"The __ word"

[sam_i_am]

A bunch of white, privileged guys sitting around, talking about how there is definitely no societal context and dismissing out of hand the lived experience of literally millions... Is this what happens when you apply libertarianism to the dictionary?

Anyhoot, my rebuttal to djehutnyakht has already been made by others - and in fact had been made even before he posted, so I'll just say this: i am sam, yeah, you seem pretty racist; why else would you keep on using that word when you do not have to, at all.

[RoberII]

A bunch of white, privileged guys sitting around, talking about how there is definitely no societal context and dismissing out of hand the lived experience of literally millions... Is this what happens when you apply libertarianism to the dictionary?

Anyhoot, my rebuttal to djehutnyakht has already been made by others - and in fact had been made even before he posted, so I'll just say this: i am sam, yeah, you seem pretty racist; why else would you keep on using that word when you do not have to, at all.

You stumble into the thread shouting slurs at people while more or less bragging about how you don't care how those slurs affect the people they are aimed at demeaning - what kind of impression did you expect to make?

[PeteP]

I think he was pointing out that it contradicts your statement here:

So what you're really saying is that you're not racist? I don't think anyone said you were - what I've been saying is that you are saying racist things. There is a big difference.

[RoberII]

I think he was pointing out that it contradicts your statement here:

So what you're really saying is that you're not racist? I don't think anyone said you were - what I've been saying is that you are saying racist things. There is a big difference.

About that, there is also a difference between saying "you are racist" and "you seem racist". To clarify: I don't think sam_i_am is being wilfully racist, though; I just think he has some unexamined privilege that causes him to say some things that are pretty racist in that they deny PoCs their lived experience, and privileges his own right to say demean others over other people's right not to be demeaned.

[sam_i_am]

..

[gmalivuk]

..

You know you can delete posts if yours was still the latest in a thread, right? Or were those two dots really all you wanted to say? If so, you should probably reread the SB rules and then stop wasting people's time with pointless posts.

[sam_i_am]

Yes I did intend to delete my post. I didn't see the delete button. Don't know why you felt the need to taunt me over it.

[gmalivuk]

I'm sorry. Were you offended? My post was just words, after all.

[sam_i_am]

I'm sorry. Were you offended? My post was just words, after all.

My entire point was that swearwords does not equal contempt, and the post you made, while having no swearwords, still managed to be full of contempt.

But I suppose you are right. Nobody has a right to not be offended.

[RoberII]

I'm sorry. Were you offended? My post was just words, after all.

My entire point was that swearwords does not equal contempt, and the post you made, while having no swearwords, still managed to be full of contempt.

But I suppose you are right. Nobody has a right to not be offended.

Swear words are not the same as racial slurs.

[The Great Hippo]

@Hippo

I think I should probably clarify that I think the n-word has a special position, as it is so very, very taboo and touchy and sensitive and so on. I feel relatively comfortable writing 'cunt' or 'bitch' or what have you, but then again, there's no widespread alternative like with 'the n-word'. And I think there are places where it is alright to use the actual n-word and not the euphemism (as a white person) - in an academic context, and in fiction. Not on a forum, not in the news, and certainly not when singing along to rap songs. It's a bit awkward, sure, but imho being awkward is much better than being insensitive.

Why would it be a problem when you're alone, though? I mean, if you're not comfortable with the word, you're not comfortable with the word--you never need to justify what words you want to use to anyone, nevermind me. But what you're saying here implies that everyone--or, at least, everyone who is white--should share your discomfort. But I'm not uncomfortable with it at all. I'm only uncomfortable with communicating something with it that I don't mean to communicate--which is why I avoid it. It's a strong word--one that's tangled with powerful negative emotions and meaning--and I don't want to risk expressing something without intending to do so.

Our approach to words like these sometimes strikes me as neurotic. On one hand, we sometimes have people who say words are just words regardless of their context and no one has a right to be offended by them--instead, we must somehow exercise our latent telepathic abilities to somehow 'discover' a person means to express a bad thing before being offended by words that, given our context, mean bad things to us.

On the other hand, we sometimes have people who say there are 'special' words, and that those 'special' words are always wrong outside of all but the most clinical of environments--whether you say them to your friends, your family, to yourself, or to your cat. Because of some historical context, these words have become evil, and Shall Not Be Spoken (unless you belong to the right group).

Neither of these approaches interest me. Words are just words, but they also mean different things to different people, and part of effective communication means acknowledging those differences. It isn't the history behind 'nigger' which makes it bad--history alone doesn't make words bad. How people take words is what makes them bad. And yes, part of the reason it's taken badly is its history, but if we had another word that people took just as badly but didn't have the history, it would be just as bad. Similarly, words with terrible histories aren't bad if no one knows or cares.

I think this distinction is important, because I'm worried that in treating certain words as 'evil', we risk becoming afraid of those words--and I don't think fear will serve us well in the pursuit of clearer, healthier communication.

[sam_i_am]

Our approach to words like these sometimes strikes me as neurotic. On one hand, we sometimes have people who say words are just words regardless of their context and no one has a right to be offended by them--instead, we must somehow exercise our latent telepathic abilities to somehow 'discover' a person means to express a bad thing before being offended by words that, given our context, mean bad things to us.
.

there's noting "telepathic" about it. Normally when you say a word naked it has very little meaning, but when you string a collection of words together in a particular order, then all of a sudden they can have a clear and specific meaning.

Change 1 or 2 of those words, and maybe change their order, and then they have a completely different meaning.

[The Great Hippo]

there's noting "telepathic" about it. Normally when you say a word naked it has very little meaning, but when you string a collection of words together in a particular order, then all of a sudden they can have a clear and specific meaning.

