Comment by vannevar
6 days ago
>> Do you think the social stigma attached to the n-word, and the consequential reduction in its public use, helped contribute to equal rights?
>Not particularly
>> What about slurs against gays, or Jews?
>Not particularly
Honestly, if you're having a hard time seeing the harm that ethnic and racial slurs do, particularly from public officials or community leaders, you're not going to understand any of this.
This is the second time you've reframed a question you asked to present my response in an inaccurate light, presumably because you weren't able to move to your next talking point from my actual response. This might work on people who don't notice it, but it's extremely dishonest and unproductive.
Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful. Adding social stigma to specific words just causes the people who would use them to use different terms if they care about the stigma, and the change does very little to contribute to equal rights.
>Ethnic and racial slurs are harmful.
Agreed.
>Adding social stigma to specific words just causes the people who would use them to use different terms if they care about the stigma, and the change does very little to contribute to equal rights.
So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows.
I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through. You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful, but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power. Do you see the contradiction there? You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society. That just isn't plausible.
> So your hypothesis here is that people just switch slurs. But is that really true? It's not easy to get a new word into the general vocabulary. Sure, a small group of people could agree to a substitute for the n-word. But when they used it in public, most people wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Which means the slur wouldn't have the same impact as if they'd used the slur everyone knows.
Yes, that is my "hypothesis", having a basic familiarity with history where this has happened repeatedly. It's obviously not that hard to get a word into general usage, and it's also not a mystery when someone is attempting to insult you even if you aren't familiar with the word in the moment.
> I didn't reframe, but I did draw a logical conclusion that may seem opaque if you haven't thought it through.
You asked a question, then changed the phrasing of that question in your next question. I would say that failing to ask the question you actually meant to ask (which is a generous reading of our discussion) is indicative of failing to think things through.
Again, your behavior has been consistently antagonistic and obnoxious (the comment above is another example).
> You acknowledge that ethnic slurs are harmful
Yes
> but you don't see the link between equal rights and how people are referred to by those in power.
Never said anything close to that.
> Do you see the contradiction there?
I get that you'd like it if I said what you are claiming as that could be contradictory and you could expand on that while asking leading questions and contributing little else, but I didn't and frankly have no interest in continuing a conversation with an insufferable prig.
> You're imagining a world where leaders can use the n-word without reproach, yet people of color are treated equally by society.
No I'm not. Go have your imaginary conversation elsewhere.
1 reply →