14 ms·

I find the current rapidly changing culture around the N-word fascinating, honestly. Decades from now, I'm sure sociologists will build entire careers on what w

I find the current rapidly changing culture around the N-word fascinating, honestly. Decades from now, I'm sure sociologists will build entire careers on what we're going through. This is, I think, the first time in my life that I've seen a word in American culture become taboo. By that I mean not that expressing the meaning of a word is forbidden, not the idea, but the utterance itself. If, like me, you tend to assume that cultures become more progressive and tolerant over time, this is an interesting very strong counter-example. Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. As if the two syllables themselves, even when stripped of meaning, still have some kind of power. What I think is happening is that (like almost everything) it comes down to group membership signaling. Progressive, anti-racist US culture has decided that not saying the N-word is a marker of group membership. If you say the word, even when simply mentioning it, it says that you didn't get the memo about not using the word. Therefore, you might not be part of the anti-racist in-group. And if you aren't one of "us", then you're probably one of "them". And therefore maybe even just mentioning the word becomes morally akin to actually using it. You can look at this as similar to other arbitrary-seeming abstinences that groups take up. It is almost a feature that the prohibition is arbitrary because it emphasizes that the abstainer is doing so for group signaling reasons and not for pragmatic ones.

bradleyjg 6y ago
Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. I’d be uncomfortable to type it out in Hebrew even though I haven’t been religious for many years.
- naringas 6y ago
  do you mean "yaweh" ?? all this reminds me of the way they treat the evil wizard's name "voldemort" in harry potter
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    yeah but I think in the books he has a spell that allows him to see into your mind or something if you say his name so that would make sense.
    - labster 6y ago
      Except that was never true and it was all superstitious bullshit inside the Wizarding World. Dumbledore only refrained from saying Tom Riddle’s emo name because of social pressure — if there was any chance of remote legilimency he’d have never said “Voldemort” because he was fighting a damned war against him. So no, it’s just a normal taboo, probably initiated by Voldy himself to spread fear.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Spoiler alert: In one of the last books, the 3 main characters teleport to a London pub or something, and then the Deatheaters attack them. And I’m pretty sure the book says they were found because one of them said Voldemort’s name. Edit: It was in Deathly Hallows book. https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoken-reason/ https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoke...
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Yes, and it’s the reason they were found later as well. Since the only people who would say the name were people who opposed him, it was an efficient way for him to locate these people.
    - frosted-flakes 6y ago
      In the last book, the name was Taboo-ed, so that the Death Eaters could find whoever said it. Not mind-reading
- cafard 6y ago
  Somebody in an earlier discussion mentioned Monty Python's "Life of Brian": "No throwing rocks until I say so, I don't care who says 'Jehovah'!"
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  I legitimately do not understand this line of thought. The stuff is old, going through many translations, and editing passes, and printings. So the divine name must have been destroyed in printings multiple times. Has god smote anyone yet for this?
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    Do you not understand any disgust / taboo reactions or is it just the more abstract ones you have trouble with? Like would you get it if someone told you he’d hesitate to reach into a toilet even if it has just been cleaned?
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      Many taboos are explainable: toilet = feces = disease. I would be fine reaching into a toilet. Many are also just dumb: No blood transfusion, no birth controls, etc
      - bradleyjg 6y ago
        So you do understand taboos, you just wanted to signal how rational and strong minded you are, unlike me for example, by claiming it’s so bizarre you don’t even get it. You sound like a really great person.
        NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        I understand taboos that make sense. I have no idea why some of these taboos are a thing. I also don't have idea idea why im supposed to care about an attack on my person.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        wahern 6y ago
        Because the power to name something implies dominion over that thing. In Christianity you're supposed to "never use the Lord's name in vein" because even uttering an established name has implications--e.g. calling upon the power of that name. That basic cultural logic (which may even be partly innate) is as true today as it was 5000 years ago, though obviously the practical implications are different. More interestingly, the power in naming isn't something modern culture seems explicitly aware of even though modern identity politics is predicated on these cultural powers. Thus few people seem to make the connection between ancient taboo words and modern identity politics. This also helps explain the power of religious texts. If spoken words have power, then what happens when you commit words to a physical representation? And pass them down through time? Religious texts can be easily conceived of as the divine made incarnate. This all may seem superficially nuts, especially if you're atheist, until you really dig into all the debates we continually have over language, including in tech communities (e.g. why is naming a project or even just a variable so difficult?), and try to understand why people invest themselves in these debates. Names and labels have power because that's how we create categories; categories separate things with the implication of intrinsic differences; they're how we attach ideas to things, and create meaning out of thin air. That really is a form of dominion and control.