Is that... actually relevant? Can you explain how? The stuff I was talking about was in the initial version of my posts.
1. That same argument goes both ways :/
2. It was not the same as the pre-edit post.
3.
...Huh? I pointed out noone wanted to make the word illegal. You seemed to indicate you weren't talking about this particular word but other unspecified words. Which leaves me confused as to why you're talking about words that aren't the one that this thread is about.
My argument is applicable to any word.
You're saying how no one wants to make it illegal, and because of that, my argument = worthless.
Unless you're actually going to address any issues with any real points or something...
4.
Can you explain how?
When you start questioning answers to questions, you end up with confusions like this.
If you say something that I see as invalid or irrelevant I will point it out.
Then at least have the courtesy to point out why it's invalid or irrelevant. And you seem to have thought I was talking about you in the last two points. I was talking about the whole "whiteness : almost definitely thing". Confusions, confusions everywhere.
We have the same thing going on in the Netherlands. We made up this neat little word allochtoon which even has an English Wikipedia page and some people want it to be no longer used.
Oh look, Dutchling wasn't talking about the use of Illegals, therefore it is irrelevant by your logic.
-_-
Get one person to say illegals, in a neutrally ambiguous way. One word, by itself.
Get another person, who says something degrading or discriminating towards Latin @, expressing the intent to cause emotional distress to Latin @. Wording? Unimportant. Intent? The clear issue. Sidestepping it by just going on and saying "well, it's used commonly by generic racist group people to attack demographic minorities , therefore, illegals is the problem," isn't going to change the fact that the word has nothing to do with it. It's a word. The illegals isn't hurting anyone, it's the generic racist group.
That's where the line is - when people start hurting each other.
And now it's on topic. That was unnecessary really :|
My point was that a white person would be most likely to dismiss racial slurs. LW, I apologize for assuming your race. It was pretty dickish in retrospect, but I let my snark get the better of me.
Ah, I didn't take offense at all, so don't worry.
Although "white people most likely to dismiss racial slurs?" - That bemuses me. You just explained it in a ninja post.
Making a word used for oppression taboo makes that oppression more taboo. Words do, in fact, have a decent amount of power to hurt. Ask any gay kid that's had "faggot" shouted at them.
I agree completely. There's two countries I've known well, one's had the entire media and country be pretty much homophobic for the most part, and no one gay care about the word "Faggot" because they have bigger problems. Getting rid of "faggot" instead of promoting acceptance, wouldn't achieve much. And the other end of the spectrum, where no one cares what your sexual orientation is, no one gets offended by "Faggot"
because everyone is called one. It loses all offensive meaning-it isn't discriminatory. It's as frowned on as much as swearing, but no one would get emotionally distraught over it or feel singled out.
Again, is that gay kid distraught because he's just heard someone say "faggot", or is it that his or her's peer are bullying them.
From what I've been told, yes, it's a terrible experience even if they don't get physically hurt. Because it's the same word that gets shouted at them as they get jumped after school and get the shit beaten out of them, and the same word shouted at them by people who take away their rights, and the same word their parents called them before they stopped speaking to them, and a lot more.
There's large amounts of trauma attached to it then. Saying "faggot" wouldn't induce this, it's a consequence of the
people acting this way. They're causing the harm, they're isolating them and deliberately trying to cause them emotional harm.
Now imagine if that word was used in common parlance like "illegals" is.
I honestly still wouldn't care if everyone started walking around calling each other illegals. In fact, there's already an example in the UK. Kids calling each other FOB - Fresh of boat. Which literally means immigrant.
That's caused no harm to anyone - again, it's said to everyone. Literally everyone, even if it's highly distasteful.
Now if those same people started "jumping on people", shouting FOB and beating them up, there would be your problem again. The people, not the word.