4 ms·
Mr. Hastings had recently fired his chief communications officer for saying the “N-word” in full form. The executive, who is white... The race of t
by booleandilemma 8y ago
Mr. Hastings had recently fired his chief communications officer for saying the “N-word” in full form. The executive, who is white...
The race of the speaker shouldn’t matter. Either make the word forbidden (a silly concept to begin with) or don’t.
- k_sh 8y agoIt's a reclaimed slur - it's meant to be used exclusively by the targeted group. Not respecting that requires you to ignore the painful cultural background of the term. > In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation (or reclamation) is the cultural process by which a group reclaims terms [...] previously used in a way disparaging of that group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation
- Hasknewbie 8y agoI assume the GP, like me, is not American: in most cultures the very notion of made-up taboo words (i.e. words that are forbidden regardless of what context/sentence they're used in) is considered a decadent aberration. Whether you call it "taboo word" or "reclaimed slur" makes no difference.
- jaster 8y agoSorry I am not American, but in my (European) culture there are some taboo words that are definitely not okay. The equivalent of the American "N-word" being one of those. This is considered to be normal, and people that publicly use this kind of words are generally viewed with contempt. And it could be a reason to get fired from your job. I believe this to be common across Western European countries (even with the current surge of far-right parties).
- jaster 8y agoDamn, my knee-jerk reaction got the best of me and I missed the full context of that what discussed and replied without nuance. Since I cannot edit anymore, let me correct it here: In the country where I work, using such words in a professional context, even for illustrative purpose such as described in the article, would be rather uncommon, would definitely feels weird and at least raise a few eyebrows. But I have to say I don't think it would usually result in immediate outrage and for the speaker to be fired (I can still see this happening, but it would definitely be the odd occurrence). It would probably be considered more of a well-intended-but-slightly-misguided attempt. So we definitely have such taboo words outside the US, but maybe they are not as strong a taboo here...
- hueving 8y ago>it's meant to be used exclusively by the targeted group Impressive use of the passive voice to pretend that there is some central authority deciding how words are meant to be used. People don't agree on how words are meant to be used and there is no reason to give preference to one over the other. Either ban it or not, don't have a skin color test to determine if someone should be fires or patted on the back after they drop a racial slur on the phone. That Wikipedia article even mentions that people in the in group are often offended by the use of the word.
- lscotte 8y agoAbsolutely! Either everyone can say it, or no-one can. Simple equality...
- Steko 8y agoOur language doesn't work without context.
- rladd 8y agoIt appears he was fired for saying basically: "We shouldn't have any shows that use the term 'retarded' because it can be as painful for a developmentally disabled person to hear as the word 'nigger' is for a black person to hear" As reported he used the "n-word" as an example of something really hurtful that shouldn't be said. Is that really worth a firing? Is it really wrong at all? What am I missing?