Nigger-Cunt Hypothesis

[Steersman]

The following “nigger-cunt hypothesis” [NCH] is advanced, in part, to evaluate or elucidate some of the problematic aspects of and reasons behind identity politics, particularly those encompassing charges of either racism or sexism that may follow from the use of those particular slurs. Part of that process is to consider the paper “The Semantics of Slurs” by Adam Croom which has some relevance to the question of whether those charges necessarily have any validity. Because many have argued that the use of “nigger”, as an epithet, is necessarily racist while insisting that the use of “cunt” is not sexist, and because many others, mostly feminists of one stripe or another, have insisted the use of “cunt” is necessarily sexist, there seems some value in summarizing that conundrum, that inconsistency, in an analogy. Specifically, the NCH is that “cunt is to sexism as nigger is to racism”. Or, more formally, “cunt:sexism :: nigger:racism”.

And that analogy seems to support at least two different constructions depending on the relationship between the features in the target and source referred to in the analogy, specifically: if “cunt” is necessarily sexist then “nigger” is necessarily racist, and, if “cunt” isn’t necessarily sexist then “nigger” isn’t necessarily racist. And the reasons that support the contention that those two cases – and similar ones such as “faggot:sexism” and “kike:racism” – are analogous are a set of similar features and processes in each. Specifically, each of the corresponding [classical?] classes – i.e., women, blacks, homosexuals, Jews – are characterized by all members having one or more defining attributes in common – vaginas in the case of the slur “cunt”, black skin in the case of “nigger”, and homosexuality in the case of “faggot”. Also, each of the epithets is defined as being applicable to a single individual: “cunt: a disparaging term for a woman; nigger: a disparaging term for a black person; faggot: a disparaging term for a gay man”. Further, the process in each case is to ascribe or connect a pejorative, and defining, connotation to each of the words.

However, the problematic aspect and process in each case, part of the phenomenon of identifying with those we share attributes and features with, is the unwarranted or at least highly questionable inference on the part of various listeners that, because other members of the class possess the same defining attribute, the speaker is asserting that those other members are also being tagged with the same pejorative connotation. But Croom’s paper shows that – at least for the classes blacks and homosexuals, and for speakers in the in-group – such epithets do not necessarily justify the charges of racism or sexism, respectively. And as the salient feature in those cases is that the in-group speaker is clearly differentiating between the entire group and a subset of it – i.e., those who are “degrading their communities – one might argue, mutatis mutandis, that speakers in the out-group might reasonably use the same epithets provided they differentiate in a similar manner.

Consequently, the question highlighted by the analogy underlying the NCH is whether the epithet – in all cases – is targeting an entire group, in which case the charge of sexism or racism holds water, or whether it is only targeting those who are “degrading their communities” in some way, in which cases the charges don’t hold. Regardless of who uses those epithets.

[Kirbmarc]

A couple of things: first I'm going to remove the wikipedia link to "analogy" since I trust that everyone who is involved in this conversation is guaranteed to know what an analogy is.

Second, it is still rather long. I think it can be easily trimmed without losing much.

Here's my proposal:

The “nigger-cunt hypothesis” [NCH] evaluates whether charges of either racism or sexism may follow from the use of those two particular slurs. The NCH establishes the analogy "“cunt is to sexism as nigger is to racism”: if “cunt” is necessarily sexist then “nigger” is necessarily racist, and, if “cunt” isn’t necessarily sexist then “nigger” isn’t necessarily racist. The NCH argues that those two terms are analogous due to set of similar features, i.e. characterizing their referents by having defining attributes in common – vaginas in the case of the slur “cunt”, black skin in the case of “nigger” and also also acquiring a pejorative connotation for singular individuals of the classes considered prototypical targets (women and African Americans).

The NCH uses the conclusions of the paper “The Semantics of Slurs” by Adam Croom to argue that the use of “nigger” as an epithet does not necessarily justify the charge of racism, since in-group speakers of the prototypical target have been shown to assign to this slur a derogatory but not racist meaning.

Consequently, the NCH questions whether the epithets "cunt" and "nigger" are targeting an entire group, in which case the NCH says that the charges of racism and sexism hold water, or whether they are only targeting some specific members of the prototypical target group, in which cases according to the NCH the charges don’t hold. The NCH considers this second conclusion context-independent and more specifically independent by the status of who uses those epithets, whether they engage in reappropriation of the epithets as members of the in-group or use those epithets in a derogatory but not necessarily racist or sexist as members of the out-group."