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. There is a major US legal case which touched on precisely this situation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California , the "Fuck the draft" case. Cohen stood accused of using the word. But at the beginning of oral argument, the Chief Justice euphemistically directed his attorney, Melville Nimmer, not to quote it when going over the facts of the case: > I might suggest to you that as in most cases, the Court's thoroughly familiar with the factual setting of this case and it will not be necessary for you, I'm sure, to dwell on the facts. Nimmer explicitly recognized, and intentionally misinterpreted, Burger's instructions: > At the Chief Justice's suggestion I certainly will keep very brief this statement of facts [...] > [...] may it please the court what this young man did was to walk through a courthouse corridor in Los Angeles county on his way to a courtroom where he had some business. > [interruption] > While walking through that corridor he was wearing a jacket upon which were inscribed the words "Fuck the draft", also were inscribed the words "Stop war" and several peace symbols. Whether Nimmer could be allowed to quote the word "Fuck" in defending his client for expressing the message "Fuck the draft" was a major issue at the time. The Court attempted to forbid it but didn't quite have the power to do so. And this is often credited with getting Cohen acquitted. Nimmer's ability to quote the word inside the hallowed confines of the courtroom dealt significant damage to the idea that using it on the way to the courtroom was punishable.
sct202 6y ago
I don't think this is a new thing. I was raised in the 90s in a very suburban area and I never heard the n-word spoken and it was always censored when spoken when we read To Kill a Mockingbird.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  When in the 90s? I am very positive that the very first time I heard "The N word" as a euphemism for the actual epithet was from Johnnie Cochran during the OJ Simpson trial in 1995. I remember thinking that sounded awkward at the time because people would say things like "the F word" or "the S word" to substitute for those well known curse words, but "the N word" was brand new to me. I'm not saying Johnnie Cochran invented the term, but in my suburban area I had never previously heard that.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  That is a reasonable and sensitive way to handle it. Things have change though, now To Kill a Mockingbird is being removed from curriculums for being racist. https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned-california-schools-over-racism-concerns-1547241 https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned...
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    What will they remove next, "Uncle Tom's cabin"??!
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Kind of a sad irony that they ban To Kill a Mockingbird over "racism" when it's a book about the importance of extending due process to a black man falsely accused of rape, happening at the same time as "Believe All Women" etc.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    It's being removed from curricula because parents complained about the perceived racist effects of the actual teaching of the book done in the district, and the district leaders found it easier to ban the specific books than to either figure out if there was a pedagogical problem and, if so, address it. The problem here is not “cancel culture", but “lazy elected politicians who don't take their duties seriously”.
xyzzyz 6y ago
> What I think is happening is that (like almost everything) it comes down to group membership signaling. That's one aspect of it, but from another perspective, this is a simple power play. Everyone with even modicum of intelligence understands the use-mention distinction, that there is a profound difference between quoting and using the word. Everyone understands that it is clearly wrong and stupid to attack someone as evil for mentioning the word, especially if they mention it in the context of telling people how wrong it is to use it. Nevertheless, the person is still attacked. The goal is to make it clear to all people observing, that no matter how stupid and wrong it might be, they have full, unobstructed power to destroy anyone at will, under flimsy circumstances, so you'd better not ever cross them. That this is stupid and wrong is the entire point: anyone can attack, shame and destroy people for doing wrong, evil things, but only powerful people and ideologies can attack and destroy people for absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever.
- Fauntleroy 6y ago
  "Itchy trigger finger" explains this far better than "they're out to get me", honestly. Sure, there might be some machiavellian individuals using this as an opportunity to attack others, but by and large it's clear to see this is more of an overcompensation by people trying to do the right thing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pasquinelli 6y ago
    what is itchy trigger finger, though, if not a yearning to express power?
    - cryptoquick 6y ago
      It's a reaction to fear. In this case, an overreaction. People are afraid to say the wrong thing. People are afraid of having once said a wrong thing, to potentially sully their legacy or impact their career like a ticking time bomb. Or even be peripherally responsible for harboring someone who once said a wrong thing. This social movement towards accountability has created a sense of paranoia and friendly-fire, and it's not healthy for anyone.
kylebenzle 6y ago
It is easy to explain. As people become more privileged socially and economically they become increasingly retarded mentally. Young people that grow up in a bubble simply don't experience the real world, they are never challenged or corrected. The ONLY thing that is surprising is that whole house of cards is still standing at all. It is why AOC can be taken seriously when she demands free health care, university, housing, basic income etc. because her generation sees the vast amount of wealth present but has no conception of how it was generated. I think we are on the edge of a second dark age. All it will take is for an AOC to get elected, cut the military to replace it with hand outs and a China or Russia to step in to fill the void. I just hope I get to stick around long enough to see the fall of western civilization and be smart enough to profit from it. Right now that means going long on corn and soybean futures and buying gold and Bitcoin.
- etchalon 6y ago
  You're arguing that a politician demanding the enactment of policies and programs that numerous other quite-wealthy countries enjoy, and people who agree with them, shouldn't be treated seriously? Hell of a take.
klmadfejno 6y ago
I don't think this is all that unprecedented. I think a fair number of curse words today were perceived as much worse in the past, especially when they invoked a sense of blasphemy in some contexts, or dishonor in another. Fuck is not much of an effective curse word in many contexts as people don't care if its said.
