Los Angeles City Council Bans N-Word

[Details]

Do you think it acceptable for Harper Lee to use the word in To Kill A Mockingbird? A very important part of that story occurred when Scout asked Atticus what a "-lover" was. I don't think it would have had the same impact or meaning had Lee written Scout as asking her father what a "Negro-lover" was.

Meaningful art is one category where the word is acceptable and where the word can be used for good in the world and to teach us more about the complicated issue of racism.

IMHO, all races have their own special language and it has been so since Babel. I don't see that changing any time soon!

Referring to history is totally different than calling people N*** - no matter if the person doing the calling is black or white.

 

[Details]

...I don't understand why that word would get banned and others don't. , white trash, , *advertiser censored*, pig, cow etc. are ALL name calling and degrading to another no matter what race one is.

All are hurtful - but only the n word has the history of murder and slavery and discrimination. The rest are only name calling and hurtful, the n-word is often used as shorthand to say that someone is subhuman, was once property, and could be killed if in the way. It's an order of magnitude or so different than even the worst of those others.

 

[southcitymom]

All are hurtful - but only the n word has the history of murder and slavery and discrimination. The rest are only name calling and hurtful, the n-word is often used as shorthand to say that someone is subhuman, was once property, and could be killed if in the way. It's an order of magnitude or so different than even the worst of those others.

I agree with you 100% that the N word is unique in its history and that history does make it a stronger word (at least in America) than many other slurs based on gender, race, identity. Perhaps no other American word is laden with such baggage.

I still don't think it should be banned, but I do agree that there is more than just ugly name-calling attached to the word.

 

[southcitymom]

Referring to history is totally different than calling people N*** - no matter if the person doing the calling is black or white.

I'm not following you. You said using the N word was never acceptable and so a symbolic ban is a good thing. I said there are times when the use of the N word is acceptable and most people know this and that's one of the reasons such a ban is meaningless.

I then gave an example of what I consider to be an acceptable and important use of the N word and asked you if you thought it was acceptable. Do you?

I'm uncertain what you mean about referring to history.

 

[Details]

I'm not following you. You said using the N word was never acceptable and so a symbolic ban is a good thing. I said there are times when the use of the N word is acceptable and most people know this and that's one of the reasons such a ban is meaningless.

I then gave an example of what I consider to be an acceptable and important use of the N word and asked you if you thought it was acceptable. Do you?

I'm uncertain what you mean about referring to history.

It's entirely possible I assumed incorrectly that your position was the same as some or many others, that the N word is OK when used by a black person. I did say what I think should be inacceptable - using it to describe a person - no matter who does it.

I'd think it's obvious that when using it to quote a historical person, describe a time, that's a totally different thing. "Gay" would mean happy then too. And if you are quoting what someone else told you - again, to me, that seems just obvious that it's a different case. So - what you describe (I haven't read the book), where someone is asking what n****-lover means - I'd consider that acceptable - it's quoting someone else, not calling anyone the n word, not describing a group of people by the n word.

But I thought that would be obvious. I'd assume if you caught your child calling someone the n*** word, you'd punish them. But if they were asking you what it meant, you wouldn't be punishing them.

 

[southcitymom]

It's entirely possible I assumed incorrectly that your position was the same as some or many others, that the N word is OK when used by a black person. I did say what I think should be inacceptable - using it to describe a person - no matter who does it.

I'd think it's obvious that when using it to quote a historical person, describe a time, that's a totally different thing. "Gay" would mean happy then too. And if you are quoting what someone else told you - again, to me, that seems just obvious that it's a different case. So - what you describe (I haven't read the book), where someone is asking what n****-lover means - I'd consider that acceptable - it's quoting someone else, not calling anyone the n word, not describing a group of people by the n word.

But I thought that would be obvious. I'd assume if you caught your child calling someone the n*** word, you'd punish them. But if they were asking you what it meant, you wouldn't be punishing them.

Okay - I follow what you are saying. I don't go so far as to think it's okay for a black person to use it at any place and time and not okay for a white person to use it at any place and time. For me, it all depends on context, relationship, perception and reality. I did say - and will repeat - that if I were a young black person, I would probably (as many of them do today) use that word with my peers in an effort to reclaim it and reinvent it.