Change 1 or 2 of those words, and maybe change their order, and then they have a completely different meaning.

People aren't computers. We can still find something troubling regardless of what it literally means.

You seem to operate under the notion that language is static, and there is only one right answer to the question 'What does X mean?'. It would make communication much easier if that was the case, but it isn't--and it hasn't been for the length of human history.

[RoberII]

I'd argue that communication always takes place in a cultural context, and for some words, the taboo is so heavy that we shouldn't say them in that cultural context - in fact, to do so is both crude and inconsiderate, and in the case of the n-word, inherently offensive (again, within that culture). Obviously it's not as if the particular phonemes are magical and offensive across cultures.

Also, sam_i_am, do you think words have very little meaning? Then why don't you try going to the nearest crowded bar and start shouting that word which you are so adamant about not being offensive at all, because since you say that word 'naked', (which I take to mean in isolation), it has 'very little meaning", and if you only say that particular word, there is no possible way anyone at all could be offended. Let us know how it goes!

[The Great Hippo]

I'd argue that communication always takes place in a cultural context, and for some words, the taboo is so heavy that we shouldn't say them in that cultural context - in fact, to do so is both crude and inconsiderate, and in the case of the n-word, inherently offensive (again, within that culture). Obviously it's not as if the particular phonemes are magical and offensive across cultures.

But when I'm talking to you and only you, the only context that exists is us. Yes, we carry our cultures with us, but if we both agree that in this context, X means Y, how can anyone possibly contradict us? Isn't this in fact what is going on when certain groups 'own' a pejorative that targeted them? If so, why can only a group who has been targeted by a word create a new context for that word?

That isn't to say you shouldn't be rightly put-off if you heard me referring to my heterosexual friends as 'faggots'. That's another word that carries powerful cultural weight, and I think it's possible to misuse it--to appropriate it in ways that ignore that cultural weight, and in doing so, amplify confusion rather than diminishing it. And the point of language is to diminish confusion, never to create more.

What I am saying, however, is that if we accept that words are only 'bad' in context--and these pejoratives in particular are 'bad' in contexts where they cause harm--then in contexts where they are unlikely to cause any harm at all (or where the benefits of their use outweigh the harm they may cause), they're fine. If I want to call my cat all sorts of nasty pejoratives outside of anyone's earshot, I think that's fine. Kind of weird, maybe even creepy, but it's not like anybody will ever know, and it's not like that makes me a bad person.

Again, I think this is an important distinction not because I really want to call my cat all sorts of nasty things, but because thinking of words as things that are always offensive--outside of the context of someone actually being offended--leads us to being afraid of those words, and I don't think being afraid of words helps us when it comes to discussing and understanding them.

[Pazuzu]

Also, sam_i_am, do you think words have very little meaning? Then why don't you try going to the nearest crowded bar and start shouting that word which you are so adamant about not being offensive at all, because since you say that word 'naked', (which I take to mean in isolation), it has 'very little meaning", and if you only say that particular word, there is no possible way anyone at all could be offended. Let us know how it goes!

Would he get beat up because he said 'nigger' or because he said something related black people in a culture where one assumes anything related to black people must be negative? An easy way to examine this is to picture the following scenario: He goes to the nearest crowded bar and starts shouting "african american" over and over without offering any context. How would people react? Positive? Negative? Indifferent?

Of course, shouting anything without context is bound to cause some mildly negative reactions. This because the lack of context makes it strange behavior, which is generally seen as negative. However, I believe that he'd get beat up for shouting "african american" repeatedly, whilst people would probably just try and avoid him if he shouted "milk carton" repeatedly.

You are of course right that communication will always rely on cultural context. That doesn't mean the cultural context is always right/a good thing. The more ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? you try to make the language, the more difficult communication becomes. While sam_i_am seems to be missing the point that all words carry meaning on their own (and that meaning can be loaded, positively or negatively*), I am generally more inclined towards his stance, as it appeals to my logical nature. From a practical standpoint though, I'd say both sides are on the impractical extremes.

Cultural background that might be of interest: I'm from Norway, so I guess i regard this debate as an outsider. AAAHHHH THUMPY WOOBLE HARRRRRPINK!! is no where near the same levels here as in the states, from what I've observed.

*English is my second laguage, so I'm not sure I'm using the right words here. By loaded, I mean that words can be seen as good, bad or neutral (to varying degrees). For instance, the word 'success' is generally seen as good; the word 'failure' is generally seen as bad and the word 'stone' doesn't really carry any positive or negative vibes. The word 'nigger' has generally been attached to a negative vibe, i.e. it's been understood that being a nigger was a bad thing. One could argue that the word is still loaded as such. Then again, the whole point of using it in other contexts is to remove such a load - to give the word a neutral vibe. This is, however, usually not related to who is using the word so much as how it is used. To assume that one doesn't need to offset an already negative load when using the word seems silly though.

Blast, what was meant to be a short explanation turned into a continuation of my argument.

[RoberII]

@The Great Hippo:
I'm not sure people are just able to override their cultures like that. Sure, we can imagine a wordgame in which we give words entirely new meaning, but I think that such a game would probably be tinged in various ways - just like 'ironic' racism is usually not that ironic when it comes down to it. And really, what would be our motivation for deciding, in the privacy of our own homes, to refer to all women as cunts (but since we decide the context, it's totally not misogynist), then it would still be a signifier, even to us, of misogyny. What I'm saying is - why would we want to do that?

And I'd disagree that such a complete redefinition is what happens when minorities reappropriate words - such reappropriations are in fact often attempts to re-cast the negative aspects of the word into good things - a good example would be rednecks recasting themselves as merely down-to-earth, commonsensical, hardworking folks, or in a million raps songs in which various forms of othering are turned into positive traits - and of course there is a long history of African Americans doing just that which is much older than hip-hop.