- djrogers 6y ago
  > I don't think this is all that unprecedented. If you can point to a time in American history when one's livelihood and reputation could be utterly destroyed for uttering a 'magic incantation', I'd like to hear about it. Oh wait - I remember now, something in Salem in the late 17th century?
  - etchalon 6y ago
    I think calling the word in question a "magic incantation" is fairly dismissive of the meaningfulness of that specific word, and the specific cultural reasons why it's treated as it is. There aren't a lot of historical analogs to it.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    It's so funny watching people trying to turn this into some sort of martyrdom lol. We had a guy lose his chance at a presidency over an excited woop? Are you even trying to hide the victim complex anymore when you act like this is the first time a word could get you fired? And are you actually trying to compare this to the Salem witch trials now? And call the n word a magic incantation? I'm black and I've heard "why let that word have power over you??????" funny how all it takes to make people of the exact race that says that to go off the deep end is not being allowed to say it. Literally the absence of a word upsets you to the point you start calling racial slurs "magic incantations"
    - lovemenot 6y ago
      It's good that you came here to express your issues with use of this word. >> Literally the absence of a word upsets you to the point you start calling racial slurs "magic incantations" There are people who believe intent matters. A mere arrangement of letters or phonemes cannot itself be a slur. This distinction between utterance and intent is not superficial. Not just about the absence of a single word. It's correcting a category error. Many of those same people would make similar arguments about say blasphemy.
wxnx 6y ago
> By that I mean not that expressing the meaning of a word is forbidden, not the idea, but the utterance itself. If, like me, you tend to assume that cultures become more progressive and tolerant over time, this is an interesting very strong counter-example. Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. As if the two syllables themselves, even when stripped of meaning, still have some kind of power. I don't know that the people who leveled accusations against this guy are completely equating "usage" and "meta-usage". I do know that there are people who view "meta-usage", particularly in casual conversation, as problematic. The n-word is viewed by them to have connotations of severe power imbalance and violence, particularly in the mouth of a white person. The idea that they should have to hear the word in casual conversation, without warning, whether it's intended to wound or not, is contentious. Intent matters, but so do the words themselves. To put it in your terms, some words cannot just be "stripped of meaning" to some people. I personally empathize with people who feel this way, despite being a white guy for whom no such word with such visceral effect seems to exist. Even if discussing racism in a conversation, I probably just wouldn't whip out a historical quote from someone that happened to have the n-word in it. And I don't think that's as ridiculous as you're making it out to be. Nobody is suggesting that contextualized, or (ideally, to some) forewarned, meta-usage will never have its place. But that's not really what happened in this story, is it?
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  Its not even the word, it's the syllables apparently. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    That case was confusing because he was talking about the Chinese word in English, so it really sounded like he was referencing the English derogatory term. My guess is that most of the people who complained didn't even bother to try and understand what he was actually saying, so this arguably did involve some sort of 'magical' thinking on their part.
filoeleven 6y ago
Dunno about it being the first big taboo word. I find that the C-word [0] inhabits kind of a similar space. The demographics are different, and I suspect that more people overall view the c-word as highly taboo, both because the n-word has been to a larger extent than the other reclaimed within some Black subcultures[1], and because the US has significant populations who use it with the intent of either causing offense to the out-group or for signaling in-group status with their peers. Meanwhile in England, C is still seen as quite a rude word, but the level of taboo is seemingly lower than in the US. NSFW language exchange discussion: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7059/why-is-cnt-so-much-more-derogatory-in-the-us-than-the-uk https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7059/why-is-cnt-... I’m not a historian, but I recall reading that a century or more ago, religious blasphemies occupied a similar space. Innocuous-sounding exclamations like “jeez!” and the half-archaic “zounds!” are evolved from the formerly-taboo “Jesus!” and “God’s wounds!” respectively. Back then, taboo was concerned with offending/demeaning God, and now taboo is concerned with offending/demeaning black people and women. I see this as an improvement, because insulting God is between you and God, while insulting people can cause real harm to them. [0] https://youtu.be/cR2tp5j5xD0 https://youtu.be/cR2tp5j5xD0 (Arrested Development clip, I’m still a little surprised they got this past the censors. Mild NSFW?) [1] I don’t mean to imply that it’s largely accepted, it’s just that in my experience N is more widely-used publicly by some Black subcultures than C is used publicly by women who are in feminist subcultures. It has not been reclaimed to the same extent.
- samatman 6y ago
  I don't find that to be true for the c-word (American here). I'll edit out of respect for the low-profanity nature of HN discourse, but if someone said "Jan had a falling out with Marcia after she called her a meddling c#nt", that wouldn't phase me. I would find it amusing and childish if someone said "c-word" as a mention, in a context where an f-bomb would not be out of place, which is most adult conversation. Yeah calling someone a daft c#nt isn't something we really do here, and it's about as misogynistic as insults get, but by contrast: white Americans really do take pains to never pronounce the n-word, use, mention, singing along with the radio, or under any other circumstance. No white American would complete the sentence, "as Muhammad Ali put it, 'no Viet Cong ever called me...'". It's an actual taboo, at this point: it is simply never to be said, and it's tough to make a living or complete an education after a single offense, if made in public or documented. Edit to add: I did say "no white American" but there's a certain subculture who do, and I have no idea what to call them now, since the name itself is pretty offensive. We would sometimes refer to them as Wegroes to be droll.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> I've seen a word in American culture become taboo Especially one that sees such frequent use (but only by specific people).