I was just saying that I think there are times when the word can be used appropriately.

But I'm not a black person, so it's not a word I use for a million different reasons. But I've heard it used in ways that did not offend me and I've heard it used in ways that did offend me.

 

[Details]

Yeah, historical, describing what someone else said, asking the question - I'd agree with all that being appropriate. And I can understand the desire to reclaim the word, to turn it away from being a slur - but I don't think that can be done when only some are allowed to say it. Either it is a slur, or it isn't. If it isn't, white people should be able to use it. If it is, black people using it, even from the best motives, IMHO, only continues the slur's existience.


I think it'd be the same if Hermione Granger called Justin Flitch a mudblood.

 

[reb]

<No reason to freak out. The resolution doesn't distinguish between black or white saying the N word. Nor is anyone being arrested nor fined. It's just symbolic. National Postal-Workers day doesn't mean you have to work in the post office for a day, and this doesn't mean you'll be tasered and tackled if you say the N word in public.>

how can you have a symbolic 'banning'....?? you just wait. there will be even more legislation of morality,, and pretty soon, people WILL start being arrested for saying the N-word. what people are trying to say, quite clearly-- is that blacks can use the word but whites can't.
the implication here is that whenever whites use it it's "hate speech" and whenever blacks use it, it's perfectly OK and acceptable. and this is because we all know that blacks very often use it in a negative way, as an insult.. and whites very often use it (ot try to use it) in a friendly way, and a black person will get all offended,, as if to say "hey, only I can use that word-- don't try to get all 'down' with me!"

so.. no matter how anyone tries to sugar coat it.. there is nothing but blatant hypocrisy going on here. they want to censor white people on demand, but be able to do whatever THEY want, when they want, how they want.

 

[GonzoReiter]

so.. no matter how anyone tries to sugar coat it.. there is nothing but blatant hypocrisy going on here. they want to censor white people on demand, but be able to do whatever THEY want, when they want, how they want.

I don't think the word "hypocrisy" means what some of you think it means. However, I do think that any white trash red neck cracker should be able to express their racist idiotic bigotry for all the world to judge them.

 

[reb]

how about 'double standard'..???

 

[Details]

Only if the resolution had said one word about allowing some people to use the word, and others not. And it didn't. Many black organizations oppose anyone using the N word, no matter what the skin color.

You're projecting a ton into an imaginary future on this - all it is is a symbolic resolution, that no one should use that word. No "blacks can but whites can't" that you theorize, no fine, no jail time, no nothing.

Are you afraid we'll all be required to milk cows due to symbolic resolutions in favor of dairy workers?

 

[southcitymom]

Yeah, historical, describing what someone else said, asking the question - I'd agree with all that being appropriate. And I can understand the desire to reclaim the word, to turn it away from being a slur - but I don't think that can be done when only some are allowed to say it. Either it is a slur, or it isn't. If it isn't, white people should be able to use it. If it is, black people using it, even from the best motives, IMHO, only continues the slur's existience.


I think it'd be the same if Hermione Granger called Justin Flitch a mudblood.

Except if Hermione and Justin were very close and were comfortable with "mudblood" as an expression of solidarity! Again - it's all in perception!

Believe me - I hear what you are saying!

 

[southcitymom]

I don't think the word "hypocrisy" means what some of you think it means. However, I do think that any white trash red neck cracker should be able to express their racist idiotic bigotry for all the world to judge them.

I agree with this also! You learn a lot about people from the language they choose to use in public and in private.

 

[Nova]

ad hominem usually takes the form of name calling, such as "simplistic" and "silly.

it's an attempt to discredit the argument without really doing so. IOW, calling an argument "simplistic" or "silly" is not one of the ways to discredit it or prove it wrong.

obviously the same word can have different meanings. that's not my argument.

my argument is about CONDEMNING another person for doing the exact same thing YOU DO.

that's hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

it's about the CONDEMNATION,
not about the use or meaning.

ad hominem means attacking the person rather than her argument; the perceived harshness of the criticism doesn't matter.

