6 ms·

When culture changes shouldn't language that reflects outdated culture also change? Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. No one thinks that change is what b

by Steko 13y ago

When culture changes shouldn't language that reflects outdated culture also change? Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. No one thinks that change is what brought about the civil rights movement, but it's obviously a consequence of it that also contributed to the whole movement in a positive feedback loop.

chrismonsanto 13y ago
> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. That isn't what brought about the civil rights movement, but it's an important consequence of it. I don't really want to pick sides on 'ban bossy', but I do think this particular analogy is flawed. Unlike a racial slur (or any other identity-based slur), 'bossy' describes intrinsically negative behavior. People who are 'overly authoritative' or 'domineering' will always be looked down on in society whether or not this word is 'banned' or not.
- tesseractive 13y ago
  You are starting from the assumption that this movement is in error rather than arguing it to be. The whole point of their argument is that the word "bossy" is used to police women's behavior in situations where the same behavior is considered positive for men -- so simply asserting that it always describes negative behavior doesn't exactly make a useful point. Their claim may in fact be false. But starting from the assumption that it is false doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
stefantalpalaru 13y ago
> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  HN, more than most, is a global forum, and with that in mind people should really stop and think before offering their opinion on a subject where critical cultural context is almost surely missing from one's perspective.
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    Funny you should say that. In my culture beating around the bush with irrational accusations is considered a grave insult that can only be resolved with an old fashioned duel. Choose your assistant at your earliest convenience.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      My statement was neither irrational nor unclear. Just more evidence that you simply do not have the proper context to make meaningful statements on this subject (language being sub-culture specific). It is interesting how race issues is one of only a few subjects where anyone that can form an opinion feels qualified to weigh in on it, no matter how far removed they are from the issue at hand.
- Steko 13y ago
  They aren't slurs when used in certain contexts. Here's the internets new favorite primer on linguistic context: My father’s name is William Paul Coates. I, like my six brothers and sisters, have always addressed him as Dad. Strangers often call him Mr. Coates. His friends call him Paul. If a stranger or one of my father’s friends called him Dad, my father might have a conversation. When I was a child, relatives of my paternal grandmother would call my father Billy. Were I to ever call my father Billy, we would probably have a different conversation. I have never called my father Billy. I understand, like most people, that words take on meaning within a context. It might be true that you refer to your spouse as Baby. But were I to take this as license to do the same, you would most likely protest. Right names depend on right relationships, a fact so basic to human speech that without it, human language might well collapse... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-defense-of-a-loaded-word.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-d...
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    OK, I'll bite. In what linguistic context can a white person call a black person "nigger" in the country that once put free-speech at the center of its propaganda?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      When the speaker isn't intending a racial insult, and the tone, circumstances, and relationship between the speaker, the subject, and any third-party listeners make that clear to all involved. Which are pretty much the exact same circumstances where a black person can do the same thing.
      - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
        Nigga, please!
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. You mean, the yesterday's value-neutral racial descriptors that became today's racial slurs when used in the mouth of people with racial hate are no longer acceptable to people who don't share that hate -- but, of course, as has happened many times in the past, that just means that today's value-neutral descriptors will get used as slurs and become tomorrow's verbotten terms, and nothing will have changed. Making words taboo that are used along with an unwelcome attitude is a particularly ineffective manner of eradicating the unwelcome attitude.

by Steko 13y ago

chrismonsanto 13y ago

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. That isn't what brought about the civil rights movement, but it's an important consequence of it. I don't really want to pick sides on 'ban bossy', but I do think this particular analogy is flawed. Unlike a racial slur (or any other identity-based slur), 'bossy' describes intrinsically negative behavior. People who are 'overly authoritative' or 'domineering' will always be looked down on in society whether or not this word is 'banned' or not.

tesseractive 13y ago
You are starting from the assumption that this movement is in error rather than arguing it to be. The whole point of their argument is that the word "bossy" is used to police women's behavior in situations where the same behavior is considered positive for men -- so simply asserting that it always describes negative behavior doesn't exactly make a useful point. Their claim may in fact be false. But starting from the assumption that it is false doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
HN, more than most, is a global forum, and with that in mind people should really stop and think before offering their opinion on a subject where critical cultural context is almost surely missing from one's perspective.
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  Funny you should say that. In my culture beating around the bush with irrational accusations is considered a grave insult that can only be resolved with an old fashioned duel. Choose your assistant at your earliest convenience.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    My statement was neither irrational nor unclear. Just more evidence that you simply do not have the proper context to make meaningful statements on this subject (language being sub-culture specific). It is interesting how race issues is one of only a few subjects where anyone that can form an opinion feels qualified to weigh in on it, no matter how far removed they are from the issue at hand.
Steko 13y ago
They aren't slurs when used in certain contexts. Here's the internets new favorite primer on linguistic context: My father’s name is William Paul Coates. I, like my six brothers and sisters, have always addressed him as Dad. Strangers often call him Mr. Coates. His friends call him Paul. If a stranger or one of my father’s friends called him Dad, my father might have a conversation. When I was a child, relatives of my paternal grandmother would call my father Billy. Were I to ever call my father Billy, we would probably have a different conversation. I have never called my father Billy. I understand, like most people, that words take on meaning within a context. It might be true that you refer to your spouse as Baby. But were I to take this as license to do the same, you would most likely protest. Right names depend on right relationships, a fact so basic to human speech that without it, human language might well collapse... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-defense-of-a-loaded-word.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-d...
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  OK, I'll bite. In what linguistic context can a white person call a black person "nigger" in the country that once put free-speech at the center of its propaganda?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    When the speaker isn't intending a racial insult, and the tone, circumstances, and relationship between the speaker, the subject, and any third-party listeners make that clear to all involved. Which are pretty much the exact same circumstances where a black person can do the same thing.
    - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
      Nigga, please!

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Racial slurs aren't acceptable anymore. You mean, the yesterday's value-neutral racial descriptors that became today's racial slurs when used in the mouth of people with racial hate are no longer acceptable to people who don't share that hate -- but, of course, as has happened many times in the past, that just means that today's value-neutral descriptors will get used as slurs and become tomorrow's verbotten terms, and nothing will have changed. Making words taboo that are used along with an unwelcome attitude is a particularly ineffective manner of eradicating the unwelcome attitude.