7 ms·

I have a question: how is it that things like n-word and w-word and whatever-word became part of normal and formal speak in the english language (or is it the U

• acover 9y ago
  Racial slur
• EngineerBetter 9y ago
  "n-word" is used in the UK too. Sometimes one needs to be specific about the nature and severity of the slur used.
  • riffraff 9y ago
    in what case is this specificness necessary? I can think of trials or police reports, but I imagine in that case one would have to use the actual words, lest confusion ensues. Forgive me if I sound argumentative, I'm genuinely interested and trying to understand.
    • roel_v 9y ago
      It's a style figure; i.e. a choice an author makes, in order to convey their intent most clearly. It's artistic freedom to choose whether or not to use it. I don't see what purpose your insistence on delineated rules on when to use what words serves. I for one found the article more authentic in the way it was written, vs if they would have used 'racial slurs' or another generic term.
    • PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      Saying something like "racial slurs" could potentially leave one wondering if this was something relatively mild, possibly even a mere misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion. Mentioning that someone dropped an n-bomb leaves no room for uncertainty. It's like "sexual harassment." That phrase alone will have some people thinking "oh, the poor guy just said she looked nice today and she flipped out." If you say "he stuck his hand up her dress and told her to be at his apartment at 9pm," there's no space for that sort of misunderstanding.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• ahoka 9y ago
  It's a PR trick to downplay it. Try how it reads like this: >>At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "nigger" and "wetback" towards each other and a threat of violence.<<
  • riffraff 9y ago
    yeah but why is it necessary to do this? why not >> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial slurs towards each other and a threat of violence.
    • kbenson 9y ago
      Not all racial slurs are equal in everyone's eyes. What some people consider racial slurs, others say out of ignorance (less common, in today's sensitive reaction to them). Consider "colored" compared to "nigger". Colored will definitely be seen by some as a racial slur, but to others it may be the appropriate for the time, not necessarily racially charged, correct terminology they initially learned. For that matter, "nigger" was a fairly neutral term originally, but changed over time, as the circumstances of the people it referred to changed and they preferred a different, less loaded moniker.
    • toephu2 9y ago
      ...does it really matter? I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information.
      • thephyber 9y ago
        > I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information. At the risk of being equally pedantic... Does that really matter? And is there a company on Earth that will tell you everything with radical honesty? Is there any value in that? Does Tesla tell you how bad their batteries, plastics, or leathers are for the environment? No. They focus on the positive aspects of the product and the company. We prioritize and value what we need to know versus what we might like to know versus all of the other noise. And there is a lot of noise. Far too much noise for almost any of it to be useful. In fact, this is a tactic that large law firms use against small ones -- they DoS attack the small firms with too much paperwork during discovery in hopes that the small firm can't use it effectively and exhaust client expenses just trying to read through the material. I imagine it would just make it easier to build lawsuits against the radically honest companies and the only ones that survived would be the ones with the weasel words or diplomatic silence. Almost like a darwinism where the fitness function isn't relevant to any of the current economics that we observe or product features we care about. I find similar arguments against "political correctness" similarly tiring and fruitless.
• b3lvedere 9y ago
  Oh yes it is very present. Just ask the jews and gypsies.
  • thephyber 9y ago
    I don't think the parent was commenting about the existence of racial slanders, just the use of placeholders like "the n----- word".
    • lostboys67 9y ago
      Yes if your reporting factually the incident it does seem odd to bowderise in this way. And for those of you who haven't worked on the factory floor the behaviour there differs a lot from the nice and fluffy offices most of us are used to
  • int_19h 9y ago
    If you do ask the gypsies, by the way, they very much prefer to be called Roma or Romani.
    • b3lvedere 9y ago
      The G-word :)
    • cisanti 9y ago
      Not where I live! What word should we use now?
      • int_19h 9y ago
        I dunno, why not ask them? "Roma" should be a pretty universal endonym, though. If I remember correctly, it basically means "people".
• nodesocket 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but from your tone your seem to be sitting on some sort of pedestal of moral superiority. The US is so bad and evil, yet everybody still wants to come here, start their startup and company and make millions. May I ask what superior country you hail from?
• sidcool 9y ago
  Political correctness defeats the purpose.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• jlgaddis 9y ago
  I think it's mostly a societal thing in the U.S. These words are so bad that we won't use them even when explaining what someone else said. They are so offensive that we can't even bear to repeat them! I kinda get it. No "reasonable person" likes to use or even hear others use words like these. I think it's just "political correctness" that keeps us from using them under any circumstances whatsoever (although, personally, I think that is taking things a bit too far) -- such as in news articles.
  • sillysaurus3 9y ago
    That's a partial answer, but a more complete answer is that saying those words will get you labeled as a racist, even if you're repeating what someone else said. People are so terrified of this that they won't risk it. It's not just courtesy.
    • jlgaddis 9y ago
      Indeed, good point.