I said YOUR ARGUMENT was simplistic, because you insist all usages of a word are the same, when in fact, meanings vary quite a bit depending on context. I am reminded of the fuss in Washington, D.C., when a public official made a speech using the word, "niggardly." There was an outcry, even though "niggardly" has nothing to do with the "N-word." ("Niggardly" comes from the French "negare," meaning "to deny." See also, "negate.")

Hypocrisy is condemning others for what you do yourself. Condemning others for using the N-word in a racist context, while using it yourself in a different context is not hypocrisy.

 

[Seven]

ad hominem means attacking the person rather than her argument; the perceived harshness of the criticism doesn't matter.

I said YOUR ARGUMENT was simplistic, because you insist all usages of a word are the same, when in fact, meanings vary quite a bit depending on context. I am reminded of the fuss in Washington, D.C., when a public official made a speech using the word, "niggardly." There was an outcry, even though "niggardly" has nothing to do with the "N-word." ("Niggardly" comes from the French "negare," meaning "to deny." See also, "negate.")

Hypocrisy is condemning others for what you do yourself. Condemning others for using the N-word in a racist context, while using it yourself in a different context is not hypocrisy.

Guess you didnt see I my posts:

You are absolutely correct, Nova, and I appreciate your pointing that out ..... But by the same token, saying the argument is silly or simplistic does not defeat it in any way. I just mean it's not one of the recognized ways of invalidating an argument.

Separate but equal/Equal protection under the law:
The law would be unconstitutional on the basis of overbroad and a violation of free speech . . .

. . . but it would also be unconstitutional on the basis of enforcing against only citizens of one race. (I understand the LA City Council law bans all races from saying the word, but it's the same concept intellectually.)

and

(miriam-webster) hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

This is the post you called "simplistic and silly"
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1785779&postcount=31

Please prove that the "argument" (as you're calling it) in that post is invalid.
"simplistic" and "silly" are just more name calling.

When it comes to logic, I can only defend my own words not those of anyone else!

 

[Nova]

Guess you didnt see I my posts...

Yes, I responded to the post I responded to before I saw later posts. I think that's pretty common here.

This is the post you called "simplistic and silly"....

Please prove that the "argument" (as you're calling it) in that post is invalid.
"simplistic" and "silly" are just more name calling.

When it comes to logic, I can only defend my own words not those of anyone else!

Seven, I've already refuted that point at some length. So have others.

Yes, "simplistic" can be used in ad hominem attacks. But I did not do so.

When referring to an argument, "simplistic" means "overly" or "unrealistically simple." In other words, your argument that a word is the same in all contexts and must therefore be equally condemned in every usage oversimplifies how language works. As I and others have patiently explained.

You are obviously bright. I have trouble believing you don't understand this.

 

[Seven]

Seven, I've already refuted that point at some length.

"that point"? which point exactly?

This is the post you called silly and simplistic, so this is the post I am defending.

I'm one of those people who, like IndyGal, cringe at the use of the n-word by anyone and purposely avoid all forms of entertainment that use it as offensive. My first impression of anyone who uses the n-word is that that person, regardless of his/her skin color, is a racist.

The c-word also offends me, so I'd never socialize with anyone of either sex who uses it, and all forms of entertainment that use it are offensive to me, and I avoid them. My first impression of anyone who uses the c-word is that that person, regardless of his/her sex, is a misogynist. (just my first impression, SCM )

But here's my point/dilemma: "Hypocrisy = Do as I say, Not as I do."

Bottom line:
For any word you can think of, no person who uses the word him/herself has the slightest/remotest credibility/right/standing to condemn any other person who uses the same word.

Anyone who condemns another for doing the exact same thing they do is, quite simply, a hypocrite.

I honestly want to know which sentence or combination of sentences you are calling &#8220;simplistic and silly.&#8221; You have never made that clear.

 

[southcitymom]

Thanks for the shout out, Seven! I took no umbrage at your first impression of users of the C-word!!

 

[Indy Gal]

Both of you to the corner now...LOL sorry cant we just agree to disagree with out getting mad....Just trying to make ya'll laugh seems you need it..

 

[southcitymom]

Both of you to the corner now...LOL sorry cant we just agree to disagree with out getting mad....Just trying to make ya'll laugh seems you need it..

Seven and Nova are just troublemakers - let them have their fun!