abandonliberty 6y ago
>And if you aren't one of "us", then you're probably one of "them". And therefore maybe even just mentioning the word becomes morally akin to actually using it. I've lost my once closest friend to this. I'm not current on the rapidly changing landscape of acceptable left expression, and apparently the far-right is able to taint any word they choose. The moment they use it, they own it. We may agree on 70% of issues, but they've become so accustomed to their echo chamber that anyone with who speaks differently, let alone has a few different ideas, causes them emotional distress. They must be from the other side. They must be arguing in bad faith. Our beliefs are the best and everyone else is ignorant. It's a cancer. As destructive as the attempted insurrection was, these types of people cause far more damage by alienating vast swaths of voter population with their petulance. They then turn their lenses against their elected representatives, offices teetering on the edge of a knife, demanding more and criticizing inaction. These are destructive extremists with no end of people to blame, chastise, and criticize - except themselves.
- hnick 6y ago
  > apparently the far-right is able to taint any word they choose Oh yes I hate this. I saw a long argument either here or on Reddit where someone made the tired old "something #2: electric boogaloo" joke as has been done for many years but it set off an alarm because some cosplay commandos used that phrase themselves for an operation so it's forever off limits. It's one of many similar cases. How weak it is to just give up ground like that.
  - hn8788 6y ago
    Another example is the number 88. God forbid you or someone you know was born in 1988 so you use it as part of your username because it's easy to remember. I've been accused of being a neo-nazi here and on reddit because my wife was born in 1988, so I normally use it in my username.
    - fglar 6y ago
      If the right people at Google hear about the 8.8.8.8 DNS server, it will be debated for months. Thousands of billable hours for the ideologues.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> What I think is happening is that (like almost everything) it comes down to group membership signaling. This reminds me of something I've observed on Tiktok. The site has trends where they put an audio clip over a video of the poster and then different people perform the same trend to the same audio. A hugely disproportionate number of the audio clips, something like half, contain the N-word. They're not just random snips from random rap songs, but the specific songs that contain the word and that specific section of the song. Now I'm thinking it's virtue signaling. They choose that clip specifically because it contains the word and they can demonstrate themselves not saying it when they say the rest of the clip. Or, if you want to go the other way, that the Tiktok algorithm is promoting those clips because they're owned by China and trying to sow discord or promote signaling mistakes by future leaders which can then be used to cancel them at will.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I think what has happened is a lot of trolls and provocateurs, both online and offline, have purposefully attempted to use the word in demeaning ways while also claiming innocence. "Testing the boundaries," so to speak. "But it's just a picture of a cartoon frog holding a gun! I didn't post it because the user above me said they were black, I just think it's a funny meme! Honest!" One logical response is to take a harder and harder line against Pepe memes, including ones that really were posted in good faith!
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> This is, I think, the first time in my life that I've seen a word in American culture become taboo. I've known that the N-word is one I'm entirely not allowed to say since the mid nineties. I was raised in a conservative household. This isn't a new thing, is it?
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  Not to my knowledge. Been pretty taboo since at least the mid-80s
- ggreer 6y ago
  Using the word has been taboo for a very long time, but mentioning it has not been. Plenty of respectable people have mentioned the word and kept their careers. Here's a talk that linguist Steven Pinker gave at Google in 2007 where he mentions the word.[1] Later in the Q&A he says, "I don't swear. I talk about swearing. Any of you who have taken philosophy will recognize the use versus mention distinction."[2] It's utterly bizarre that so many people today refuse to recognize this distinction. I think this video has only stayed up because nobody has brought it to the attention of the public. Pinker would never be able to give that talk today, and Google would never have uploaded it to YouTube. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=30m05s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=30m05s 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=1h02m45s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=1h02m45s
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    I think people recognize the distinction but recognize mentioning it by name is optional almost always. I can't remember the last time I heard an official or reporter say the word instead of describing it.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  The South Park Naggers episode was from 2007. I don't believe any network on TV would dare greenlight that episode today.
daveslash 6y ago
I went straight to the Author's Wikipedia page to get the tl;dr version of what he allegedly did. The Wikipedia article has the n-word in it. And I don't mean "n-word", I mean the actual word. From Wikipedia (censorship mine) "The Daily Beast reported that multiple participants accused McNeil of repeatedly making racist and sexist remarks, including the use of the word "n-----" in the context of discussing racist language," There's something very bizarre about the state of things when he is punished for asking someone "Did you say n-----?", but then using the word in its fullness when reporting on what he said is permissible. [Edit: Spelling/grammar]

