Acceptable Use of N-Word

[DGuller]

The intention is what matters.


However....it is a fraught term, and given how toxic the term is, there aren't a lot of contexts where it is ever appropriate. And chances are that if you find yourself asking yourself if you ought to use the term, the answer is almost certainly "No".


But I also think it is one of those things where there is a desire by some to use its use itself as a weapon to cancel people they simply do not like.


I don't actually think (and by that I mean I am highly skeptical) anyone listening to some old Rogan podcast and how (as far as I can tell) he used the term is genuinely offended, rather then simply recognising that this is a useful weapon to use against someone they don't like. If someone else they did like used the term in the same context, it would be unremarked and uncared about.

I agree that from a pragmatic perspective, just don't use the word.  Even if you think you should be able to in certain contexts, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.  If you do force the issue, though, then you're probably unwise, but that doesn't negate your rights.

[crazy canuck]

It has been a number of years since I heard someone try use the argument that it is intent, not impact, that matters.

It leads to things like Yi thinking it was OK to post a word in the title of a thread where he ostensibly wanted to discuss if it is ever appropriate to use such a word.  Or maybe he was just being a dick.

It is also excuses all kinds of horrid behaviour.

[Berkut]

Maybe calling someone a dick is not the best way to argue about how impact, rather then intent, matters?

Just a thought.

[crazy canuck]

Maybe calling someone a dick is not the best way to argue about how impact, rather then intent, matters?

Just a thought.

I could ascribe worse motives for doing such a thing.  Stupidity, lack of awareness of how to act properly, maliciousness.  I think saying he was a dick about it is actually pretty minimal.

You missed the main point of my post though.  Your statement that it is intent that matters most is not correct.  You may want to read up on the topic a bit more before becoming too wed to that argument.

[Berkut]

Maybe calling someone a dick is not the best way to argue about how impact, rather then intent, matters?

Just a thought.

I could ascribe worse motives for doing such a thing.  Stupidity, lack of awareness of how to act properly, maliciousness.  I think saying he was a dick about it is actually pretty minimal.

Ahhh, so Yi being a "dick" is your most charitable possible interpretation. I see. Such a gentleman.

You missed the main point of my post though.  Your statement that it is intent that matters most is not correct.  You may want to read up on the topic a bit more before becoming too wed to that argument.

It is what matters most to me, and this was a poll about what people think.

Your idea that other peoples opinion are "not correct" and you are so certain of this is not correct. You may want to just entertain the idea that your views on anything and everything are not *necessarily* always exactly and perfectly correct, and you might learn something from others if you approach conversation with more of an open mind.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, I am being generous with your lack of knowledge in this area.  I assume your confident assertion that is only intent that matters is born out of ignorance and not just being a dick.  I am less generous with Yi because what he did is not excusable.  He is smart enough to know that when that word should be used, if at all, is contentious (after all that is what he said his thread was about - and yet he used it in the title of the thread anyway.  Like I said, describing that as being a dick is the least I can do.

[Eddie Teach]

Yi is not the one being a dick.

[Berkut]

Berkut, I am being generous with your lack of knowledge in this area.  I assume your confident assertion that is only intent that matters is born out of ignorance and not just being a dick.  I am less generous with Yi because what he did is not excusable.  He is smart enough to know that when that word should be used, if at all, is contentious (after all that is what he said his thread was about - and yet he used it in the title of the thread anyway.  Like I said, describing that as being a dick is the least I can do.

Gee, thanks for your generosity around my "lack of knowledge" and obvious ignorance.

After all, if someone does not agree with you, it must be because they are ignorant, or just a "dick". Don't even consider that perhaps your views may not encompass the entire set of all things non-ignorant and non-dickish around a contentious issue. Gosh no, don't even *consider* that possibility!

I never made any indication of confidence, nor did I assert anything beyond my own understanding of my own opinion about what *I* think is important, to me, when *I* decide whether or not the use of some word is acceptable.

[Zoupa]

https://youtu.be/S4pSp3Km6Mw

[grumbler]

Berkut, I am being generous with your lack of knowledge in this area.  I assume your confident assertion that is only intent that matters is born out of ignorance and not just being a dick.  I am less generous with Yi because what he did is not excusable.  He is smart enough to know that when that word should be used, if at all, is contentious (after all that is what he said his thread was about - and yet he used it in the title of the thread anyway.  Like I said, describing that as being a dick is the least I can do.

