4 ms·

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to th

by lldbg 6y ago

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

kenjackson 6y ago
Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.
- lldbg 6y ago
  Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar. I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.
  - foldr 6y ago
    >English does not have a context free grammar. Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
      We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.
      - foldr 6y ago
        As a linguist, I can assure you that there is no 'linguistic' concept of a context-free grammar as distinct from the mathematical concept. A language being non-context-free just means that the string language doesn't fall within a certain class. It in fact took quite a while to show conclusively that English was not context-free; it's far from obvious. None of this has anything to do with 'context' in the sense we're talking about here.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    But the existence of the “n-word” as the less inflammatory alternative always draws into question why you’d use the actual word. In most cases with the example you give, the use of the actual word is probably much more offensive. That said I think there are a few places where the use is acceptable, but it’s not common and those uses almost never get called out anyways (so it is generally understood).
    - lldbg 6y ago
      I don't think the word n-word is an alternative to the n-word. Which is kinda the point I made in the original post - a lady of the night is a prostitute is a whore, it's the same thing, the same meaning, if used in the same context. Your last paragraph hints at this but: What someone is really saying when they say the n-word is the word nigger. That's what I understand it as. And, if the n-word is so offensive it mustn't be said at all, in any context, then the word n-word mustn't be used either. For other sorts of words that can be used in a not-so-nice context, usually we deal with this fact by simply saying that it was "insulting language" or "offensive" or that it "bears not being repeated". That's the sensitive way to deal with slurs, I think.
- bill_mon 6y ago
  > Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true. You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    I’m saying that the word carries intent. In part because there is a well known alternative that can be used in almost any situation if intent is not intended. There are a few exceptional situations, but none have been noted here.
    - bill_mon 6y ago
      > I’m saying that the word carries intent. No, you're saying that you know the intent.
      - kenjackson 6y ago
        Yes. Even more than that. I’m saying virtually everyone knows the intent.
        bill_mon 6y ago
        That would take a mind reader. You're simply guessing at intent, we all do. But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.
        kenjackson 6y ago
        You’re either arguing that we never know intent, ever, so you can’t judge someone. Or that intent can’t be inferred from one word, not sure which one. But both seem like poor positions.
        bill_mon 6y ago
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  I could have sworn I saw a comedy one time in which a uptight racist lady said about some other character something like "I don't want to say anything but they are just a real n-word if you know what I mean" with the pursed lips and nodding that one would assume such a character would do - late 80s early 90s movie. So obviously one can imagine a scenario where the word is used to inflame or diminish while at the same time trying to make the speaker seem (in their own minds at least) better than they actually are.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    True. You can use the phrase n-word with negative connotation. But the existence of the term is meant to be non-inflammatory to discuss the n-word precisely because the n-word itself is inflammatory. Any word could be offensive with context, but some words can be offensive without context — which again is why the term n-word is used. So why is the actual n-word, outside of context offensive? Because it was often used in contexts that were non-offensive to the speaker but offensive to the listener. For example, “Tom you’re a good n-word, but you know you can’t go with us to the show.” To the speaker this is a cordial use, given the subject. And then there is the David Chapelle effect, where some people just really enjoy saying it in the “right context” a little too much.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. That's an odd accusation to be making. I've gotten so used to reading "the n-word", that at this point it also comes as a more natural thing to me, so it's what I would generally use, but that's a fairly recent thing, and not something I do with any other word (offensive or not). Claiming that anybody uses a word with the intent to inflame or diminish is both a strawman argument and top tier poisoning the well.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    If I tell you the word blah is inflammatory (especially to a marginalized group) just in its mere mention and the word blech is its non-inflammatory substitute to use when you want to talk about the word blah. Then you proceed to use the word blah, I can’t make any assumptions about intent?
    - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
      You could take your assumptions, but they would be wrong and ridiculous. If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead, why would I care? I'd use "blah" because that's the right word. It's literally the actual word I'm talking about. And as for the point that it's "inflammatory": that's not my problem. I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway. And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word"? Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded. Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery? I mention that just in case you want to pull the "oh but you're not black" argument.
      - kenjackson 6y ago
        > If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead I didn't say you weren't allowed to say it, I said it would be inflammatory. "blah" is only the right word if you choose to be inflammatory. So given that this is the word you have chosen to use, why should I assume you meant something different? Now you may not want to deal with the consequences of that word, after you've used it -- that's fine, but I know what you meant at the time. > I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway. Always your choice to not be in any conversation. I'd argue that most people that use the word are intending to derail the conversation. People aren't that stupid. They know what they're doing. > And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word" You can be. You an be offended by the word "the". You can completely remap the English language any way you like. That's your choice. > Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded. Why? Because we've given you more choices to express yourself? Are you triggered by all euphemisms? In fact there are audiences that will love it if you say the actual n-word -- especially in a derogatory way toward Black people if you like. Enjoy your freedom of expression, you can exercise it. > Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery Racism is still very much alive today, so I'm not sure how freedom of expression is much closer to you today than racism is for Blacks -- but I guess you wouldn't know since you're not Black.
foldr 6y ago
Can't you sort of feel that it doesn't have the same psychological impact? I immediately bristle if I actually hear someone say the n-word (as opposed to 'the n-word').
- lldbg 6y ago
  I don't think that "sort of feel" is a bar high enough, when the consequences for an individual can and have been so severe.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? If we need a higher bar than that then I suppose we can all just go around insulting each other and expecting nothing to happen as a consequence. Good luck with that. If you want something more objective, why don't you just ask a sample of people whether they react the same to 'n-word' as they do to the n-word?
    - bill_mon 6y ago
      > Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? We can construct any bar we'd like. You seem to completely dismiss concern for the bar being too low, why is that? Lots of people might feel sort of offended by women showing their hair -- should we accept that bar?
      - foldr 6y ago
        We were talking about the bar for evidence, not the bar for taking offense.
    - lldbg 6y ago
      I won't let the reaction of a sample of people dictate how I express myself, and I will not hold other people to that standard either. When did the pursuit of rationality get replaced by the onslaught of feelings? A person can feel insulted, without someone else insulting them. It happens all the time - it's called a misunderstanding. Along the same lines, we may brisk at language not offensive at all, made by people whom through no fault of their own were misunderstood. And lets not pretend offensive language is not a natural part of how humans (that's us) express ourselves. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many swears. And so we come back to the bigger issue. It is my belief that the society in which I live should be a rational one, and each person in it a rational actor who can distinguish between subtle nuances of meaning, both implied and expressed, and not rely on the stark contrast between allowed and disallowed, accepted or unaccepted. And I fear that if we pursue a mindless list of rules for behaviour, we will be less free for doing so. We must show humility, knowing that we are not the just judge of each other, and give the benefit of doubt. It is not morally right to participate in a witch hunt on someone for _a word_ said years ago - so I will condemn doing so.
roenxi 6y ago
It is similar to the difference between "you" and "sir"/"madame". It signals that the people being referred to are important enough that the speaker will modify their behaviour.

