Total Posts:181|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The N word...

Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:48:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Recent discussion about the new movie Django Unchained brought up some interesting points a wanted to explore.

What do you believe we should do about the word Nigger/Nigga? I personally believe the word should be outlawed. But I understand it significance in our culture as it is. And getting rid of the word would be impossible. I even find myself using it everyonce and a while. Not proud of that. What are your opinions on the word?
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:50:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:48:06 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Recent discussion about the new movie Django Unchained brought up some interesting points a wanted to explore.

What do you believe we should do about the word Nigger/Nigga? I personally believe the word should be outlawed.

THAT THE....
kfc
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:50:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:50:38 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 12/21/2012 10:48:06 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Recent discussion about the new movie Django Unchained brought up some interesting points a wanted to explore.

What do you believe we should do about the word Nigger/Nigga? I personally believe the word should be outlawed.

THAT THE....

WORD SHOULD BE OUTLAWED?
kfc
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:52:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have been called a nigger many times before by non black people. It does not offend me whatsoever. Banning a word would be one of the dumbest things ever. What race are you?
kfc
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:56:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Repeat after me:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never relegate me to a lower socioeconomic caste in our society.

Not exactly how the rhyme goes but it's still the same.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:57:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the word nigger were outlawed, the cartoon series The Boondocks would be impossible. Since everyone reading this should watch The Boondocks, the word nigger should not be outlawed.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:01:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:52:34 AM, Koopin wrote:
I have been called a nigger many times before by non black people. It does not offend me whatsoever. Banning a word would be one of the dumbest things ever. What race are you?

I am black and I grew up in Biloxi Mississippi. I am very familiar with the word. And it does bother me. Not the word itself but the hate behind it. And the actins people take because of it
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:02:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:01:11 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/21/2012 10:52:34 AM, Koopin wrote:
I have been called a nigger many times before by non black people. It does not offend me whatsoever. Banning a word would be one of the dumbest things ever. What race are you?

I am black and I grew up in Biloxi Mississippi. I am very familiar with the word. And it does bother me. Not the word itself but the hate behind it. And the actins people take because of it

So you are saying we should take away the people's right to hate?
kfc
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:03:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:56:53 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Repeat after me:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never relegate me to a lower socioeconomic caste in our society.

Not exactly how the rhyme goes but it's still the same.

Have you ever been called a Nigger?
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:04:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:03:37 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/21/2012 10:56:53 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Repeat after me:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never relegate me to a lower socioeconomic caste in our society.

Not exactly how the rhyme goes but it's still the same.

Have you ever been called a Nigger?

Yes he has.
kfc
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:11:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:48:06 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Recent discussion about the new movie Django Unchained brought up some interesting points a wanted to explore.

What do you believe we should do about the word Nigger/Nigga?

Nothing. It's a word. A label. Inherently, it is meaningless. Its offense and any damage - be it potential, actual, imagined, psychological, physical - comes from its use and the reactions to it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be "glabberflast."

Furthermore, even if you got over the hurdle of demonstrating that something should be done about it, there is nothing you actually can do about it. You cannot inhibit language without first inhibiting thought.

I personally believe the word should be outlawed.

You are now officially off of the fvcking reservation and shouldn't be taken seriously. Outlaw a word? How and why? Nevermind. Ok, the word is outlawed. I now coin a new word (the aforementioned "gabberflast") as having the exact same meaning and connotations as "Nigger." What now?

Nothing. That's what.

The word is merely a short-cut. Or, rather, it is short-hand. It is short-hand for the linguistic and cultural history behind the word, it's use, intention, the contexts for which it has used. It is more than merely a derogatory term for a person of a certain race: it is, depending on context, a statement about prejudice, racism, mentality, and world view.

This world view, admittedly, is abhorrent. it is one we wish to see obliterated from he planet. It is insidious an dangerous. The optimistic view is that we can actually do this. However, that outcome cannot come from outlawing or banning a word. Everything that word represents can still be expressed through other words or actions.

One way to do that is not to outlaw the world view, or the words that represent it, as this essentially concedes the dominion of that world view, and officially acknowledges the word's association with it. Rather we should dismantle the world view by taking it apart and exposing it for the absurdity it is, and take the words associated with that world view, and turning them toward other means.