There's nothing so simultaneously amusing and pathetic as the self-proclaimed expert trying to act the intellectual snob, as this post amply demonstrates.  I notice that yo have reworded Berkut's argument into "only intent that matters" way from his actual contention that "the intention is what matters."  I am being generous with your lack of capacity to discern what is honest intellectual discourse.

Some thought would lead the reasonable person to conclude that Yi was being deliberately meta with his thread title.  His intent, I believe, was to see if, indeed, the mere use of the word in a thread title would induce panic and reflexive horror.  Knowing that, his title doesn't particularly bother me, though I'd never use such a title myself.  Because, after all, it is the intention that matters.  One can only control intent.  Impact is in the hands of others.

[Berkut]

https://youtu.be/S4pSp3Km6Mw

Go ahead Zoups, we won't judge you - if you want to say it, just go right ahead.

[grumbler]

About 20 years ago, an aide to the mayor of DC use the word "niggardly" to describe a budget item.  Someone in the mayor's office was unaware that there was such a word, assumed that the aide had dropped the N-word, and filed a complaint.  The aide was forced to resign.

Fair to the aide, or not?  He certainly had no intention of dropping the N-word, but the impact was as though he had used the word deliberately.  CC thinks that his forced resignation was fair, because it had an impact as though the N-word had been used.  Berkut thinks that the forced resignation was unfair, because there was no intent to use the n-word. 

What say you?

[viper37]

durka

I can see a combination of 5 and 6.  You're trying to be funny, but if a lot of black folk say it's a miss, you apologize and walk it back.

It shouldn't be a problem in historical context.  Soon enough, I think we will see stories about Antebellum South where a master adress his slave as mister because the 'n' word is too offensive.

Imho, just like "savage" for indians.  French colonizers referred to First Nations as "sauvage" in their contemporary texts, if writing an historical story, for book or tv/movie, or discussing an ancient text, it shouldn't be frown upon, it shouldn't result on cancellation, no matter the color of the skin.  Just like we don't mind describing Gauls & Germans as barbarians when discussing Roman history; it's all Greek & Romans referred to outsiders. 

Forbidding the use of the 'n' word for whatever reason is just stupid.  It always depends on the context.

[viper37]

It has been a number of years since I heard someone try use the argument that it is intent, not impact, that matters.

Funny how so many Canadians seem to diverge on this.

N*word: The impact matters!
discrimination vs French speakers throughout the country: Only the intent matters!

Very... curious, that line of thought.

[viper37]

In my opinion, it's impossible to teach history in the United States, particularly but not limited to the black experience and the civil rights movement, without using the word to accurately portray the black experience.

I think it is quite possible - because the experience of racism isn't entirely contained within that word. That being said, its persistance, and prevalence, including in hip hop (or The Wire, or so many other cultural productions) means that students require some form of explanation about it.

As someone who does teach this, I'll certainly have students read material which contains it, but I will not utter it. Or, at least, I have managed to do so, so far. Now that I am back to teaching in French, the problem isn't entirely the same. I suspect there are people in academia who bristle against this as a form of censorship, but yet at the same time, who also want to experience the frisson of the transgressive.

So, basically, you self censor, because the reality of history is too disturbing for modern sensibilities?

Imho, it's aking to barbarian and savage.  These were historical terms, and in its context, I don't disagree with it.  I don't think refering to a black person as "n*" or something-n* is the same.  I don't think calling an Haitian boy in the school bus "n*" has the same impact as quoting a book title from the 1960s, or reading in class a censu document written in 1840. 

People used offensive terms in the past.  It didn't begin that way, it morphed into that, we don't use it anymore (well, we don't if we want to stay polite).  Blacks, like everyone, have to accept the reality of history and develop some kind of shell.  It's totally not the same as insulting someone.  It's totally not the same as attacking one's right to vote.

Intent makes all the difference.  I could excuse a drunk politician calling me fucking frog.  I would not excuse a sober politician taking actions against the francophone minority of what is currently my country.