by lldbg 6y ago

kenjackson 6y ago

Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.

lldbg 6y ago
Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar. I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.
- foldr 6y ago
  >English does not have a context free grammar. Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.
    - foldr 6y ago
      As a linguist, I can assure you that there is no 'linguistic' concept of a context-free grammar as distinct from the mathematical concept. A language being non-context-free just means that the string language doesn't fall within a certain class. It in fact took quite a while to show conclusively that English was not context-free; it's far from obvious. None of this has anything to do with 'context' in the sense we're talking about here.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  But the existence of the “n-word” as the less inflammatory alternative always draws into question why you’d use the actual word. In most cases with the example you give, the use of the actual word is probably much more offensive. That said I think there are a few places where the use is acceptable, but it’s not common and those uses almost never get called out anyways (so it is generally understood).
  - lldbg 6y ago
    I don't think the word n-word is an alternative to the n-word. Which is kinda the point I made in the original post - a lady of the night is a prostitute is a whore, it's the same thing, the same meaning, if used in the same context. Your last paragraph hints at this but: What someone is really saying when they say the n-word is the word nigger. That's what I understand it as. And, if the n-word is so offensive it mustn't be said at all, in any context, then the word n-word mustn't be used either. For other sorts of words that can be used in a not-so-nice context, usually we deal with this fact by simply saying that it was "insulting language" or "offensive" or that it "bears not being repeated". That's the sensitive way to deal with slurs, I think.
bill_mon 6y ago
> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true. You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  I’m saying that the word carries intent. In part because there is a well known alternative that can be used in almost any situation if intent is not intended. There are a few exceptional situations, but none have been noted here.
  - bill_mon 6y ago
    > I’m saying that the word carries intent. No, you're saying that you know the intent.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      Yes. Even more than that. I’m saying virtually everyone knows the intent.
      - bill_mon 6y ago
        That would take a mind reader. You're simply guessing at intent, we all do. But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.
        kenjackson 6y ago
        You’re either arguing that we never know intent, ever, so you can’t judge someone. Or that intent can’t be inferred from one word, not sure which one. But both seem like poor positions.
        bill_mon 6y ago
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I could have sworn I saw a comedy one time in which a uptight racist lady said about some other character something like "I don't want to say anything but they are just a real n-word if you know what I mean" with the pursed lips and nodding that one would assume such a character would do - late 80s early 90s movie. So obviously one can imagine a scenario where the word is used to inflame or diminish while at the same time trying to make the speaker seem (in their own minds at least) better than they actually are.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  True. You can use the phrase n-word with negative connotation. But the existence of the term is meant to be non-inflammatory to discuss the n-word precisely because the n-word itself is inflammatory. Any word could be offensive with context, but some words can be offensive without context — which again is why the term n-word is used. So why is the actual n-word, outside of context offensive? Because it was often used in contexts that were non-offensive to the speaker but offensive to the listener. For example, “Tom you’re a good n-word, but you know you can’t go with us to the show.” To the speaker this is a cordial use, given the subject. And then there is the David Chapelle effect, where some people just really enjoy saying it in the “right context” a little too much.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. That's an odd accusation to be making. I've gotten so used to reading "the n-word", that at this point it also comes as a more natural thing to me, so it's what I would generally use, but that's a fairly recent thing, and not something I do with any other word (offensive or not). Claiming that anybody uses a word with the intent to inflame or diminish is both a strawman argument and top tier poisoning the well.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  If I tell you the word blah is inflammatory (especially to a marginalized group) just in its mere mention and the word blech is its non-inflammatory substitute to use when you want to talk about the word blah. Then you proceed to use the word blah, I can’t make any assumptions about intent?
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    You could take your assumptions, but they would be wrong and ridiculous. If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead, why would I care? I'd use "blah" because that's the right word. It's literally the actual word I'm talking about. And as for the point that it's "inflammatory": that's not my problem. I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway. And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word"? Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded. Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery? I mention that just in case you want to pull the "oh but you're not black" argument.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      > If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead I didn't say you weren't allowed to say it, I said it would be inflammatory. "blah" is only the right word if you choose to be inflammatory. So given that this is the word you have chosen to use, why should I assume you meant something different? Now you may not want to deal with the consequences of that word, after you've used it -- that's fine, but I know what you meant at the time. > I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway. Always your choice to not be in any conversation. I'd argue that most people that use the word are intending to derail the conversation. People aren't that stupid. They know what they're doing. > And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word" You can be. You an be offended by the word "the". You can completely remap the English language any way you like. That's your choice. > Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded. Why? Because we've given you more choices to express yourself? Are you triggered by all euphemisms? In fact there are audiences that will love it if you say the actual n-word -- especially in a derogatory way toward Black people if you like. Enjoy your freedom of expression, you can exercise it. > Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery Racism is still very much alive today, so I'm not sure how freedom of expression is much closer to you today than racism is for Blacks -- but I guess you wouldn't know since you're not Black.

foldr 6y ago

Can't you sort of feel that it doesn't have the same psychological impact? I immediately bristle if I actually hear someone say the n-word (as opposed to 'the n-word').

lldbg 6y ago
I don't think that "sort of feel" is a bar high enough, when the consequences for an individual can and have been so severe.
- foldr 6y ago
  Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? If we need a higher bar than that then I suppose we can all just go around insulting each other and expecting nothing to happen as a consequence. Good luck with that. If you want something more objective, why don't you just ask a sample of people whether they react the same to 'n-word' as they do to the n-word?
  - bill_mon 6y ago
    > Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? We can construct any bar we'd like. You seem to completely dismiss concern for the bar being too low, why is that? Lots of people might feel sort of offended by women showing their hair -- should we accept that bar?
    - foldr 6y ago
      We were talking about the bar for evidence, not the bar for taking offense.
  - lldbg 6y ago
    I won't let the reaction of a sample of people dictate how I express myself, and I will not hold other people to that standard either. When did the pursuit of rationality get replaced by the onslaught of feelings? A person can feel insulted, without someone else insulting them. It happens all the time - it's called a misunderstanding. Along the same lines, we may brisk at language not offensive at all, made by people whom through no fault of their own were misunderstood. And lets not pretend offensive language is not a natural part of how humans (that's us) express ourselves. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many swears. And so we come back to the bigger issue. It is my belief that the society in which I live should be a rational one, and each person in it a rational actor who can distinguish between subtle nuances of meaning, both implied and expressed, and not rely on the stark contrast between allowed and disallowed, accepted or unaccepted. And I fear that if we pursue a mindless list of rules for behaviour, we will be less free for doing so. We must show humility, knowing that we are not the just judge of each other, and give the benefit of doubt. It is not morally right to participate in a witch hunt on someone for _a word_ said years ago - so I will condemn doing so.

roenxi 6y ago

It is similar to the difference between "you" and "sir"/"madame". It signals that the people being referred to are important enough that the speaker will modify their behaviour.