This has been done, successfully, time and time again. We see it with: gay, queer, f@g, nigger. Groups of people have taken the labels and made them their own a, by doing so, have made themselves immune to being labeled as such. How? By deliberately using those words to label themselves ahead of time, on their own terms.

Consider:
"Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you."

But I understand it significance in our culture as it is. And getting rid of the word would be impossible. I even find myself using it everyonce and a while. Not proud of that. What are your opinions on the word?

It's a word. Words are harmless.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:12:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:04:34 AM, Koopin wrote:
Zaradi, you are a Nigger!

YES! That means I can finally be good at sports!
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:12:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:04:49 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 12/21/2012 11:03:37 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/21/2012 10:56:53 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Repeat after me:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never relegate me to a lower socioeconomic caste in our society.

Not exactly how the rhyme goes but it's still the same.

Have you ever been called a Nigger?

Yes he has.

Pointless.... I understand your opinion the word. Obviously you havn't had the same struggles with it that I had growing up. And its clear now that no on most likely has.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:22:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:12:41 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/21/2012 11:04:49 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 12/21/2012 11:03:37 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/21/2012 10:56:53 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Repeat after me:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never relegate me to a lower socioeconomic caste in our society.

Not exactly how the rhyme goes but it's still the same.

Have you ever been called a Nigger?

Yes he has.

Pointless.... I understand your opinion the word. Obviously you havn't had the same struggles with it that I had growing up. And its clear now that no on most likely has.

Would your struggles have been different if the people who used that word against you use a different word instead?

Your problem is that you think you can take centuries of prejudice, racism, oppression, abuse, and enslavement, wrap it all up in a word, and get rid of it all by getting rid of the word.

You can't.

Furthermore, you are contributing to the problem. Your attitude gives the word power as would outlawing it. An outlawed word would have immense power.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:24:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When I was a kid we had a counting method to decide who would be "it" which went:

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo,
Catch a nigger by his toe,
If he wiggles let him go,
Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo,

It never occurred to us that it could be offensive to black people.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 1:14:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, outlawing the word is my "personal opinion". Never said it should actually happen. People would flip. In fact I even said it would be impossible.

Would your struggles have been different if the people who used that word against you use a different word instead?

Yes. WAYYY DIFFERENT!!! For one, I would have a problem with he word at all. It wouldn't sting so much.There is power in the word and it changes people opinions when you hear it. And Yes outlawing the world would give it more power. That is the point of outlawing it. I never said the word should have less power. People should be frightened of it. And every other negative racist term you can think of. But that will never happen I have made that clear.

Your problem is that you think you can take centuries of prejudice, racism, oppression, abuse, and enslavement, wrap it all up in a word, and get rid of it all by getting rid of the word.

Second, this is an assumption. I never said anything like this at all. I, in no way shape or form, am not attempting anything close to that. So this is utterly and completely false. I said previously that it isn't just the word I have a problem with it is the hate behind it. And there is hate behind it. No matter how you choose to use it. You don't think I understand the significance of that history. You think that I think so little of it that I can get rid of it by getting rid of one word. I never even said outlawing the word would get rid of all the hate. That's silly. And your silly for making such a huge claim. You seem like a smart guy. You can come up with something better than that.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 1:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:24:20 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
When I was a kid we had a counting method to decide who would be "it" which went:

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo,
Catch a nigger by his toe,
If he wiggles let him go,
Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo,

It never occurred to us that it could be offensive to black people.

.....yea. Those aren't even the real words lol
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 1:17:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 11:28:59 AM, tulle wrote:
Bravo, drafterman, bravo.

And your silly for co signing
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 1:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 1:14:37 PM, Df0512 wrote:
First of all, outlawing the word is my "personal opinion". Never said it should actually happen. People would flip. In fact I even said it would be impossible.

Yes you did. You said:

"I personally believe the word should be outlawed."


Would your struggles have been different if the people who used that word against you use a different word instead?

Yes. WAYYY DIFFERENT!!! For one, I would have a problem with he word at all. It wouldn't sting so much.

LOLwut? So, if the people who used the word against you negatively used a different word to insult and refer to you in a derogatory fashion, you wouldn't have struggled as much?

There is power in the word and it changes people opinions when you hear it. And Yes outlawing the world would give it more power. That is the point of outlawing it. I never said the word should have less power. People should be frightened of it.

To give the word more power is to allow it to cause more damage. You want the word to cause more damage? Why?

