3 ms·

I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a

I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. Also, it’s just kind of... weird... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one?

enriquto 6y ago
> Of all the hills to die on, why that one? It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. I say that from a far-left perspective, and as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs. There is a time and place for speech; and certainly in an academic or otherwise serious adult context, any racial slur can be used. If you cannot do so safely, this means that there's not really free speech, and it is a totally fine hill to die on.
- danaliv 6y ago
  > It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. This particular conversation started with a very old one; regardless, I’m not sure I follow. This claim is in no way self-evident. > as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs I’m very sorry to hear that.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > I’m very sorry to hear that. No need to be sorry, you didn't do anything wrong. If anything, I'm much more hurt by the prospect of a world where taboo words cannot even be discussed about, than a world where random weirdos insult me on the street. If you want to be sorry about something useful, please make efforts so that taboo words can be used safely, at least when talking about them! Millions of people are learning English every day all over the world. How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them?
    - foldr 6y ago
      >How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them? Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word? We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".
      - enriquto 6y ago
        > We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? > The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting". It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".
        foldr 6y ago
        >I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? I’m sure if you genuinely don’t know what the n-word refers to then an English speaker will be happy to explain it to you – although given your existing command of English it seems odd that you couldn’t find out the answer using Google. > It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person". As a standard of acceptable behavior (rather than a legal standard) this seems obviously too lenient. For example, it means I could roam the streets shouting the n-word at the top of my lungs as long as I wasn’t directing it at anyone in particular. Given the existence of a universally understood euphemism (’n-word’) it is generally difficult to use the n-word without showing a certain level of disregard for black people (and indeed anyone who’s offended by racist language).
jhanschoo 6y ago
It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spectrum can have different moral implications. - On the one extreme, there are trigger words peculiar to particular individuals that are not widely known, which also have neutral everyday meanings. It's difficult to fault a person for uttering them. - Then there are words that are hurtful against particular communities, but their slur status are not widely known and they also have a common neutral meaning. - There are also words with a widely known slur status but with neutral meanings that are entrenched (e.g. retarded). - And of course there are words like the n-word that everybody uses for the slur meaning, even when they don't mean to directly offend. People make everyday words into slurs all the time when they decide to communicate an insult with them. And even among widespread slurs not all slurs trigger hurt to an equal degree; at one extreme when a word is intended as a slur is uttered by a weak person and there is no history of tolerated bigotry associated with the slur, it is typically less effective at hurting. > I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. Do you suppose if among (black) people who frequently use the n-word to establish closeness, reporting on someone using it as the n-word as a slur would be just as unacceptable as using it directly intending to insult (as improbable as the latter would happen)?
mbg721 6y ago
Perpetually magnifying the power of a specific word just gives the people who would be hateful anyway a much more efficient method of causing pain, and creates collateral damage among people who are specifically trying not to be hateful.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. I fail to see how this is relevant. In a discussion about principles it does not matter whether one is affected by a thing or not. The point here is that use-mention is categorically a meaningful distinction. > When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. This kinda brings us back to the question at the core of many modern left-vs-right issues: does anybody have the right not to be offended? My position is a clear no: if hearing a word triggers some trauma for you, that's your issue to deal with. You can't expect the whole world to avoid even mentioning a word you're uncomfortable with. And going from there, use/mention is indeed a meaningful distinction, because it is only the message that we can judge, not the wording. Calling someone "unpleasant" in one tone can convey much more aggression in one tone of voice than calling them an "asshole" in a different tone. Cultural context plays almost as big a role as well: just as the same word might have completely different meanings in different languages (like "after" in english and German), words can have very different nuances or even entirely different meanings depending on the cultural context of the speaker. > Also, it’s just kind of... weird... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one? Is it weird to insist on freedom of expression? I don't think it is, quite the contrary, actually.

enriquto 6y ago

> Of all the hills to die on, why that one? It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. I say that from a far-left perspective, and as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs. There is a time and place for speech; and certainly in an academic or otherwise serious adult context, any racial slur can be used. If you cannot do so safely, this means that there's not really free speech, and it is a totally fine hill to die on.

danaliv 6y ago
> It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. This particular conversation started with a very old one; regardless, I’m not sure I follow. This claim is in no way self-evident. > as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs I’m very sorry to hear that.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > I’m very sorry to hear that. No need to be sorry, you didn't do anything wrong. If anything, I'm much more hurt by the prospect of a world where taboo words cannot even be discussed about, than a world where random weirdos insult me on the street. If you want to be sorry about something useful, please make efforts so that taboo words can be used safely, at least when talking about them! Millions of people are learning English every day all over the world. How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them?
  - foldr 6y ago
    >How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them? Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word? We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".
    - enriquto 6y ago
      > We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? > The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting". It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".
      - foldr 6y ago
        >I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? I’m sure if you genuinely don’t know what the n-word refers to then an English speaker will be happy to explain it to you – although given your existing command of English it seems odd that you couldn’t find out the answer using Google. > It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person". As a standard of acceptable behavior (rather than a legal standard) this seems obviously too lenient. For example, it means I could roam the streets shouting the n-word at the top of my lungs as long as I wasn’t directing it at anyone in particular. Given the existence of a universally understood euphemism (’n-word’) it is generally difficult to use the n-word without showing a certain level of disregard for black people (and indeed anyone who’s offended by racist language).

jhanschoo 6y ago

It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spectrum can have different moral implications. - On the one extreme, there are trigger words peculiar to particular individuals that are not widely known, which also have neutral everyday meanings. It's difficult to fault a person for uttering them. - Then there are words that are hurtful against particular communities, but their slur status are not widely known and they also have a common neutral meaning. - There are also words with a widely known slur status but with neutral meanings that are entrenched (e.g. retarded). - And of course there are words like the n-word that everybody uses for the slur meaning, even when they don't mean to directly offend. People make everyday words into slurs all the time when they decide to communicate an insult with them. And even among widespread slurs not all slurs trigger hurt to an equal degree; at one extreme when a word is intended as a slur is uttered by a weak person and there is no history of tolerated bigotry associated with the slur, it is typically less effective at hurting. > I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. Do you suppose if among (black) people who frequently use the n-word to establish closeness, reporting on someone using it as the n-word as a slur would be just as unacceptable as using it directly intending to insult (as improbable as the latter would happen)?

mbg721 6y ago

Perpetually magnifying the power of a specific word just gives the people who would be hateful anyway a much more efficient method of causing pain, and creates collateral damage among people who are specifically trying not to be hateful.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

> I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. I fail to see how this is relevant. In a discussion about principles it does not matter whether one is affected by a thing or not. The point here is that use-mention is categorically a meaningful distinction. > When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. This kinda brings us back to the question at the core of many modern left-vs-right issues: does anybody have the right not to be offended? My position is a clear no: if hearing a word triggers some trauma for you, that's your issue to deal with. You can't expect the whole world to avoid even mentioning a word you're uncomfortable with. And going from there, use/mention is indeed a meaningful distinction, because it is only the message that we can judge, not the wording. Calling someone "unpleasant" in one tone can convey much more aggression in one tone of voice than calling them an "asshole" in a different tone. Cultural context plays almost as big a role as well: just as the same word might have completely different meanings in different languages (like "after" in english and German), words can have very different nuances or even entirely different meanings depending on the cultural context of the speaker. > Also, it’s just kind of... weird... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one? Is it weird to insist on freedom of expression? I don't think it is, quite the contrary, actually.