11 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoGood 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 :)