And every other negative racist term you can think of. But that will never happen I have made that clear.

Neither should it happen. These words should be rendered powerless and impotent, with the power to harm no one.


Your problem is that you think you can take centuries of prejudice, racism, oppression, abuse, and enslavement, wrap it all up in a word, and get rid of it all by getting rid of the word.

Second, this is an assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's an inference.

I never said anything like this at all. I, in no way shape or form, am not attempting anything close to that. So this is utterly and completely false.

I didn't say you said it. I said you thought it. It is what I infer from your words.

I said previously that it isn't just the word I have a problem with it is the hate behind it. And there is hate behind it.

Outlawing it wouldn't eliminate the hate behind it. Only using it MORE can we eliminate the hate behind it.

No matter how you choose to use it. You don't think I understand the significance of that history.

I don't think you understand linguistics. How you use the word precisely determines whether or not there is hate behind it. No word is inherently hateful.

You think that I think so little of it that I can get rid of it by getting rid of one word.

No, I think that you think so highly of the word that getting rid of the word would get rid of hate.

I never even said outlawing the word would get rid of all the hate. That's silly. And your silly for making such a huge claim. You seem like a smart guy. You can come up with something better than that.

I did, and you ignored it.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:35:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes you did. You said:

"I personally believe the word should be outlawed."

I also said "But I understand it significance in our culture as it is. And getting rid of the word would be impossible." So no I never said it should actually happen.

: LOLwut? So, if the people who used the word against you negatively used a different word to insult and refer to you in a derogatory fashion, you wouldn't have struggled as much?

Never said I wouldn't have struggled so much. You need to stop debating what you think Im inferring and argue what I am saying. I said it would sting so much. Why would I want them to substitute it for another word? We would be discussing that word instead of this one and that would be the only difference.

To give the word more power is to allow it to cause more damage. You want the word to cause more damage? Why?

The damage should be done to the people who use the word negatively. But than, that is why this is an opinion based off my experiences with the wold. You have to understand that this is my opinion based off of things I have gone thru. It is completely and utterly bias.

It's not an assumption, it's an inference.

It is an assumption. There was no logic involved. You would have had to obtained way more information from me to make an appropriate inference. The only information you seemed to have considered was " I personally believe the word should be outlawed.". You can't make those type of claims about me with so little information about me.

I didn't say you said it. I said you thought it. It is what I infer from your words.

Say or think. Your claim remains unchanged.

Outlawing it wouldn't eliminate the hate behind it. Only using it MORE can we eliminate the hate behind it.

If I thought outlawing the word would eliminate the hate behind it, I would have said that. And you are entitled to your opinion.

I don't think you understand linguistics. How you use the word precisely determines whether or not there is hate behind it. No word is inherently hateful.

My god, you are the king of inferring completely inaccurate conclusions. Look: " I said previously that it isn't just the word I have a problem with it is the hate behind it. And there is hate behind it. No matter how you choose to use it"

This, to you, means that I am saying or thinking the word itself is inherently hateful? To me it looks like I am talking specifically about the hate associated with the word. Because I clearly said " it isn't just the word I have a problem with it is the hate behind it." My linguistics are just fine thank you.

No, I think that you think so highly of the word that getting rid of the word would get rid of hate.

So even tho you posted my response clearly stating " I never even said outlawing the word would get rid of all the hate." you still claim that is what I am thinking?

I did, and you ignored it.

You didn't and I refuted it. At least in my opinion. It seems like you have argued this point before and are using the same arguments believing my thought process was the same. I have my opinion on the word but I understand it is an opinion. If you want to argue it fine but that wasn't the point of the thread.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, since black people call each other nigger, it has no meaning as far as I can tell. It's like calling someone a Nazi or a bigot or a racist. They are over used and have no meaning anymore. My only thaought I have to people who use these terms. "Intellectual morons to stupid to piece together a coherent thaought"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:50:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The word should be identified as a hate-slur, because that is exactly what it is. There is an obvious callousness to the effect it has because pop-culture expanded the context in which it's used. We hear it so much in a slang context that most white boys have no shame blasting NWA with the windows down.

I personally don't identify with the depth of it's meaning, but my wife does. She has told me on multiple occasions that she finds it deeply offensive, so bi-proxy, I will too.