@Pazuzu
I disagree that communication becomes harder as we become more '...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying?' (whatever that means). I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that cultural context is not right or a good thing - do you mean to say that words should mean something other than what they do?

[omgryebread]

Also, sam_i_am, do you think words have very little meaning? Then why don't you try going to the nearest crowded bar and start shouting that word which you are so adamant about not being offensive at all, because since you say that word 'naked', (which I take to mean in isolation), it has 'very little meaning", and if you only say that particular word, there is no possible way anyone at all could be offended. Let us know how it goes!

Would he get beat up because he said 'nigger' or because he said something related black people in a culture where one assumes anything related to black people must be negative? An easy way to examine this is to picture the following scenario: He goes to the nearest crowded bar and starts shouting "african american" over and over without offering any context. How would people react? Positive? Negative? Indifferent?

Of course, shouting anything without context is bound to cause some mildly negative reactions. This because the lack of context makes it strange behavior, which is generally seen as negative. However, I believe that he'd get beat up for shouting "african american" repeatedly, whilst people would probably just try and avoid him if he shouted "milk carton" repeatedly.

I'm not a huge fan of RoberII's original example, for that reason. But imagine the statements "I'm quite glad we finally elected an African American as president" and "I'm quite glad we finally elected a nigger as president". One of those is a positive statement, the other... superficially is. If you ignored the connotation behind the word, it is a positive statement. The history and connotation behind the word vastly change the reading though. That second statement can really only be read as sarcasm. A straight reading is nonsensical.

You are of course right that communication will always rely on cultural context. That doesn't mean the cultural context is always right/a good thing. The more ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? you try to make the language, the more difficult communication becomes. While sam_i_am seems to be missing the point that all words carry meaning on their own (and that meaning can be loaded, positively or negatively*), I am generally more inclined towards his stance, as it appeals to my logical nature. From a practical standpoint though, I'd say both sides are on the impractical extremes.

Why, actually? There's a slight inconvenience to ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? language. I admit I don't really know how to refer to some individuals who don't fit the gender binary, for example. Transexual? Trans? Trans*? That being said, that slight inconveince to me is well outweighed by the fact that the language would allow me to communicate with someone on terms they prefer. As a personal example, if someone wanted to talk to me about sexual promiscuity, I'd be totally for that. But if they started using the term "slut," I'd be immediately turned off the conversation and communication would get harder between us.

Cultural background that might be of interest: I'm from Norway, so I guess i regard this debate as an outsider. AAAHHHH THUMPY WOOBLE HARRRRRPINK!! is no where near the same levels here as in the states, from what I've observed.

Have many black people in Norway? You don't have the history of racial tension and terms and such that the US does. We're in quite a unique position, being a developed nation with racial problems of its own creation. Our racial problems were the cause of our civil war, and have, bar only the American Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution, been the center of our biggest political change and movement. To say America's history is one of racial tension and resolution isn't an exaggeration.

*English is my second laguage, so I'm not sure I'm using the right words here. By loaded, I mean that words can be seen as good, bad or neutral (to varying degrees). For instance, the word 'success' is generally seen as good; the word 'failure' is generally seen as bad and the word 'stone' doesn't really carry any positive or negative vibes. The word 'nigger' has generally been attached to a negative vibe, i.e. it's been understood that being a nigger was a bad thing. One could argue that the word is still loaded as such. Then again, the whole point of using it in other contexts is to remove such a load - to give the word a neutral vibe. This is, however, usually not related to who is using the word so much as how it is used. To assume that one doesn't need to offset an already negative load when using the word seems silly though.

Loaded is fine. The technical terms are connotation and denotation. Denotation is the clinical definition of the word, connotation is the opinion implied by the word. Slender and scrawny mean roughly the same thing, but slender is a compliment, scrawny an insult.

As to how to remove a negative vibe from a word, how as opposed to who sounds good in theory, but it's clearly not born out by evidence. Clearly, the user of the word means something, since people view it to mean something.


Language is not math. Math exists as true or false, universal, and independent of context. A mathmetician can confidently state that the square root of -1 is i, because this is true by definition, it's axiomatic. Language has no axioms that must be accepted as true. I could try as hard as I wanted, I could never make the square root of -1 equal 7. If I wanted to make "pelican" refer to a popular tuber, and "potato" refer to a large billed bird, I would just have to convince enough people to agree to my new scheme. You can't say an absolute in language. If people aren't comfortable with a certain use of a word, no matter how arbitrary and illogical their objection seems to you, it's totally valid. You're trying to apply set-in-stone rules to something that does not, and cannot have permanent rules.

[The Great Hippo]

@The Great Hippo:
I'm not sure people are just able to override their cultures like that. Sure, we can imagine a wordgame in which we give words entirely new meaning, but I think that such a game would probably be tinged in various ways - just like 'ironic' racism is usually not that ironic when it comes down to it. And really, what would be our motivation for deciding, in the privacy of our own homes, to refer to all women as cunts (but since we decide the context, it's totally not misogynist), then it would still be a signifier, even to us, of misogyny. What I'm saying is - why would we want to do that?

Since you asked, I'll give you a concrete example: Pretend that my partner and I get off on it. So there's a context, just between us, where calling all women 'cunts' is okay--because we both understand that it's just for playtime. Both of us could oppose the usage of 'cunt' as an insult. But when we're alone, as part of roleplaying, it's okay. There's no contradiction here: The context is different. We both understand, 'outside' of this context, that this word is demeaning and inappropriate. But in the context of our play, we both enjoy it. How does this signify misogyny? How is this usage in any way wrong? Who's being harmed by what we're doing?