Much more concise.

[Kirbmarc]

Here's the text of the email I'm sending:

"Dear Sir,

I am writing to ask for some clarification about your 2014 paper "The Semantics of Slurs: a refutation of pure expressivism", which has recently been a point of contention in a debate in which I have taken part.

The opposite side in this debate has used your paper to argue for a position which they defined as "the Nigger-Cunt Hypothesis".

I report here a summary of their position:

[summary, possibly the one I've written in the previous post if that's OK with you]

I should be most grateful if you could clarify whether your paper can used to justify this position or whether (as I have argued) your paper's approach to slurs does not justify a context-independent use of the slur "nigger" in a non-racist fashion but only provides a semantic explanation for the phenomenon of reappropriation of this slur.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

[my name]"

If you're OK with the text of this email I will send it ASAP and wait for a reply.

[Steersman]

Here's the text of the email I'm sending:

"Dear Sir,

I am writing to ask for some clarification about your 2014 paper "The Semantics of Slurs: a refutation of pure expressivism", which has recently been a point of contention in a debate in which I have taken part.

The opposite side in this debate has used your paper to argue for a position which they defined as "the Nigger-Cunt Hypothesis".

I report here a summary of their position:

[summary, possibly the one I've written in the previous post if that's OK with you]

I should be most grateful if you could clarify whether your paper can used to justify this position or whether (as I have argued) your paper's approach to slurs does not justify a context-independent use of the slur "nigger" in a non-racist fashion but only provides a semantic explanation for the phenomenon of reappropriation of this slur.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

[my name]"

If you're OK with the text of this email I will send it ASAP and wait for a reply.

Seems reasonable, although I think the last sentence of your summary is a little vague, obscure or redundant. A suggested modification:

The NCH considers this second conclusion context-independent and more specifically independent [of] the status of who uses those epithets, whether they engage in reappropriation of the epithets as members of the in-group, or use those epithets in a derogatory but not categorical or blanket way as members of the out-group.

BTW, as maybe a minor point, the title of Croom’s paper is “The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism”. Might be a bit of a sore point if you mislabel it. :-)

Thanks for following up on this.

[Kirbmarc]

Here's the text of the email I'm sending:

"Dear Sir,

I am writing to ask for some clarification about your 2014 paper "The Semantics of Slurs: a refutation of pure expressivism", which has recently been a point of contention in a debate in which I have taken part.

The opposite side in this debate has used your paper to argue for a position which they defined as "the Nigger-Cunt Hypothesis".

I report here a summary of their position:

[summary, possibly the one I've written in the previous post if that's OK with you]

I should be most grateful if you could clarify whether your paper can used to justify this position or whether (as I have argued) your paper's approach to slurs does not justify a context-independent use of the slur "nigger" in a non-racist fashion but only provides a semantic explanation for the phenomenon of reappropriation of this slur.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

[my name]"

If you're OK with the text of this email I will send it ASAP and wait for a reply.

Seems reasonable, although I think the last sentence of your summary is a little vague, obscure or redundant. A suggested modification:

The NCH considers this second conclusion context-independent and more specifically independent [of] the status of who uses those epithets, whether they engage in reappropriation of the epithets as members of the in-group, or use those epithets in a derogatory but not categorical or blanket way as members of the out-group.

BTW, as maybe a minor point, the title of Croom’s paper is “The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism”. Might be a bit of a sore point if you mislabel it. :-)

Thanks for following up on this.

I've corrected the summary as you suggested. As for the title of the paper, I had confused this article with this article. Thanks for for pointing it out.

[Kirbmarc]

Evidence that the email has been sent. Waiting for Croom's reply:

http://i60.tinypic.com/14dnkie.png

[Steersman]

Evidence that the email has been sent. Waiting for Croom's reply:

[.img]http://i60.tinypic.com/14dnkie.png[/img]

Thanks.

[Kirbmarc]

From the main thread:

For instance, while I don't want to belabour the point here in this thread - we may want to respond to each other and anyone else interested in the other thread by copying and pasting there - I think you're ignoring the fact that many feminists feel the same way about "cunt" as many blacks, and others, feel about "nigger", that you're "privileging" the latter group at the expense of the former.

I'm not ignoring this fact. I'm simply pointing out that the very long history of racist uses of "nigger" and the absence of a significant history of sexist uses of "cunt" (which is evident in the Wikipedia page I've quoted from) both play a significant role in the different approaches of society to those two terms.