bradleyjg 6y ago

Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. I’d be uncomfortable to type it out in Hebrew even though I haven’t been religious for many years.

naringas 6y ago
do you mean "yaweh" ?? all this reminds me of the way they treat the evil wizard's name "voldemort" in harry potter
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  yeah but I think in the books he has a spell that allows him to see into your mind or something if you say his name so that would make sense.
  - labster 6y ago
    Except that was never true and it was all superstitious bullshit inside the Wizarding World. Dumbledore only refrained from saying Tom Riddle’s emo name because of social pressure — if there was any chance of remote legilimency he’d have never said “Voldemort” because he was fighting a damned war against him. So no, it’s just a normal taboo, probably initiated by Voldy himself to spread fear.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Spoiler alert: In one of the last books, the 3 main characters teleport to a London pub or something, and then the Deatheaters attack them. And I’m pretty sure the book says they were found because one of them said Voldemort’s name. Edit: It was in Deathly Hallows book. https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoken-reason/ https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-voldemort-name-not-spoke...
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Yes, and it’s the reason they were found later as well. Since the only people who would say the name were people who opposed him, it was an efficient way for him to locate these people.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    In the last book, the name was Taboo-ed, so that the Death Eaters could find whoever said it. Not mind-reading
cafard 6y ago
Somebody in an earlier discussion mentioned Monty Python's "Life of Brian": "No throwing rocks until I say so, I don't care who says 'Jehovah'!"
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I legitimately do not understand this line of thought. The stuff is old, going through many translations, and editing passes, and printings. So the divine name must have been destroyed in printings multiple times. Has god smote anyone yet for this?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Do you not understand any disgust / taboo reactions or is it just the more abstract ones you have trouble with? Like would you get it if someone told you he’d hesitate to reach into a toilet even if it has just been cleaned?
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    Many taboos are explainable: toilet = feces = disease. I would be fine reaching into a toilet. Many are also just dumb: No blood transfusion, no birth controls, etc
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      So you do understand taboos, you just wanted to signal how rational and strong minded you are, unlike me for example, by claiming it’s so bizarre you don’t even get it. You sound like a really great person.
      - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        I understand taboos that make sense. I have no idea why some of these taboos are a thing. I also don't have idea idea why im supposed to care about an attack on my person.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        wahern 6y ago
        Because the power to name something implies dominion over that thing. In Christianity you're supposed to "never use the Lord's name in vein" because even uttering an established name has implications--e.g. calling upon the power of that name. That basic cultural logic (which may even be partly innate) is as true today as it was 5000 years ago, though obviously the practical implications are different. More interestingly, the power in naming isn't something modern culture seems explicitly aware of even though modern identity politics is predicated on these cultural powers. Thus few people seem to make the connection between ancient taboo words and modern identity politics. This also helps explain the power of religious texts. If spoken words have power, then what happens when you commit words to a physical representation? And pass them down through time? Religious texts can be easily conceived of as the divine made incarnate. This all may seem superficially nuts, especially if you're atheist, until you really dig into all the debates we continually have over language, including in tech communities (e.g. why is naming a project or even just a variable so difficult?), and try to understand why people invest themselves in these debates. Names and labels have power because that's how we create categories; categories separate things with the implication of intrinsic differences; they're how we attach ideas to things, and create meaning out of thin air. That really is a form of dominion and control.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> The only thing I can think of that’s comparable is how Jews treat the divine name. There is a major US legal case which touched on precisely this situation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California , the "Fuck the draft" case. Cohen stood accused of using the word. But at the beginning of oral argument, the Chief Justice euphemistically directed his attorney, Melville Nimmer, not to quote it when going over the facts of the case: > I might suggest to you that as in most cases, the Court's thoroughly familiar with the factual setting of this case and it will not be necessary for you, I'm sure, to dwell on the facts. Nimmer explicitly recognized, and intentionally misinterpreted, Burger's instructions: > At the Chief Justice's suggestion I certainly will keep very brief this statement of facts [...] > [...] may it please the court what this young man did was to walk through a courthouse corridor in Los Angeles county on his way to a courtroom where he had some business. > [interruption] > While walking through that corridor he was wearing a jacket upon which were inscribed the words "Fuck the draft", also were inscribed the words "Stop war" and several peace symbols. Whether Nimmer could be allowed to quote the word "Fuck" in defending his client for expressing the message "Fuck the draft" was a major issue at the time. The Court attempted to forbid it but didn't quite have the power to do so. And this is often credited with getting Cohen acquitted. Nimmer's ability to quote the word inside the hallowed confines of the courtroom dealt significant damage to the idea that using it on the way to the courtroom was punishable.