The reason ironic racism doesn't work isn't because I'm incapable of being ironically racist. I am capable. The problem is that there are tons of people out there who aren't--so if I tell an ironic racist joke to a large group of people, it may include some subset of people who will take the joke sincerely, and rather than laughing at the irony, will laugh at the racism. That's the problem. It's a problem that disappears when I'm dealing with groups of people who can handle the concept of ironic racism--who have moved past the notion of laughing at 'how many members of ethnicity X does it take to screw in a light-bulb'.

(To clarify, I don't find 'ironic racism' to be very funny anyway, although I do think there's some interesting stuff there! Sarah Silverman comes to mind as a comedian who specializes in making 'subversive racist jokes'--racist jokes that contain irrational elements so bizarre that it's just about impossible to take them as sincere expressions of racism. Example under spoiler)

Spoiler:

“Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ. And the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I’m one of the few people who believes it was the blacks.”

And I'd disagree that such a complete redefinition is what happens when minorities reappropriate words - such reappropriations are in fact often attempts to re-cast the negative aspects of the word into good things - a good example would be rednecks recasting themselves as merely down-to-earth, commonsensical, hardworking folks, or in a million raps songs in which various forms of othering are turned into positive traits - and of course there is a long history of African Americans doing just that which is much older than hip-hop.

Right. But... what's going on there? When someone takes 'redneck' and turns it from an insult concerning a lack of intelligence into a compliment concerning a strong work ethic and abundance of wisdom? They're redefining what the word means when they use it.

[RoberII]

I'd suggest that getting off on calling women cunts (or being called a cunt) in an erotic context is fun exactly because it's taboo, which was my point - women can enjoy being demeaned, and men can enjoy demeaning (in play).

The point with redneck or other words that are reappropriated is that the words change meaning, yes - but they change meaning in a response to the overall cultural meaning, that is, it's not a radical change. It's not like nerds have tried to redefine "nerd" to mean something along the lines of tough, for instance, or as if rednecks have tried to redefine redneck to mean sophisticated - rather, in both cases the negative connotations have been turned into positive signifiers.

[The Great Hippo]

I'd suggest that getting off on calling women cunts (or being called a cunt) in an erotic context is fun exactly because it's taboo, which was my point - women can enjoy being demeaned, and men can enjoy demeaning (in play).

Maybe I like being called 'cunt', though--maybe that's what turns my crank. Particularly when other guys do it. Is that okay? Am I 'allowed' to enjoy that? Or do I need to go get a woman's permission first?

That's my point: Words only carry properties as a function of their context. If a given context changes a word's nature, then that is the word's nature. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context that leads to them becoming upset, then that word is upsetting. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context they find arousing, then that word is arousing. Words can be completely redefined by the contexts in which they are spoken. We do this all the time.

The point with redneck or other words that are reappropriated is that the words change meaning, yes - but they change meaning in a response to the overall cultural meaning, that is, it's not a radical change. It's not like nerds have tried to redefine "nerd" to mean something along the lines of tough, for instance, or as if rednecks have tried to redefine redneck to mean sophisticated - rather, in both cases the negative connotations have been turned into positive signifiers.

This sounds like hair-splitting. Why couldn't someone redefine redneck to mean something academically sophisticated?

Largely, what you're talking about here is based on the fact that there's some coincidental overlap between the negative labels we apply to people and the actual qualities which define them. I.e., when we apply negative labels, those negative labels usually include an actual observed property.

[gmalivuk]

You are of course right that communication will always rely on cultural context. That doesn't mean the cultural context is always right/a good thing.

No one said it was. We just said that it's there, and that ignoring that and pretending it isn't just makes you shitty at communication.

*English is my second laguage, so I'm not sure I'm using the right words here. By loaded, I mean that words can be seen as good, bad or neutral (to varying degrees).

What you're talking about here is connotation. Usually when we say a word is "loaded", we refer more specifically to its having negative connotations.

[DSenette]

I'd suggest that getting off on calling women cunts (or being called a cunt) in an erotic context is fun exactly because it's taboo, which was my point - women can enjoy being demeaned, and men can enjoy demeaning (in play).

Maybe I like being called 'cunt', though--maybe that's what turns my crank. Particularly when other guys do it. Is that okay? Am I 'allowed' to enjoy that? Or do I need to go get a woman's permission first?

That's my point: Words only carry properties as a function of their context. If a given context changes a word's nature, then that is the word's nature. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context that leads to them becoming upset, then that word is upsetting. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context they find arousing, then that word is arousing. Words can be completely redefined by the contexts in which they are spoken. We do this all the time.

The point with redneck or other words that are reappropriated is that the words change meaning, yes - but they change meaning in a response to the overall cultural meaning, that is, it's not a radical change. It's not like nerds have tried to redefine "nerd" to mean something along the lines of tough, for instance, or as if rednecks have tried to redefine redneck to mean sophisticated - rather, in both cases the negative connotations have been turned into positive signifiers.

This sounds like hair-splitting. Why couldn't someone redefine redneck to mean something academically sophisticated?