• abalone 9y ago
  A combination of a very deep history of slavery and racism, and a civil rights movement to confront and dismantle it culturally. You could draw a parallel with how Nazi symbols cannot be depicted in Germany (for the most part). It is not just about not offending little PC snowflakes or something.. it’s a campaign of de-Nazification. So too with racism here.
  • tripzilch 9y ago
    But that's an legal thing in Germany, not a convention. Also, because it's a codified law, you're perfectly allowed to use Nazi symbology in many contexts where US people would still feel they have to use the "n-word". The rules are a bit similar to "fair use" in copyright.
    • abalone 9y ago
      Splitting hairs. Laws arise from conventions. And people still use the n word in many non-racist contexts here. The first amendment blocks the codification if this in law but the principle is the same: shun the words and symbols that these systems of oppression were built on.
• jerrycruncher 9y ago
  In areas of ancient Eastern Europe people were so frightened of bears that speaking the actual word for "bear" was extremely taboo [1]. I would guess that this sort of linguistic indirection/substitution has existed as long as spoken language. In the past the rationale was superstition and fear, now it's sensitivity and fear. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakenglishwelsh.html http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakeng...
  • lukasm 9y ago
    Interesting. This must be the origin of "he who must not be named"
    • grkvlt 9y ago
      Meh. The whole 'he who must not be named' thing is drawing on the idea in magical thought that by uttering the 'true name' of some evil entity, you somehow grant it power. So not mentioning Voldemort by name is a way of denying him that.
• BFatts 9y ago
  I think it seems easier to say "n-word" when you want to say nigger. People feel some sort of release from the offense of using the word and that it is some sort of excuse from being racist. Saying the word doesn't make you racist unless you use it with racist intent. But I also believe it is a way to try to eliminate such words from the vocabulary. Shit is usually stated as the "s-word" and fuck is "f-word" or "f-bomb". The implication is that you know the word and can fill in for the words not spoken. I think it's high time that we stopped being afraid of these words. For example, I had to search for what the damn "w-word" was (I was thinking "wigger", but what do I know?)! African Americans can try and differentiate all they want between nigger and nigga, but they obviously stem from the same word so why pretend. It's a thing of power, I suppose. It's okay for one group to say it, but not another - a double standard and extremely hypocritical, but again, who am I to know. EDIT: I am not focusing specifically on African Americans, as this is prominent behavior across many ethnic and racial groups. The group moves to restrict the usage of a word by bastardizing it in some way and making it normal in their group while shaming those outside who use it. This is what complicates race issues even more because non African Americans come away thinking "why is it okay for them to call each other this, and why would they?" Again, same goes for other races and ethnic groups. In America, everything is weird. We're a conglomeration of nationalities and ways of thinking from across the world. Asking "is that an American thing to do?" to me is like asking "is the color Green in the rainbow?".
  • gist 9y ago
    I am not even sure why a subgroup of a group got to decide that something was or is offensive and we all need to stop using it for ever and in any circumstance. For example Trump got up and made a speech in front of a group of jews and made reference to how they were either good or tough negotiators. Certain jews called him out on that and were offended. Others thought it was great and a compliment. What gives the one group the right to decide it's defacto offensive and decide the political correctness? (I get paid for negotiation and I was like 'yeah!'. When I was growing up it was common to refer to blacks as 'colored'. Nigger was derogatory. However now it's as if you can't even use it to refer to someone else saying it and many would take offense to either of us (as you did) even using it in a comment even historically. [1] I don't understand nor do I agree with that thinking. [1] On the other hand if it was used in a play or a movie it would be seen entirely different.
• tripzilch 9y ago
  I had to google "w-word", actually. Wiktionary says it's either "whore" or "wanker". What I (non-US) don't quite get is why putting the word "nigger" in quotes is not enough. I mean, I can think of some reasons, I just feel quotes should be enough to distance oneself from the usage of said word. Then again, the Dutch tend to curse with diseases (which is relatively rare, I think Spanish does it too). But it's mostly "old" diseases like typhoid, tuberculosis, pocks or the plague. Recent generations also tend to use cancer, which is frowned upon because many people know someone who suffered it (then again, heart attacks or strokes are similarly frequent and usually no big deal at all--I think that's related to the terrible suffering of chemotherapy) . I personally like to adopt even newer diseases like H5N1 or ebola, just for the ridiculousness of it.
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    The reason is that people (sometimes the audience, sometime the speaker/writer) have trouble understanding use/mention distinctions or, at least, differentiating the application of word taboos based on those distinctions, exacerbated by the fact that quotes are so frequently abused for emphasis (especially for single words and very short phrases) rather than quotation or use/mention distinction that audiences may take quite the wrong message from their use.
    • tripzilch 9y ago
      Good point. I still kind of wish that genuine usage of quotes would be fine, since it's almost always obvious from context. But yeah, what you said about use/mention distinctions, not everyone's strongest point (especially for the immediate emotional reaction, it's still a trigger word). I know the feeling, in IRL conversation, I tend to speak such words at a somewhat lower volume :)