Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/A-boom-in-corporate-profits-a-apf-3135711604.html?x=0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unemployment-rates-rose-in-apf-3018956460.html?x=0

Will these bastards just hire some people already?

[Vector]

But why does it imply that they're beneath you? Because somebody else that's a racist used it too? But calling people "black" is just as bad then. After all, racists call them black too.

Hitler was a vegetarian fallacy.

Those words are used, and were invented, to demean (bitch, faggot, etc.).  Other words are invented to identify without demeaning (woman, homosexual person, etc.).

[ECrownofFire]

But why does it imply that they're beneath you? Because somebody else that's a racist used it too? But calling people "black" is just as bad then. After all, racists call them black too.

Hitler was a vegetarian fallacy.

Those words are used, and were invented, to demean (bitch, faggot, etc.).  Other words are invented to identify without demeaning (woman, homosexual person, etc.).

But the N word was derived from the word for black in Spanish, Portuguese, and some Latin of course. It wasn't at first offensive, it was just another way to say black. Bitch was originally a word for a dog anyway. But I guess language changes... Still, it shouldn't immediately be offensive, language has context, and context is what really gives a word meaning.

(Also, another way to say that fallacy is "Reductio ad Hitlerum", hehehe)

[Truean]

And the origin of the word has what relevance to its current meaning and context? Because it was not always _____ does not mean it is not _____ now....

[Vector]

Yes.  And in the current context, calling a woman a dog is rather demeaning.

[ECrownofFire]

Yes.  And in the current context, calling a woman a dog is rather demeaning.

Of course it is, calling anyone a dog is offensive to most people. But something more related to race is something that's... different. A woman isn't a dog, but an African-American IS black, colored, or whatever else (and I mean this with no offense, as always). Just as I'm white, Caucasian, or even a cracker if you really wanted to call me that. If someone calls me that to insult me, then it's an insult.

And the origin of the word has what relevance to its current meaning and context? Because it was not always _____ does not mean it is not _____ now....

That's kind of the point I'm getting at. What relevance does a word's current, future, or past meaning have anywhere? Language is fluid, and changes from group to group and even from person to person.

[Leafsnail]

You didn't make any kind of fallacy, CrownofFire.  What you did was arbitrarily assume something I didn't say and argue against that instead of my actual point.

But why does it imply that they're beneath you? Because somebody else that's a racist used it too? But calling people "black" is just as bad then. After all, racists call them black too.

Bolded is what you're incorrectly assuming something I didn't say (in fact I specifically rejected this idea in the post you were quoting, which makes me question whether you actually read my post at all).

But the N word was derived from the word for black in Spanish, Portuguese, and some Latin of course. It wasn't at first offensive, it was just another way to say black.

It very quickly became generally recognised as an offensive term to put down black people as inferior and it has never lost that meaning.  The fact that people get annoyed at you for saying that is clear evidence of that.

[kaijyuu]

Allow me to pipe in here.


Words are mere symbols. Arrangements of letters and/or syllables. They have no inherent meaning; you're the one that GIVES them meaning by associating them with things.

The first thing you should consider when hearing a word is to consider speaker intent. Getting offended over words is ridiculous; never infer things you know they did not imply (though of course misunderstandings are infinitely more understandable).

[Vector]

Getting offended over words is ridiculous.

. . .

Thanks for telling me that.  I'll tell you something, however, since you seem to be using the Saussure-model of semiotics.  Other people decide the meaning and context of words.  Not you; never you.  To call someone a word which, in the greater culture (given that context), is a slur, is to hurt them using that word, either by intent or negligence.

[Leafsnail]

Words are mere symbols. Arrangements of letters and/or syllables. They have no inherent meaning; you're the one that GIVES them meaning by associating them with things.

The first thing you should consider when hearing a word is to consider speaker intent. Getting offended over words is ridiculous; never infer things you know they did not imply (though of course misunderstandings are infinitely more understandable).

I do consider speaker intent.  I consider that they've used a word which they know is offensive to and denigrating towards a group, and use that to reach the conclusion that they're being offensive and denigrating towards a group.

[Truean]

.... Ok CrownofFire.... I'll bite....