Largely, what you're talking about here is based on the fact that there's some coincidental overlap between the negative labels we apply to people and the actual qualities which define them. I.e., when we apply negative labels, those negative labels usually include an actual observed property.

even in the "sexytimes" example there, you're still not redefining the word, or even really redefining or changing the context, you're redefining the reaction to the context/meaning. you're in fact, still relying on the original context to apply so that your new reaction to its use gives the desired effect.


you couldn't actually effectively redefine "redneck" to mean "something academically sophisticated" in any meaninful way. you and your buddy could agree that the word "redneck" really means "appricot" if you feel like it, but that's not redefining the word, it's making up your own language. which is different. unless of course you were able to adequately convince everyone else to follow suit. the reapropriations of all these words is built around affirming the traits that created the word to begin with, not actually making the word mean something other than what it's always meant. like reapropriating the word slut. women are trying to "take that word back" by asserting that women wanting to "sleep around" isn't actually a bad thing. and that women can have sex with whomever they please, how ever frequently they please, and for whatever reasons they please. which, you know, is the definition of the word slut to begin with. someone who is sexually "loose". so they're not changing the word to NOT mean "sexually loose", they're just making "sexually loose" an ok thing to be.



the whole idea falls apart with nigger though. there's no real way to make being owned by another person, a secondary species, an actual "less than" because of your DNA, an ok thing.

[The Great Hippo]

even in the "sexytimes" example there, you're still not redefining the word, or even really redefining or changing the context, you're redefining the reaction to the context/meaning. you're in fact, still relying on the original context to apply so that your new reaction to its use gives the desired effect.

I think I've been a little unclear in my language--it isn't so much 'meaning' I'm talking about, but rather the effect a given word has (its consequence). I gave a context where a word we usually define as terrible might actually have a great deal of utility for someone, and my argument is that there's nothing wrong with that.

the whole idea falls apart with nigger though. there's no real way to make being owned by another person, a secondary species, an actual "less than" because of your DNA, an ok thing.

Replace my example with a couple who rely on 'nigger' rather than 'cunt'. Are they wrong? Is it somehow 'not okay' that they do this?

In essence, my argument is that it's possible to create contexts where words are not offensive regardless of their meaning. All that is required is that, in the context given, no one is offended. You can't insert some imaginary observer who is offended in these contexts, then call the usage of that word offensive on their behalf.

[DSenette]

even in the "sexytimes" example there, you're still not redefining the word, or even really redefining or changing the context, you're redefining the reaction to the context/meaning. you're in fact, still relying on the original context to apply so that your new reaction to its use gives the desired effect.

I think I've been a little unclear in my language--it isn't so much 'meaning' I'm talking about, but rather the effect a given word has (its consequence). I gave a context where a word we usually define as terrible might actually have a great deal of utility for someone, and my argument is that there's nothing wrong with that.

the whole idea falls apart with nigger though. there's no real way to make being owned by another person, a secondary species, an actual "less than" because of your DNA, an ok thing.

Replace my example with a couple who rely on 'nigger' rather than 'cunt'. Are they wrong? Is it somehow 'not okay' that they do this?

In essence, my argument is that it's possible to create contexts where words are not offensive regardless of their meaning. All that is required is that, in the context given, no one is offended. You can't insert some imaginary observer who is offended in these contexts, then call the usage of that word offensive on their behalf.

absolutely not....you can be perfectly ok with any words you want, and any connotations, contexts, whatever, and that's all fine and good. i'm not attempting to insert an imaginary observer.

being ok with the usage of the word in any given time, doesn't actually change the connotation or context of the word itself. just your reaction to it...which is fine. that's all i'm saying. in all of your scenarios, cunt still means the same thing to the two people in the room, they're just ok with it meaning that.

i'm also not making any statements of "right" or "wrong". you could walk through central park right now calling every black guy you see a nigger, and every woman a cunt and you'd me no more right or wrong for doing it. you'd probably be a lot more bruised by the end of your walk.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with you (or a group of yous) taking a word and using it in the confines of a structure that allows everyone involved to understand the desired outcome/effect of the words usage (i.e. the use of the word cunt should be getting everyone hot and steamy instead of offendy and punchy). it's just that everyone involved has to agree on that. which means, that doesn't work out in public. which is also fine.

[sam_i_am]

Yeah, the strange thing is in situations like what iamspen is talking about. If I'm very unambiguously condeming something racist, I could say:

"That piece of shit actually thinks it's funny to yell "nigger" at people while driving down the street*"

I actually feel uncomfortable typing that out, and would feel vastly more uncomfortable speaking it aloud. Censoring it somehow does lessen the impact - but does it also lessen the impact of the condemnation? Why does it feel more correct to censor a word even when quoting someone for the explicit purpose of condemning them?

*Sadly, I actually knew someone in high school who did this on the bus.

I feel as though I have to quote this post again.

[gmalivuk]

In essence, my argument is that it's possible to create contexts where words are not offensive regardless of their meaning.

This is not, however, the same thing as being completely unproblematic in those contexts. (As an obvious example, no one at a KKK convention is offended by the profligate use of the word "nigger", either.)

[The Great Hippo]

there's absolutely nothing wrong with you (or a group of yous) taking a word and using it in the confines of a structure that allows everyone involved to understand the desired outcome/effect of the words usage (i.e. the use of the word cunt should be getting everyone hot and steamy instead of offendy and punchy). it's just that everyone involved has to agree on that. which means, that doesn't work out in public. which is also fine.

Okay. And right, that's pretty much precisely what I'm arguing, largely because I parsed RoberII's position as being in opposition to this sentiment. Basically: Words are only offensive when someone's offended by them. When we say a word is offensive, what we're really saying is 'speaking this word in most contexts means it's probably gonna offend someone'. But in contexts where the word doesn't offend anyone, it's not offensive.

EDIT:

In essence, my argument is that it's possible to create contexts where words are not offensive regardless of their meaning.

This is not, however, the same thing as being completely unproblematic in those contexts. (As an obvious example, no one at a KKK convention is offended by the profligate use of the word "nigger", either.)

Right--but I'd also argue the problematic aspect isn't that the KKK members are using 'nigger', but what that usage implies--the context. The language is a symptom. The context is what's bad.