The radical feminists you refer to (Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon and others) are fundamentally dishonest: they are manufacturing the problem of the inherent sexism of "cunt" where there is historically little to no evidence of this inherent sexism.

On the other hand there's a huge amount of evidence of historic racist uses of "nigger" and the black community and society at large are reacting to this historical context.

The position that "cunt" is necessarily a sexist slur when used by men is a fringe one, while the position that "nigger" is necessarily a racist slur when used by white people is a socially accepted one. The reason for this different approach isn't merely "identity politics" but a completely different history of uses for those two words which has shaped their meaning.

Croom's paper reports Quine's sentence that "language is a social act". As such it cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, with a priori analogies but according to how society reacts to it. Language is, at least in part, a social construct.

[Steersman]

From the main thread:

For instance, while I don't want to belabour the point here in this thread - we may want to respond to each other and anyone else interested in the other thread by copying and pasting there - I think you're ignoring the fact that many feminists feel the same way about "cunt" as many blacks, and others, feel about "nigger", that you're "privileging" the latter group at the expense of the former.

I'm not ignoring this fact. I'm simply pointing out that the very long history of racist uses of "nigger" and the absence of a significant history of sexist uses of "cunt" (which is evident in the Wikipedia page I've quoted from) both play a significant role in the different approaches of society to those two terms.

The radical feminists you refer to (Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon and others) are fundamentally dishonest: they are manufacturing the problem of the inherent sexism of "cunt" where there is historically little to no evidence of this inherent sexism.

On the other hand there's a huge amount of evidence of historic racist uses of "nigger" and the black community and society at large are reacting to this historical context.

The position that "cunt" is necessarily a sexist slur when used by men is a fringe one, while the position that "nigger" is necessarily a racist slur when used by white people is a socially accepted one. The reason for this different approach isn't merely "identity politics" but a completely different history of uses for those two words which has shaped their meaning.

And that I think is the crux of the problem with your position: that a position might be a fringe one says absolutely nothing about whether it is a right one or correct or not. Whether the effect is small or not says absolutely nothing about the causes behind it; you are, apparently, simply accepting the statistical measures of the frequency of events as something that somehow changes the mechanisms that led to the events themselves.

[Kirbmarc]

And that I think is the crux of the problem with your position: that a position might be a fringe one says absolutely nothing about whether it is a right one or correct or not. Whether the effect is small or not says absolutely nothing about the causes behind it; you are, apparently, simply accepting the statistical measures of the frequency of events as something that somehow changes the mechanisms that led to the events themselves.

Who decides what is acceptable or not in society, if not society itself?

Languages are social constructs, but you're approaching them as if they were scientific theories about the nature of reality. That I think is the crux of the problem with your position: you're ignoring social and historic context and what to decide how language should be shaped according to abstract theories.

You're basically arguing for an ideological view of language, similar to the radfems' attempts to ban or change the meaning of certain words.

[Steersman]

And that I think is the crux of the problem with your position: that a position might be a fringe one says absolutely nothing about whether it is a right one or correct or not. Whether the effect is small or not says absolutely nothing about the causes behind it; you are, apparently, simply accepting the statistical measures of the frequency of events as something that somehow changes the mechanisms that led to the events themselves.

Who decides what is acceptable or not in society, if not society itself?

Languages are social constructs, but you're approaching them as if they were scientific theories about the nature of reality. That I think is the crux of the problem with your position: you're ignoring social and historic context and what to decide how language should be shaped according to abstract theories.

You're basically arguing for an ideological view of language, similar to the radfems' attempts to ban or change the meaning of certain words.

Yes, I quite agree that it is ultimately (?) society which decides “what is acceptable or not” – and that it has to bear the responsibility for that decision, for that choice.

However, I think you’re ignoring the fact that we have also decided what it is that, for example, constitutes racism, and which should constitute the fundamental axiom or starting point:

rac•ism (rā′sĭz′əm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

And Chris Rock’s routine, and his use of “niggah”, is clearly not “discriminating based on race”, but on whether they have “degraded the black community through laziness and stupidity”. And likewise with any of the out-group who are also clearly not discriminating based on race, but on whether they are degrading some community by obnoxious or criminal behaviour.

My point, and my use of at least some of Croom’s arguments (I question some of them), is that his argument clearly shows that the epithet is not joined at the hip with racism, it is not an intrinsic feature or aspect of the word – as bachelor defined as an unmarried man is – but is dependent on context. And that some might erroneously make that mental error says diddly-squat about whether anyone else should be obliged to follow them over that particular cliff.

