3 ms·

I was under the impression that the only way to use "broad" non-pejoratively is in reference to the actual breadth of something. That being said, sometimes it'

I was under the impression that the only way to use "broad" non-pejoratively is in reference to the actual breadth of something. That being said, sometimes it's safer to study abroad from afar.

dhimes 16y ago
Yes, you can't say it any more... It actually fell out of favor long ago, but originally it wasn't considered all that bad of a term IIRC (I was pretty young).
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It wasn't considered all that bad of a term at the time, but then again, at certain points in history it was socially acceptable to use a variety of ethnic slurs, so...
- alexophile 16y ago
  Right, I think that's more because, at the time, it wasn't all that bad to refer to women pejoratively.
- dhimes 16y ago
  For some reason I can't reply to alexophile and steveklabnik here, so I'll just leave this: alexophile: you may be correct about this- I'm too young to remember. But I heard it used by people who had no other signs of misogyny that I ever noticed, which is why I had that impression. Carlin was one of those people to the best of my knowledge. steveklabnik: But there are terms that you "can't use" now that were never perjorative. The scientific name for the race to which African-Americans belong is "Negro." Sometime in the '60s (I think) the leaders of this ethnic group took offense at the term. So, you can't say that somebody who used the term in, say, the '50s, was necessarily using it perjoratively (although you could make the argument that somebody using it non-scientifically in the '80s may have been).
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > For some reason I can't reply to alexophile and steveklabnik here, so I'll just leave this: If too many replies happen too fast, HN hides the reply link to try and slow down conversation. You can always get around this by clicking the 'link' link, but the idea is to encourage in-depth replies over chatty conversation, so use it wisely! That said, while some people may have been running around saying "Negro" in a scientific manner, I'm sure many more were using it as a slur. Even then, they may not have intended it to be a slur, but that doesn't mean it's not exposing institutionalized racism; "he's not racist, he's just old." I see this happening myself with 'gay' and 'faggot.' I have nothing against homosexuals, yet in anger I often use terms that are derogatory to them. It's something I'm working on.
    - dhimes 16y ago
      A reporter who wanted to refer to the race of a person would have used the term "Negro" as a neutral term. Not all categorizations are necessarily bad. But I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, and there's lots of other important stuff to discuss- so, good thread.

I was under the impression that the only way to use "broad" non-pejoratively is in reference to the actual breadth of something. That being said, sometimes it's safer to study abroad from afar.

dhimes 16y ago

Yes, you can't say it any more... It actually fell out of favor long ago, but originally it wasn't considered all that bad of a term IIRC (I was pretty young).

steveklabnik 16y ago
It wasn't considered all that bad of a term at the time, but then again, at certain points in history it was socially acceptable to use a variety of ethnic slurs, so...
alexophile 16y ago
Right, I think that's more because, at the time, it wasn't all that bad to refer to women pejoratively.
dhimes 16y ago
For some reason I can't reply to alexophile and steveklabnik here, so I'll just leave this: alexophile: you may be correct about this- I'm too young to remember. But I heard it used by people who had no other signs of misogyny that I ever noticed, which is why I had that impression. Carlin was one of those people to the best of my knowledge. steveklabnik: But there are terms that you "can't use" now that were never perjorative. The scientific name for the race to which African-Americans belong is "Negro." Sometime in the '60s (I think) the leaders of this ethnic group took offense at the term. So, you can't say that somebody who used the term in, say, the '50s, was necessarily using it perjoratively (although you could make the argument that somebody using it non-scientifically in the '80s may have been).
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > For some reason I can't reply to alexophile and steveklabnik here, so I'll just leave this: If too many replies happen too fast, HN hides the reply link to try and slow down conversation. You can always get around this by clicking the 'link' link, but the idea is to encourage in-depth replies over chatty conversation, so use it wisely! That said, while some people may have been running around saying "Negro" in a scientific manner, I'm sure many more were using it as a slur. Even then, they may not have intended it to be a slur, but that doesn't mean it's not exposing institutionalized racism; "he's not racist, he's just old." I see this happening myself with 'gay' and 'faggot.' I have nothing against homosexuals, yet in anger I often use terms that are derogatory to them. It's something I'm working on.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    A reporter who wanted to refer to the race of a person would have used the term "Negro" as a neutral term. Not all categorizations are necessarily bad. But I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, and there's lots of other important stuff to discuss- so, good thread.