For example, if we removed the nasty language but kept the context (a group of people who think other groups are inferior based on ethnicity), it doesn't make the KKK look any less 'bad' (if anything, it makes them look worse--because now they're hiding their ugliness with polite language).

[omgryebread]

Maybe I like being called 'cunt', though--maybe that's what turns my crank. Particularly when other guys do it. Is that okay? Am I 'allowed' to enjoy that? Or do I need to go get a woman's permission first?

That's my point: Words only carry properties as a function of their context. If a given context changes a word's nature, then that is the word's nature. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context that leads to them becoming upset, then that word is upsetting. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context they find arousing, then that word is arousing. Words can be completely redefined by the contexts in which they are spoken. We do this all the time.

There's no reason a word can't be both arousing and upsetting. Your scenario is still problematic, because it reinforces the use of the word as an insult. If two guys in private want to use the word, whatever, two guys using problematic language in private is very low on my List of Things I Care About.

If I'm there - that changes it. Fuck off, that's not your word. It's my sexuality that you're recasting as a playful term or light insult or sexual turn-on or whatever. Even if you don't mean it as degrading, if it's not the turn-on of the insult that gets you off, it's just that you really enjoy hard c's and guttural vowels, you can't use that word without bringing it's history and broader social context along with it.

EDIT: This post was kind of redundant in the light of newer posts since I started typing it, sorry. Even if I'm not there, it's problematic, it reinforces the sentiment. Maybe not offensive, but that's only because of lack of an observer.

I shouldn't try to work and post at the same time.

[The Great Hippo]

There's no reason a word can't be both arousing and upsetting. Your scenario is still problematic, because it reinforces the use of the word as an insult. If two guys in private want to use the word, whatever, two guys using problematic language in private is very low on my List of Things I Care About.

If I'm there - that changes it. Fuck off, that's not your word. It's my sexuality that you're recasting as a playful term or light insult or sexual turn-on or whatever. Even if you don't mean it as degrading, if it's not the turn-on of the insult that gets you off, it's just that you really enjoy hard c's and guttural vowels, you can't use that word without bringing it's history and broader social context along with it.

Assume I've designated this space as a place for people who enjoy being called this word. If anyone who's there doesn't enjoy being called this word, this is either because of 1) A failure at communication, or 2) A failure at enforcing boundaries (you're either trespassing or I chose a piss-poor place to do this. Or some combination of both).

The point is, if I'm acting responsibly, you should not be here. So, okay. Let's assume you're not here. Here's my problem:

What I and my partners are doing in this space is still on your List of Things I Care About.

I'm not saying you're wrong to care about things like this, but one of the troubling implications that your list carries is that you have the power to assign a negative moral value to things I and my consenting partners do even when these things have absolutely nothing to do with you. I mean, I know, you said it's low on the list, but if the list implies in any way that you have the power to declare our play wrong, I don't think it should be there. Because the only useful yardstick for whether or not something is wrong is context--and the only context I've given you is consenting adults enjoying themselves based around the use of a word. You don't like that word, and I sympathize with your reasons, and I think they're excellent reasons--but this space isn't about your likes. It's about theirs.

(If I am grokking you wrong and your List of Things I Care About doesn't actually imply you have the right to make moral judgments about what consenting adults do in the bedroom, then I apologize; that's just the sense I derived from your usage of the word 'problematic')

[sam_i_am]

There are a lot of things that you can say that are offensive. Most anything that you say politically can be offensive to someone. The fact of the matter is that you don't have the right to not be offended.

[The Great Hippo]

There are a lot of things that you can say that are offensive. Most anything that you say politically can be offensive to someone. The fact of the matter is that you don't have the right to not be offended.

Has anyone implied that you do have a right to not be offended?

[sam_i_am]

There are a lot of things that you can say that are offensive. Most anything that you say politically can be offensive to someone. The fact of the matter is that you don't have the right to not be offended.

Has anyone implied that you do have a right to not be offended?

gmalivuk,
omgryebread,
RoberII,
you to a more minor extent,
etc.

This entire thread is based off that notion

[The Great Hippo]

I see. Allow me to clarify:

I do not believe anyone has a right to not be offended. I will also go so far as to assert that anyone who believes differently doesn't understand what a 'right' is.

Now that we've gotten past that hurdle, I assume we can move on.

[Azrael]

Now that we've gotten past that hurdle, I assume we can move on.

Not until we also make a bit of a distinction: Being allowed to do something does not absolve you of being jerk for doing it. Couple that with a generic value statement that being too much of a jerk too much of the time is socially in-optimal, and one can arrive (roughly) at the notion that one shouldn't do everything that one has a right to do.

In his argument to rights, sam seems to have missed that everyone else is arguing about being an ass.

[RoberII]

I'd suggest that getting off on calling women cunts (or being called a cunt) in an erotic context is fun exactly because it's taboo, which was my point - women can enjoy being demeaned, and men can enjoy demeaning (in play).

Maybe I like being called 'cunt', though--maybe that's what turns my crank. Particularly when other guys do it. Is that okay? Am I 'allowed' to enjoy that? Or do I need to go get a woman's permission first?

That's my point: Words only carry properties as a function of their context. If a given context changes a word's nature, then that is the word's nature. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context that leads to them becoming upset, then that word is upsetting. If I call someone 'cunt' in a context they find arousing, then that word is arousing. Words can be completely redefined by the contexts in which they are spoken. We do this all the time.

The point with redneck or other words that are reappropriated is that the words change meaning, yes - but they change meaning in a response to the overall cultural meaning, that is, it's not a radical change. It's not like nerds have tried to redefine "nerd" to mean something along the lines of tough, for instance, or as if rednecks have tried to redefine redneck to mean sophisticated - rather, in both cases the negative connotations have been turned into positive signifiers.