[John Greg]

Thanks for taking this shit out of the regular forum.

[Steersman]

Thanks for taking this shit out of the regular forum.

Thanks for your supportive characterization. While you and many others might think this is a trivial issue, I think it constitutes or entails a rather significant, seminal, and problematic bone of contention over the reasonable and justified use and definition of various words. As my signature suggests.

[James Caruthers]

If Croom supports the nigger-cunt steerspothesis, does that mean Steersman will finally read Novum Organum?

[Kirbmarc]

If Croom supports the nigger-cunt steerspothesis, does that mean Steersman will finally read Novum Organum?

If he doesn't support it Steersman will hopefully stop to say that his paper supports his theory.

[Steersman]

If Croom supports the nigger-cunt steerspothesis, does that mean Steersman will finally read Novum Organum?

Why would I waste my time doing that when I have any number of better uses for it? Particularly when many others, whose opinions I value much more than yours – at least on the Novum Organum, have already “enacted the labour” to separate the no doubt tedious chaff from the lambent if not numinous wheat therein? So to speak.

[Steersman]

If Croom supports the nigger-cunt steerspothesis, does that mean Steersman will finally read Novum Organum?

If he doesn't support it Steersman will hopefully stop to say that his paper supports his theory.

Well, it seems rather clear that his paper does in fact support at least some aspects of my theory, my hypothesis, i.e., that the use of epithets such as “nigger”, “faggot”, and “kike”, at least when used by members of the in-group, doesn’t necessarily justify the accusation of either racism or sexism. And if that is the case for members of the in-group then one might reasonably ask why that shouldn’t also apply to members of the out-group – particularly when it is manifestly obvious that they also are only targeting those individuals, and not the entire class, who happen to be “degrading their communities” in one way or another.

As mentioned earlier, which I see you haven’t yet responded to, “you” can’t really credibly insist on the charge of racism or sexism or bigotry unless the epithets clearly and unambigously support or promote the contention that one race, sex, or class is “superior to others”, or that one is engaging in “discrimination or prejudice based on” those groups. That some might see an attack on one member of a group as attacking all members therein, and thereby conclude racism or sexism, provides no justification, in itself, that others are obliged to accede to that mis-perception. Which, as mentioned, is arguably the rather problematic basis for the worst aspects of identity politics.

[Kirbmarc]

And if that is the case for members of the in-group then one might reasonably ask why that shouldn’t also apply to members of the out-group – particularly when it is manifestly obvious that they also are only targeting those individuals, and not the entire class, who happen to be “degrading their communities” in one way or another.

Because the word has been so frequently used by members of the out-group to target all individuals of the in-group that the pragmatic inference that the in-group makes is that the word is always racist when used by members of the out-group.

It's all a matter of historical and social contexts, which you ignore as "irrelevant", when actually pragmatic inferences on meaning are socially constructed.

Do you want to change society? You're free to do it, but using articles which actually don't support your thesis is intellectually dishonest.

[Steersman]

And if that is the case for members of the in-group then one might reasonably ask why that shouldn’t also apply to members of the out-group – particularly when it is manifestly obvious that they also are only targeting those individuals, and not the entire class, who happen to be “degrading their communities” in one way or another.

Because the word has been so frequently used by members of the out-group to target all individuals of the in-group that the pragmatic inference that the in-group makes is that the word is always racist when used by members of the out-group.

That most individuals who use a given epithet might be using it in a way that is racist is no justification to insist that every one does so. The problem of induction: one might reasonably say, absent a detailed analysis, that there's a high probability that a given use so qualifies. But not at all justified to insist that that is always the case, particularly when the user has made clear efforts to differentiate between the part and the whole.

It's all a matter of historical and social contexts, which you ignore as "irrelevant", when actually pragmatic inferences on meaning are socially constructed.

And people have "socially constructed" the ideas that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that blacks should always sit at the back of the bus: the process doesn't make the conclusion valid, particularly if one starts from untenable or bogus premises or axioms. Garbage in, garbage out.

Do you want to change society? You're free to do it, but using articles which actually don't support your thesis is intellectually dishonest.

Yea, I do want to change society. And I think many if not most here have a similar perspective or objective. And I haven't been claiming that Croom's paper entirely supports my thesis, only a part, albeit an integral part, of it - like the multiple pillars supporting a multi-span bridge. But seems rather intellectually dishonest to ignore that clear and frequent differentiation.