sct202 6y ago

I don't think this is a new thing. I was raised in the 90s in a very suburban area and I never heard the n-word spoken and it was always censored when spoken when we read To Kill a Mockingbird.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
When in the 90s? I am very positive that the very first time I heard "The N word" as a euphemism for the actual epithet was from Johnnie Cochran during the OJ Simpson trial in 1995. I remember thinking that sounded awkward at the time because people would say things like "the F word" or "the S word" to substitute for those well known curse words, but "the N word" was brand new to me. I'm not saying Johnnie Cochran invented the term, but in my suburban area I had never previously heard that.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
That is a reasonable and sensitive way to handle it. Things have change though, now To Kill a Mockingbird is being removed from curriculums for being racist. https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned-california-schools-over-racism-concerns-1547241 https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned...
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  What will they remove next, "Uncle Tom's cabin"??!
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Kind of a sad irony that they ban To Kill a Mockingbird over "racism" when it's a book about the importance of extending due process to a black man falsely accused of rape, happening at the same time as "Believe All Women" etc.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  It's being removed from curricula because parents complained about the perceived racist effects of the actual teaching of the book done in the district, and the district leaders found it easier to ban the specific books than to either figure out if there was a pedagogical problem and, if so, address it. The problem here is not “cancel culture", but “lazy elected politicians who don't take their duties seriously”.

xyzzyz 6y ago

> What I think is happening is that (like almost everything) it comes down to group membership signaling. That's one aspect of it, but from another perspective, this is a simple power play. Everyone with even modicum of intelligence understands the use-mention distinction, that there is a profound difference between quoting and using the word. Everyone understands that it is clearly wrong and stupid to attack someone as evil for mentioning the word, especially if they mention it in the context of telling people how wrong it is to use it. Nevertheless, the person is still attacked. The goal is to make it clear to all people observing, that no matter how stupid and wrong it might be, they have full, unobstructed power to destroy anyone at will, under flimsy circumstances, so you'd better not ever cross them. That this is stupid and wrong is the entire point: anyone can attack, shame and destroy people for doing wrong, evil things, but only powerful people and ideologies can attack and destroy people for absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever.

Fauntleroy 6y ago
"Itchy trigger finger" explains this far better than "they're out to get me", honestly. Sure, there might be some machiavellian individuals using this as an opportunity to attack others, but by and large it's clear to see this is more of an overcompensation by people trying to do the right thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  what is itchy trigger finger, though, if not a yearning to express power?
  - cryptoquick 6y ago
    It's a reaction to fear. In this case, an overreaction. People are afraid to say the wrong thing. People are afraid of having once said a wrong thing, to potentially sully their legacy or impact their career like a ticking time bomb. Or even be peripherally responsible for harboring someone who once said a wrong thing. This social movement towards accountability has created a sense of paranoia and friendly-fire, and it's not healthy for anyone.

kylebenzle 6y ago

It is easy to explain. As people become more privileged socially and economically they become increasingly retarded mentally. Young people that grow up in a bubble simply don't experience the real world, they are never challenged or corrected. The ONLY thing that is surprising is that whole house of cards is still standing at all. It is why AOC can be taken seriously when she demands free health care, university, housing, basic income etc. because her generation sees the vast amount of wealth present but has no conception of how it was generated. I think we are on the edge of a second dark age. All it will take is for an AOC to get elected, cut the military to replace it with hand outs and a China or Russia to step in to fill the void. I just hope I get to stick around long enough to see the fall of western civilization and be smart enough to profit from it. Right now that means going long on corn and soybean futures and buying gold and Bitcoin.

etchalon 6y ago
You're arguing that a politician demanding the enactment of policies and programs that numerous other quite-wealthy countries enjoy, and people who agree with them, shouldn't be treated seriously? Hell of a take.

klmadfejno 6y ago

I don't think this is all that unprecedented. I think a fair number of curse words today were perceived as much worse in the past, especially when they invoked a sense of blasphemy in some contexts, or dishonor in another. Fuck is not much of an effective curse word in many contexts as people don't care if its said.