This sounds like hair-splitting. Why couldn't someone redefine redneck to mean something academically sophisticated?

Largely, what you're talking about here is based on the fact that there's some coincidental overlap between the negative labels we apply to people and the actual qualities which define them. I.e., when we apply negative labels, those negative labels usually include an actual observed property.

Alright, in order:
1, of course you are allowed to do that. But for someone to want to be called a cunt (again, assuming we aren't talking about magical phonemes), implies that what they really like is being denigrated with regards to their masculinity in some way - to be called feminine, a slut, etc etc etc. Which is fine, I guess, but it's not a redefinition or a change of context - the word still means the same things it did before. And again, it reinforces the sentiment, as has been mentioned (which is also why 'ironic' racism is usually highly problematic)

2: I guess the reactions to (and appropriateness of?) a word might change with context, but to say that the context (as in, the immediate context) is all that matters seems too simple, and ignores the relationship between the immediate context and society at large. Things are more complex than that.

3: I think there's a huge difference between trying to put a positive spin on an existing word and then completely redefining it. For one thing, I can't think of a real-life example of the latter - that's not how language works. People don't just start to use a term in a completely novel way, because that would make their communication incomprehensible to outsiders. Granted - that can be a point for some forms of language (cant, highly technical jargon, children's games), but MOST communication isn't meant to work like that. Mostly, language evolves through wordplay, subtle shifts of meaning, etc etc etc.

PS
As for offense, and I thought I'd spelled this out, but I can't find it - I'm not talking about people being offended - I'm talking about people being hurt, which is an entirely different thing. But yeah, I don't think people have a right not to be offended. But I don't think you have a right to hurt other people either, at least not deliberately. But such questions are tricky, especially when it comes to implementation, and just in case anyone had any doubt: Yay free speech. I'm all for it. Even for the nazis and amnesty international and the communists and the capitalists and the rich and the poor and lawyers and the criminals. Did I cover everyone? Good.

Of course, the question of whether or not people have a right not to be offended is mostly as to whether or not words ARE offensive, and to whether or not we SHOULD offend people. When did we, as a society, decide to couch all ethical question in terms of 'rights'? Rights are the LEAST useful measure for deciding how to act, though they're pretty useful for deciding on what we can forbid.

[The Great Hippo]

Not until we also make a bit of a caveat: Being allowed to do something does not absolve you of being jerk for doing it. Couple that with a general value statement that being too much of a jerk too much of the time is socially inoptimal, and one can arrive (roughly) at the notion that one shouldn't do everything that one has a right to do.

Fair enough, and let me add that if this is what sam_i_am means by a right, then sam_i_am occupies the group I am talking about when I describe people who don't understand what 'rights' are.

1, of course you are allowed to do that. But for someone to want to be called a cunt (again, assuming we aren't talking about magical phonemes), implies that what they really like is being denigrated with regards to their masculinity in some way - to be called feminine, a slut, etc etc etc. Which is fine, I guess, but it's not a redefinition or a change of context - the word still means the same things it did before. And again, it reinforces the sentiment, as has been mentioned (which is also why 'ironic' racism is usually highly problematic)

2: I guess the reactions to (and appropriateness of?) a word might change with context, but to say that the context (as in, the immediate context) is all that matters seems too simple, and ignores the relationship between the immediate context and society at large. Things are more complex than that.

Things might be more complex than that, but that complexity in no way implies a 'wrongness' when I use these words in the context I am describing.

I'm not sold on the notion that a word reinforces a sentiment regardless of the context in which it's used, because that implies that words are magical things that always reinforce the same things, and I don't believe in magical things. Even if you clarify that these words reinforce a sentiment only in certain situations, I don't think it's possible (or useful) to clarify what those situations are very deeply. What does convincing me that my usage of a word in the bedroom reinforces sexism accomplish beyond encouraging me to feel guilty about the words I use in the bedroom? If being 'problematic' doesn't imply that an action should be ceased or modified, why define something as problematic? To make some people feel worse? To make some people feel better?

As for offense, and I thought I'd spelled this out, but I can't find it - I'm not talking about people being offended - I'm talking about people being hurt, which is an entirely different thing. But yeah, I don't think people have a right not to be offended. But I don't think you have a right to hurt other people either, at least not deliberately. But such questions are tricky, especially when it comes to implementation, and just in case anyone had any doubt: Yay free speech. I'm all for it. Even for the nazis and amnesty international and the communists and the capitalists and the rich and the poor and lawyers and the criminals. Did I cover everyone? Good.

Of course, the question of whether or not people have a right not to be offended is mostly as to whether or not words ARE offensive, and to whether or not we SHOULD offend people. When did we, as a society, decide to couch all ethical question in terms of 'rights'? Rights are the LEAST useful measure for deciding how to act, though they're pretty useful for deciding on what we can forbid.

I agree on the matter of rights, although I would clarify that I don't see much functional difference between being offended or being hurt. The two strike me as interchangeable--maybe we can clarify some difference, but if someone claims my words emotionally hurt them--or claims that my words offended them--my behavior is still the same: I stop using those words around them.

[omgryebread]

There's no reason a word can't be both arousing and upsetting. Your scenario is still problematic, because it reinforces the use of the word as an insult. If two guys in private want to use the word, whatever, two guys using problematic language in private is very low on my List of Things I Care About.

If I'm there - that changes it. Fuck off, that's not your word. It's my sexuality that you're recasting as a playful term or light insult or sexual turn-on or whatever. Even if you don't mean it as degrading, if it's not the turn-on of the insult that gets you off, it's just that you really enjoy hard c's and guttural vowels, you can't use that word without bringing it's history and broader social context along with it.

