4 ms·

> Part of the problem is that it’s okay to say those words and make money off those words, if you’re part of the in-group. But if you’re not part of it, then it

> Part of the problem is that it’s okay to say those words and make money off those words, if you’re part of the in-group. But if you’re not part of it, then it’s forbidden Come now. Surely you can call your father "my old man", "that codger", "the dotard"; and call your wife "the ball and chain", "that ol' battle-axe"; but you will take offense if strangers and friends did that? Even when you call your father and wife these names in loving jest. This hangup in understanding who is allowed use of a word is perplexing, it's almost like a reflexive obtuseness. I always say "the N word", because the word itself is so ugly to me, as are all racial epithets. There was an incident where someone use the word "niggardly" meaning stingy, and somebody took pearl-clutching offense, and the original speaker retorted that he wasn't going to censure himself because of someone else's stupidity. Amen to that!

xboxnolifes 6y ago
> Come now. Surely you can call your father "my old man", "that codger", "the dotard"; and call your wife "the ball and chain", "that ol' battle-axe"; but you will take offense if strangers and friends did that? This isn't the same comparison. Everyone (baring the obvious exceptions) has a father that they could make words with, or could have a spouse to do the same. These examples are not the same as there being a word you must never say, in any context whatsoever, based on the circumstances of your birth.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > These examples are not the same as there being a word you must never say, in any context whatsoever, based on the circumstances of your birth. But there is no such word. The NYT itself uses the N word in certain contexts, but not in others. The context has nothing to do with the color of the reporter's skin ("race"). However, using the word while discussing with teenagers (who aren't typically very good with nuance) who were already concerned about your opinions on race (so already somewhat hostile and likely to misinterpret your words) is a faux pas, an error in judgement.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Ok that explains the teenagers’ equally poor comprehension of the situation, but, critically, it doesn’t explain the NYTs reverting to being a teenager when evaluating the exchange. The NYT had previously examined the complaint and found it didn’t meet whatever criterium they had. Now all of a sudden they are become the teenager incapable of mature reason and discussion.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      That may well be down to the NYT wanting to fire one of the salary negotiators stirring up trouble. It may also be related to him refusing to play the story the way they wanted, which did seem to explode it quite a bit.

xboxnolifes 6y ago

> Come now. Surely you can call your father "my old man", "that codger", "the dotard"; and call your wife "the ball and chain", "that ol' battle-axe"; but you will take offense if strangers and friends did that? This isn't the same comparison. Everyone (baring the obvious exceptions) has a father that they could make words with, or could have a spouse to do the same. These examples are not the same as there being a word you must never say, in any context whatsoever, based on the circumstances of your birth.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> These examples are not the same as there being a word you must never say, in any context whatsoever, based on the circumstances of your birth. But there is no such word. The NYT itself uses the N word in certain contexts, but not in others. The context has nothing to do with the color of the reporter's skin ("race"). However, using the word while discussing with teenagers (who aren't typically very good with nuance) who were already concerned about your opinions on race (so already somewhat hostile and likely to misinterpret your words) is a faux pas, an error in judgement.
- mc32 6y ago
  Ok that explains the teenagers’ equally poor comprehension of the situation, but, critically, it doesn’t explain the NYTs reverting to being a teenager when evaluating the exchange. The NYT had previously examined the complaint and found it didn’t meet whatever criterium they had. Now all of a sudden they are become the teenager incapable of mature reason and discussion.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    That may well be down to the NYT wanting to fire one of the salary negotiators stirring up trouble. It may also be related to him refusing to play the story the way they wanted, which did seem to explode it quite a bit.