawing course language, however I don't think people should be surprised if such words get edited out of posts as racially or sexually derogatory, rather than as "course language". At worst a mod edits a use of queer or nigger or whatever else fits into a similar category, there will be a description of the reason which would point to racial or sexual vilification as would be required by the new code, and a similar argument to this one would re-appear (which i think is healthy), perhaps the person whose post was edited would try and get the mod stripped of moderating powers which would not happen under the code, maybe the person would just stop posting here. I don't see that as too much of a downside, certainly not enought of a downside to try and cobble together a list of words to outlaw, even if nigger was the only word on the list.
How would we feel if a mod came through and editted out the use of "nigger" from this thread. Personally I'd feel that it was a little silly because clearly the context makes it allowable.
I think the problem is that even though an new "code of conduct" type thing will probably not outlaw course language it will outlaw racial vilification. Subsequently it makes sense that people want to know if "nigger" falls into that context.
I think that the spelling difference someone brought up regarding the difference between nigga and nigger is bullshit, and that its all about context. I think that in speech the context makes it clear whether its derogatory or endearing. Personally I choose not to use it unless in clear parody of those who do (something I certainly wouldn't attempt online).
I don't believe the re-claiming the word for those who were once oppressed by it is really dealing with the problem at all. The other example is the word "queer" which was once derogatory but is now accepted as being simply descriptive, i don't thing the alteration of the word's use has any real affect upon levels of prejudice, you still have people perpetrating "queer bashings" and using the word as derogatory or simply discriminating against "queers" and no amount of recontextualisation of a word can change that. Clearly word usage is not as effective as education on the history of the on going struggle for racial and sexual equality.
What does all this mean modified should do? Well I think that people should be wary of using words like nigger and queer on the net where context is less clear than in speech. I don't think there should be a specific rule listing words that cannot be used or outlawing course language, however I don't think people should be surprised if such words get edited out of posts as racially or sexually derogatory, rather than as "course language". At worst a mod edits a use of queer or nigger or whatever else fits into a similar category, there will be a description of the reason which would point to racial or sexual vilification as would be required by the new code, and a similar argument to this one would re-appear (which i think is healthy), perhaps the person whose post was edited would try and get the mod stripped of moderating powers which would not happen under the code, maybe the person would just stop posting here. I don't see that as too much of a downside, certainly not enought of a downside to try and cobble together a list of words to outlaw, even if nigger was the only word on the list.
How would we feel if a mod came through and editted out the use of "nigger" from this thread. Personally I'd feel that it was a little silly because clearly the context makes it allowable.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
You're right, whether a black person is on modified or not doesn't matter in this argument. What matters is that no word should be banned, editted, or censored, ever. It's the obvious solution to this problem. I just don't think I've heard a solid argument for a word or words being banned. People's feelings ought not matter in a case like this. I just don't think their is ever a reason to prohibit what people say, no matter how stupid.
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
its true. -
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
NotHisRealName
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: 26 Oct 2002 03:43
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