djrogers 6y ago
> I don't think this is all that unprecedented. If you can point to a time in American history when one's livelihood and reputation could be utterly destroyed for uttering a 'magic incantation', I'd like to hear about it. Oh wait - I remember now, something in Salem in the late 17th century?
- etchalon 6y ago
  I think calling the word in question a "magic incantation" is fairly dismissive of the meaningfulness of that specific word, and the specific cultural reasons why it's treated as it is. There aren't a lot of historical analogs to it.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  It's so funny watching people trying to turn this into some sort of martyrdom lol. We had a guy lose his chance at a presidency over an excited woop? Are you even trying to hide the victim complex anymore when you act like this is the first time a word could get you fired? And are you actually trying to compare this to the Salem witch trials now? And call the n word a magic incantation? I'm black and I've heard "why let that word have power over you??????" funny how all it takes to make people of the exact race that says that to go off the deep end is not being allowed to say it. Literally the absence of a word upsets you to the point you start calling racial slurs "magic incantations"
  - lovemenot 6y ago
    It's good that you came here to express your issues with use of this word. >> Literally the absence of a word upsets you to the point you start calling racial slurs "magic incantations" There are people who believe intent matters. A mere arrangement of letters or phonemes cannot itself be a slur. This distinction between utterance and intent is not superficial. Not just about the absence of a single word. It's correcting a category error. Many of those same people would make similar arguments about say blasphemy.

wxnx 6y ago

> By that I mean not that expressing the meaning of a word is forbidden, not the idea, but the utterance itself. If, like me, you tend to assume that cultures become more progressive and tolerant over time, this is an interesting very strong counter-example. Having a word that you that literally can't say even in quotation or reference implies something almost akin to magical thinking. As if the two syllables themselves, even when stripped of meaning, still have some kind of power. I don't know that the people who leveled accusations against this guy are completely equating "usage" and "meta-usage". I do know that there are people who view "meta-usage", particularly in casual conversation, as problematic. The n-word is viewed by them to have connotations of severe power imbalance and violence, particularly in the mouth of a white person. The idea that they should have to hear the word in casual conversation, without warning, whether it's intended to wound or not, is contentious. Intent matters, but so do the words themselves. To put it in your terms, some words cannot just be "stripped of meaning" to some people. I personally empathize with people who feel this way, despite being a white guy for whom no such word with such visceral effect seems to exist. Even if discussing racism in a conversation, I probably just wouldn't whip out a historical quote from someone that happened to have the n-word in it. And I don't think that's as ridiculous as you're making it out to be. Nobody is suggesting that contextualized, or (ideally, to some) forewarned, meta-usage will never have its place. But that's not really what happened in this story, is it?

gotoeleven 6y ago
Its not even the word, it's the syllables apparently. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
- zozbot234 6y ago
  That case was confusing because he was talking about the Chinese word in English, so it really sounded like he was referencing the English derogatory term. My guess is that most of the people who complained didn't even bother to try and understand what he was actually saying, so this arguably did involve some sort of 'magical' thinking on their part.

filoeleven 6y ago

Dunno about it being the first big taboo word. I find that the C-word [0] inhabits kind of a similar space. The demographics are different, and I suspect that more people overall view the c-word as highly taboo, both because the n-word has been to a larger extent than the other reclaimed within some Black subcultures[1], and because the US has significant populations who use it with the intent of either causing offense to the out-group or for signaling in-group status with their peers. Meanwhile in England, C is still seen as quite a rude word, but the level of taboo is seemingly lower than in the US. NSFW language exchange discussion: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7059/why-is-cnt-so-much-more-derogatory-in-the-us-than-the-uk https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7059/why-is-cnt-... I’m not a historian, but I recall reading that a century or more ago, religious blasphemies occupied a similar space. Innocuous-sounding exclamations like “jeez!” and the half-archaic “zounds!” are evolved from the formerly-taboo “Jesus!” and “God’s wounds!” respectively. Back then, taboo was concerned with offending/demeaning God, and now taboo is concerned with offending/demeaning black people and women. I see this as an improvement, because insulting God is between you and God, while insulting people can cause real harm to them. [0] https://youtu.be/cR2tp5j5xD0 https://youtu.be/cR2tp5j5xD0 (Arrested Development clip, I’m still a little surprised they got this past the censors. Mild NSFW?) [1] I don’t mean to imply that it’s largely accepted, it’s just that in my experience N is more widely-used publicly by some Black subcultures than C is used publicly by women who are in feminist subcultures. It has not been reclaimed to the same extent.

samatman 6y ago
I don't find that to be true for the c-word (American here). I'll edit out of respect for the low-profanity nature of HN discourse, but if someone said "Jan had a falling out with Marcia after she called her a meddling c#nt", that wouldn't phase me. I would find it amusing and childish if someone said "c-word" as a mention, in a context where an f-bomb would not be out of place, which is most adult conversation. Yeah calling someone a daft c#nt isn't something we really do here, and it's about as misogynistic as insults get, but by contrast: white Americans really do take pains to never pronounce the n-word, use, mention, singing along with the radio, or under any other circumstance. No white American would complete the sentence, "as Muhammad Ali put it, 'no Viet Cong ever called me...'". It's an actual taboo, at this point: it is simply never to be said, and it's tough to make a living or complete an education after a single offense, if made in public or documented. Edit to add: I did say "no white American" but there's a certain subculture who do, and I have no idea what to call them now, since the name itself is pretty offensive. We would sometimes refer to them as Wegroes to be droll.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> I've seen a word in American culture become taboo Especially one that sees such frequent use (but only by specific people).