I don't use it. I don't feel my freedom of speech exceeds my wife's dignity.
Hence the wonderful phrase: "Watch your mouth."
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:56:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
UNLESS YOU ARE FORM PARIS :D
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:03:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:37:19 PM, sadolite wrote:
Well, since black people call each other nigger, it has no meaning as far as I can tell. It's like calling someone a Nazi or a bigot or a racist. They are over used and have no meaning anymore. My only thaought I have to people who use these terms. "Intellectual morons to stupid to piece together a coherent thaought"

A valid point.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:07:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 1:20:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 1:14:37 PM, Df0512 wrote:
First of all, outlawing the word is my "personal opinion". Never said it should actually happen. People would flip. In fact I even said it would be impossible.

Yes you did. You said:

"I personally believe the word should be outlawed."


Would your struggles have been different if the people who used that word against you use a different word instead?

Yes. WAYYY DIFFERENT!!! For one, I would have a problem with he word at all. It wouldn't sting so much.

LOLwut? So, if the people who used the word against you negatively used a different word to insult and refer to you in a derogatory fashion, you wouldn't have struggled as much?

Why is that relevant? Are we discussing the the object or the function?


There is power in the word and it changes people opinions when you hear it. And Yes outlawing the world would give it more power. That is the point of outlawing it. I never said the word should have less power. People should be frightened of it.

To give the word more power is to allow it to cause more damage. You want the word to cause more damage? Why?

Wow, how merciful. You realize that the word (object) is used to express a predjudice (function). If I asked every black person to ignore the object, would that change it's function?
Isn't that like asking a victim of sexual assault to reclassify rape as benign? "Just....remove it's power...become...apathetic."


And every other negative racist term you can think of. But that will never happen I have made that clear.

Neither should it happen. These words should be rendered powerless and impotent, with the power to harm no one.

That's not up to the victim. Intent is chosen by the offender. A black man has little defense against racism because....dadadadaaaa it's Human nature to feel attacked when someone attacks you. (Seems so obvious).



Your problem is that you think you can take centuries of prejudice, racism, oppression, abuse, and enslavement, wrap it all up in a word, and get rid of it all by getting rid of the word.

Second, this is an assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's an inference.

I never said anything like this at all. I, in no way shape or form, am not attempting anything close to that. So this is utterly and completely false.

I didn't say you said it. I said you thought it. It is what I infer from your words.

Arguing with the wind.


I said previously that it isn't just the word I have a problem with it is the hate behind it. And there is hate behind it.

Outlawing it wouldn't eliminate the hate behind it. Only using it MORE can we eliminate the hate behind it.

Not outlawing it causes the victim to feel the consequence of being black. Outlawing it will cause the offender to feel the consequence of open predjudice.

No matter how you choose to use it. You don't think I understand the significance of that history.

I don't think you understand linguistics. How you use the word precisely determines whether or not there is hate behind it. No word is inherently hateful.

That's an escapist argument. The word is inherently hateful in the same way that a hand-grenade is inherently dangerous. Yes, it requires a human being to use it, but we can't elliminate human being to remove the threat...hence, we must elliminate the object to remove it's function.

You think that I think so little of it that I can get rid of it by getting rid of one word.

No, I think that you think so highly of the word that getting rid of the word would get rid of hate.

Hate is used in context. Remove the context and elliminate the hate.

I never even said outlawing the word would get rid of all the hate. That's silly. And your silly for making such a huge claim. You seem like a smart guy. You can come up with something better than that.

I did, and you ignored it.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:12:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:50:42 PM, Heineken wrote:
The word should be identified as a hate-slur, because that is exactly what it is. There is an obvious callousness to the effect it has because pop-culture expanded the context in which it's used. We hear it so much in a slang context that most white boys have no shame blasting NWA with the windows down.

I personally don't identify with the depth of it's meaning, but my wife does. She has told me on multiple occasions that she finds it deeply offensive, so bi-proxy, I will too.

I don't use it. I don't feel my freedom of speech exceeds my wife's dignity.
Hence the wonderful phrase: "Watch your mouth."

Very well said. I think if people are able to the pain the has been caused by the word and the hate behind it, they will better understand why you believe that. You were able to relate because of your wife. And maybe the sympathy you have for your wife effect your opinion on the word as well, but that's how it works.