Assume I've designated this space as a place for people who enjoy being called this word. If anyone who's there doesn't enjoy being called this word, this is either because of 1) A failure at communication, or 2) A failure at enforcing boundaries (you're either trespassing or I chose a piss-poor place to do this. Or some combination of both).

The point is, if I'm acting responsibly, you should not be here. So, okay. Let's assume you're not here. Here's my problem:

What I and my partners are doing in this space is still on your List of Things I Care About.

I'm not saying you're wrong to care about things like this, but one of the troubling implications that your list carries is that you have the power to assign a negative moral value to things I and my consenting partners do even when these things have absolutely nothing to do with you. I mean, I know, you said it's low on the list, but if the list implies in any way that you have the power to declare our play wrong, I don't think it should be there. Because the only useful yardstick for whether or not something is wrong is context--and the only context I've given you is consenting adults enjoying themselves based around the use of a word. You don't like that word, and I sympathize with your reasons, and I think they're excellent reasons--but this space isn't about your likes. It's about theirs.

(If I am grokking you wrong and your List of Things I Care About doesn't actually imply you have the right to make moral judgments about what consenting adults do in the bedroom, then I apologize; that's just the sense I derived from your usage of the word 'problematic')

I'm not quite sure what a "power to assign a negative moral value to things" is exactly. My power is to say "I don't like this and would prefer people not do it", which is really only the same power anyone has with murder or whatever else they find morally suspect.

The reason it's still on my list of things to care about is because that word invariably carries with it the broader social context of using a woman's genitals as an insult. Their use of it isn't enough to say they're sexist, because yeah, they just enjoy it, it doesn't necessarily follow that they think being female is a bad thing. Yet their usage of language implies exactly that: that being female is a bad thing.

Which is why it's not sexist, it's problematic. Not something to be outright rejected, but something that, in an ideal society, wouldn't exist. I don't think the way past homophobia is to ban homophobic lyrics in music, but I think once homophobia is gone, the lyrics will go with it. Likewise, barring or even discouraging men from using the word cunt privately isn't needed or even desirable, but once society stops viewing women and their sexuality as something bad, that private use of the word won't exist.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm not quite sure what a "power to assign a negative moral value to things" is exactly. My power is to say "I don't like this and would prefer people not do it", which is really only the same power anyone has with murder or whatever else they find morally suspect.

The distinction is between "I don't like this and would prefer people not do it" and "This is wrong and people shouldn't do it". To me, the first makes it clear how you feel, and the second makes it clear how other people should feel. I'm with you on the first, but I oppose the second.

Which is why it's not sexist, it's problematic. Not something to be outright rejected, but something that, in an ideal society, wouldn't exist. I don't think the way past homophobia is to ban homophobic lyrics in music, but I think once homophobia is gone, the lyrics will go with it. Likewise, barring or even discouraging men from using the word cunt privately isn't needed or even desirable, but once society stops viewing women and their sexuality as something bad, that private use of the word won't exist.

I think herein lies a very important distinction: Should we exist in a society where women and their sexuality are not viewed as a resource, or as something bad, I don't know if the word would disappear--but I do know that its usage would largely cease to matter. The hypothetical I gave probably wouldn't matter to you at all if we lived in such a society, right? Similarly, living in a society free of homophobia might cause homophobic lyrics to disappear--I don't know. But I do know that homophobic lyrics wouldn't cause much harm. I suspect that, given such a context, we wouldn't really care.

Because it's the context that matters, not the language. Remove the context, and the language loses its power. And I think that's an important feature of my approach: 'Bad' language concerns me much less than bad context, and I want to avoid moral judgments based on the first alone.

EDIT: Let me give some examples: Who cares about 'honkie' as a racial slur? Why doesn't it cause the same emotional distress as the words we're talking about? Because of our context--it's a word that carries no power. Should we exist in some sort of bizarro racial world (where black people had systematically enslaved white people in the Americas), suddenly we can imagine the word being a terrible thing. Another example: 'Pig', toward men. Or 'dick'. Why isn't this a troubling word? Again--because there is no context that creates that power. This is my point--that when we drastically change contexts, these words can do different things, and it should be the context we're looking at when we describe these things as morally unjust--not the words themselves. New contexts completely change the power and impact that these words have.

[induction]

...that word invariably carries with it the broader social context of using a woman's genitals as an insult. Their use of it isn't enough to say they're sexist, because yeah, they just enjoy it, it doesn't necessarily follow that they think being female is a bad thing. Yet their usage of language implies exactly that: that being female is a bad thing.
...
Likewise, barring or even discouraging men from using the word cunt privately isn't needed or even desirable, but once society stops viewing women and their sexuality as something bad, that private use of the word won't exist.

I'm not sure about this part. Does using dick (cock, prick, pecker, tool, dork, etc.) as an insult imply that being male is a bad thing?

I can see where you're coming from, as I am usually very uncomfortable with calling any female 'cunt' because it feels like I am denigrating femaleness. But when I spill coffee on myself, or burn myself with a soldering iron, or get cut off in traffic, it feels good to vent my frustration by shouting "you fucking cunt!", at the coffee stain, soldering iron, offending car (not the driver, I usually feel ashamed after I remember that the car is being driven by someone and I just insulted them, but I only do it when the windows are closed and nobody will hear me anyway), or mostly just myself. The word is just phonetically perfect for swearing.

My previous favorites were "jesus-motherfucking-christ!" and "god-motherfucking-dammit!", in which the inherent blasphemy seems to make them much more satisfying. So maybe the metric of a good swear word is not that it refers to something bad, but that it refers to topics that are generally excluded from polite conversation.

Edit: or maybe I'm failing to delineate between swearing and insulting, nevermind.