abandonliberty 6y ago

>And if you aren't one of "us", then you're probably one of "them". And therefore maybe even just mentioning the word becomes morally akin to actually using it. I've lost my once closest friend to this. I'm not current on the rapidly changing landscape of acceptable left expression, and apparently the far-right is able to taint any word they choose. The moment they use it, they own it. We may agree on 70% of issues, but they've become so accustomed to their echo chamber that anyone with who speaks differently, let alone has a few different ideas, causes them emotional distress. They must be from the other side. They must be arguing in bad faith. Our beliefs are the best and everyone else is ignorant. It's a cancer. As destructive as the attempted insurrection was, these types of people cause far more damage by alienating vast swaths of voter population with their petulance. They then turn their lenses against their elected representatives, offices teetering on the edge of a knife, demanding more and criticizing inaction. These are destructive extremists with no end of people to blame, chastise, and criticize - except themselves.

hnick 6y ago
> apparently the far-right is able to taint any word they choose Oh yes I hate this. I saw a long argument either here or on Reddit where someone made the tired old "something #2: electric boogaloo" joke as has been done for many years but it set off an alarm because some cosplay commandos used that phrase themselves for an operation so it's forever off limits. It's one of many similar cases. How weak it is to just give up ground like that.
- hn8788 6y ago
  Another example is the number 88. God forbid you or someone you know was born in 1988 so you use it as part of your username because it's easy to remember. I've been accused of being a neo-nazi here and on reddit because my wife was born in 1988, so I normally use it in my username.
  - fglar 6y ago
    If the right people at Google hear about the 8.8.8.8 DNS server, it will be debated for months. Thousands of billable hours for the ideologues.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> What I think is happening is that (like almost everything) it comes down to group membership signaling. This reminds me of something I've observed on Tiktok. The site has trends where they put an audio clip over a video of the poster and then different people perform the same trend to the same audio. A hugely disproportionate number of the audio clips, something like half, contain the N-word. They're not just random snips from random rap songs, but the specific songs that contain the word and that specific section of the song. Now I'm thinking it's virtue signaling. They choose that clip specifically because it contains the word and they can demonstrate themselves not saying it when they say the rest of the clip. Or, if you want to go the other way, that the Tiktok algorithm is promoting those clips because they're owned by China and trying to sow discord or promote signaling mistakes by future leaders which can then be used to cancel them at will.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

I think what has happened is a lot of trolls and provocateurs, both online and offline, have purposefully attempted to use the word in demeaning ways while also claiming innocence. "Testing the boundaries," so to speak. "But it's just a picture of a cartoon frog holding a gun! I didn't post it because the user above me said they were black, I just think it's a funny meme! Honest!" One logical response is to take a harder and harder line against Pepe memes, including ones that really were posted in good faith!

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

> This is, I think, the first time in my life that I've seen a word in American culture become taboo. I've known that the N-word is one I'm entirely not allowed to say since the mid nineties. I was raised in a conservative household. This isn't a new thing, is it?

crocodiletears 6y ago
Not to my knowledge. Been pretty taboo since at least the mid-80s
ggreer 6y ago
Using the word has been taboo for a very long time, but mentioning it has not been. Plenty of respectable people have mentioned the word and kept their careers. Here's a talk that linguist Steven Pinker gave at Google in 2007 where he mentions the word.[1] Later in the Q&A he says, "I don't swear. I talk about swearing. Any of you who have taken philosophy will recognize the use versus mention distinction."[2] It's utterly bizarre that so many people today refuse to recognize this distinction. I think this video has only stayed up because nobody has brought it to the attention of the public. Pinker would never be able to give that talk today, and Google would never have uploaded it to YouTube. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=30m05s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=30m05s 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=1h02m45s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&t=1h02m45s
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  I think people recognize the distinction but recognize mentioning it by name is optional almost always. I can't remember the last time I heard an official or reporter say the word instead of describing it.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
The South Park Naggers episode was from 2007. I don't believe any network on TV would dare greenlight that episode today.

daveslash 6y ago

I went straight to the Author's Wikipedia page to get the tl;dr version of what he allegedly did. The Wikipedia article has the n-word in it. And I don't mean "n-word", I mean the actual word. From Wikipedia (censorship mine) "The Daily Beast reported that multiple participants accused McNeil of repeatedly making racist and sexist remarks, including the use of the word "n-----" in the context of discussing racist language," There's something very bizarre about the state of things when he is punished for asking someone "Did you say n-----?", but then using the word in its fullness when reporting on what he said is permissible. [Edit: Spelling/grammar]