Some people can't understand because they are only reading about it in the paper or watching it on tv. They have no attachments. Nothing to lose, so they aren't effected. But if it happens to someone you love you share in their pain so you can relate. And when you can relate you better understand.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:31:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you let a word bother you, your insecure. Especially if there is no signs of danger or malicious attempts when a word/words are being said.

If you get upset because somebody says nigger and it reminds you of the oppressions before, it's obvious you can't get your feelings to overcome the past. Even if is only minimal, does that make it any less true?

I can go on and on about this issue. I hope I don't come off as racist because I enjoy all peoples company. I don't let petty differences like race define a person.

Nigger means ignorant. Aren't we all niggers at one point?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 4:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:07:28 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 12/21/2012 1:20:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 1:14:37 PM, Df0512 wrote:
First of all, outlawing the word is my "personal opinion". Never said it should actually happen. People would flip. In fact I even said it would be impossible.

Yes you did. You said:

"I personally believe the word should be outlawed."


Would your struggles have been different if the people who used that word against you use a different word instead?

Yes. WAYYY DIFFERENT!!! For one, I would have a problem with he word at all. It wouldn't sting so much.

LOLwut? So, if the people who used the word against you negatively used a different word to insult and refer to you in a derogatory fashion, you wouldn't have struggled as much?

Why is that relevant? Are we discussing the the object or the function?

Both.



There is power in the word and it changes people opinions when you hear it. And Yes outlawing the world would give it more power. That is the point of outlawing it. I never said the word should have less power. People should be frightened of it.

To give the word more power is to allow it to cause more damage. You want the word to cause more damage? Why?

Wow, how merciful. You realize that the word (object) is used to express a predjudice (function). If I asked every black person to ignore the object, would that change it's function?

I never said ignore it.

Isn't that like asking a victim of sexual assault to reclassify rape as benign? "Just....remove it's power...become...apathetic."

No, it isn't like that. And it in fact proves my point. What the OP is suggesting is the outlawing or abolishment or lack of use of the word. All that would result in (as I noted) is the use of a new label. That is, reclassification. Which does absolutely nothing to inhibit the underlying and more pertinent threat.



And every other negative racist term you can think of. But that will never happen I have made that clear.

Neither should it happen. These words should be rendered powerless and impotent, with the power to harm no one.

That's not up to the victim. Intent is chosen by the offender. A black man has little defense against racism because....dadadadaaaa it's Human nature to feel attacked when someone attacks you. (Seems so obvious).

Exactly, which means it doesn't matter what words they use. So outlaying or focusing attention on a word can't stop the underlying intent. However, by making the word taboo or illegal, you actually add to their ability to cause harm.





Your problem is that you think you can take centuries of prejudice, racism, oppression, abuse, and enslavement, wrap it all up in a word, and get rid of it all by getting rid of the word.

Second, this is an assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's an inference.

I never said anything like this at all. I, in no way shape or form, am not attempting anything close to that. So this is utterly and completely false.

I didn't say you said it. I said you thought it. It is what I infer from your words.

Arguing with the wind.


I said previously that it isn't just the word I have a problem with it is the hate behind it. And there is hate behind it.

Outlawing it wouldn't eliminate the hate behind it. Only using it MORE can we eliminate the hate behind it.

Not outlawing it causes the victim to feel the consequence of being black. Outlawing it will cause the offender to feel the consequence of open predjudice.

I don't understand these statements.


No matter how you choose to use it. You don't think I understand the significance of that history.

I don't think you understand linguistics. How you use the word precisely determines whether or not there is hate behind it. No word is inherently hateful.

That's an escapist argument. The word is inherently hateful in the same way that a hand-grenade is inherently dangerous.

No it isn't. Words have no inherent meaning. The only meaning words have is that which we explicitly assign it.

Yes, it requires a human being to use it, but we can't elliminate human being to remove the threat...hence, we must elliminate the object to remove it's function.

False dichotomy. We can have more people use the word in a non-hateful capacity, thus altering it's interpreted meaning. It's called amelioration.


You think that I think so little of it that I can get rid of it by getting rid of one word.

No, I think that you think so highly of the word that getting rid of the word would get rid of hate.

Hate is used in context. Remove the context and elliminate the hate.

Exactly. And removing the word doesn't remove the context.


I never even said outlawing the word would get rid of all the hate. That's silly. And your silly for making such a huge claim. You seem like a smart guy. You can come up with something better than that.

I did, and you ignored it.