Subjective v. Reasonable Objective:

The subjective is what a person actually means internally. The reasonable objective is what an ordinary reasonable person would assume the person means based upon their observable conduct.

The subjective is unknowable and any system that tries to make allowances for it will fail because of its inherently unknowable nature. Even if the person tells you they can be lying. Thus we can't use it.

The reasonable objective is entirely knowable by its very definition. I say the word "cat" the ordinary reasonable person thinks I am talking about an animal that meows, purrs or otherwise is a freaking cat. This is entirely reasonable for them to think and I know that they will think this. The fact that I might say the word "cat" to refer to a barrel of oil, or anything else within my mind is subjective and doesn't matter/can't be used and I know this.

Thus, what the objective reasonable interpretation of a word's use is, is the standard to be used.

When you use a word that the objective reasonable person would understand to mean one thing, that is what you will be assumed to mean and that is fair. It is fair because you know what will be thought in the minds of others with you say a certain word.

Summation:
If you say a word that is commonly understood to be derogatory, then you will be held to have used it in its common manner until and unless you prove otherwise. If you fail to meet the burden for proving you did not use it in it's common, derogatory way, then that's your problem.

You are aware of the ordinary, common use of a word and are held to have used it as such until and unless you convince your audience you did otherwise. Good luck with that. Symbols or not, you know what people will reasonably think you mean. That said, it's on you.... Deal with it.

O I'm sorry, by "deal" I subjectively meant "vomit" but you understand right? And hey, everyone should get my subjective internal meaning and context of the word "deal" to mean "vomit." Right?

Communication on a large scale doesn't work any other way....

[kaijyuu]

Getting offended over words is ridiculous.

. . .

Thanks for telling me that.  I'll tell you something, however, since you seem to be using the Saussure-model of semiotics.  Other people decide the meaning and context of words.  Not you; never you.  To call someone a word which, in the greater culture (given that context), is a slur, is to hurt them using that word, either by intent or negligence.

I'll completely agree with you that is offensive via negligence provided the listener does not realize the speaker intent wasn't intended that way. As I said, offense via miscommunication is infinitely more forgivable. My beef is only with those who take offense when they know none was intended.

As you said, other people decide the meaning. If they conjure offense out of thin air, that's their fault.

[Vector]

. . . I've had people joke about raping me, just for the lulz.  Are you saying I should have laughed along because they weren't trying to offend me, having been informed of such?

[Truean]

... I've had people joke about killing gays, by way of dragging them to death behind pick up trucks on ropes as they scream, to protect kids from pedophiles in front of me, because they don't know ... They chuckled about it but they meant it.... I'm quite convincing as a straight guy... not that lawyers have ever lied about anything convincingly before.....

They thought it was funny.... I think skinning them alive while they're still conscious and begging me to stop knowing I'll just make it hurt more would be funny as hell.... It would show them a small fraction of the pain I've lived through. I'd laugh my ass off. I doubt they would.... I also don't care.

I don't forgive; I don't forget.

Do you have any idea what it's like to know if you came out, your nephews and nieces would never be allowed to see you again and told the reason they couldn't is because their parents sincerely believe you'd rape them solely because you're gay?

I think I'd sooner die willingly....

The most encouraging thing I've seen in a while: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ends-gays-us-military-ban-205550221.html

[SalmonGod]

SalmonGod, you sound like a mathematician.  This is, by the way, one of the highest compliments I tend to pay (well, okay, as well as one of the most grievous insults >_>).

Thanks

I wish I had the talent for math, honestly.  I get the logic.  It's crunchy details I get lost in.  I'm the type of person that can't see trees, only forest.

It would likely also give you warm fuzzies to know that I learned this lesson from a feminist speaker several years ago.  Now I wish I could remember her name.  Her story was simple, but powerful.

There was a black celebrity as a guest on a talk show.  The host was a white lady who at some point said, intending to be friendly "You know, when I see you, I don't see you black!"  The guest's response was "I think you should get your eyes checked."

The message sunk in quite nicely.

. . . I've had people joke about raping me, just for the lulz.  Are you saying I should have laughed along because they weren't trying to offend me, having been informed of such?

Kind of like when jerks would pass insults between each other about me in high school, play keep away with my stuff, etc and then casually remark "You know we're just messing with you, right?" while wearing condescending smirks?