[Kirbmarc]

Yea, I do want to change society. And I think many if not most here have a similar perspective or objective. And I haven't been claiming that Croom's paper entirely supports my thesis, only a part, albeit an integral part, of it - like the multiple pillars supporting a multi-span bridge. But seems rather intellectually dishonest to ignore that clear and frequent differentiation.

OK. If you really think it's an incredible injustice that you or other "white people" can't use "nigger" in a socially acceptable way, I can't fault your attempts to prove your point (although I can easily point out the reasons why your request basically ignores the historical widespread use of "nigger" as a mean to denigrate black people to make a spurious claim of "reverse racism" for not being socially allowed to use a word).

Just be clear about your intent instead or trying to build an "analogy" between "nigger" and "cunt" which isn't supported by social data but only by your ideology of abstract "fairness".

[CuntajusRationality]

If Croom supports the nigger-cunt steerspothesis, does that mean Steersman will finally read Novum Organum?

If he doesn't support it Steersman will hopefully stop to say that his paper supports his theory.

Well, it seems rather clear that his paper does in fact support at least some aspects of my theory, my hypothesis, i.e., that the use of epithets such as “nigger”, “faggot”, and “kike”, at least when used by members of the in-group, doesn’t necessarily justify the accusation of either racism or sexism.

I would bet my car that nobody here ever disagreed with this particular point. If I'm wrong I'd be interested in seeing you quote someone doing just that. Otherwise, you are setting the bar pretty low here?

And if that is the case for members of the in-group then one might reasonably ask why that shouldn’t also apply to members of the out-group – particularly when it is manifestly obvious that they also are only targeting those individuals, and not the entire class, who happen to be “degrading their communities” in one way or another.

I'm not a linguist by any stretch, but I would say that one might reasonably answer: because you just made that up.

The [it's only a racial epithet if applied to an entire class] seems to be something that you made up and repeatedly assert as if it is or should be true. Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing you post anything from Croom or anyone else, directly and explicitly supporting this one crucial piece of your theory. It sounds to me like an arbitrary criterion that is not recognized nor shared by anyone else and it seems you have not presented an argument of your own that is sufficiently convincing to sway even one person to your side.

But to answer your question (again, as a non-expert here)... One obvious reason it wouldn't apply to out-group usage is because the very things that make it acceptable in the context of in-group usage (namely, re-appropriation, plus things like higher social cohesion, higher levels of familiarity and trust, more shared history, etc.) are absent in the out-group usage. It's a bit like asking: well, if one tends to get wet in the rain, one might reasonably ask why one doesn't get wet when it's not raining. Forgive the clumsy analogy but I think you can see the point I'm trying to make.

Let me ask you this: what would it take to convince you that you are wrong on this theory? Specifically what type of evidence would change your mind?

[Steersman]

[.quote="James Caruthers"]If Croom supports the nigger-cunt steerspothesis, does that mean Steersman will finally read Novum Organum?[/.quote]

If he doesn't support it Steersman will hopefully stop to say that his paper supports his theory.

Well, it seems rather clear that his paper does in fact support at least some aspects of my theory, my hypothesis, i.e., that the use of epithets such as “nigger”, “faggot”, and “kike”, at least when used by members of the in-group, doesn’t necessarily justify the accusation of either racism or sexism.

I would bet my car that nobody here ever disagreed with this particular point. If I'm wrong I'd be interested in seeing you quote someone doing just that. Otherwise, you are setting the bar pretty low here?

The way Kirbmarc phrased it seemed tantamount to insisting that Croom’s paper does not support any part of my thesis. Which I thought was a little disingenuous at best since I merely quoted and summarized a salient conclusion of Croom’s – that the use of a supposedly sexist or racist epithet by members of the corresponding in-groups don’t qualify as such. And used it as an integral part of my thesis.

It is maybe a little ambiguous, but if a thesis relies on a proof that several things are all true – that A is true AND that B is true AND that C is true – then I don’t see that it is unreasonable to say that someone supports “some aspects of the theory” if they have, in effect, proven that A is true.

And if that is the case for members of the in-group then one might reasonably ask why that shouldn’t also apply to members of the out-group – particularly when it is manifestly obvious that they also are only targeting those individuals, and not the entire class, who happen to be “degrading their communities” in one way or another.

I'm not a linguist by any stretch, but I would say that one might reasonably answer: because you just made that up.

The [it's only a racial epithet if applied to an entire class] seems to be something that you made up and repeatedly assert as if it is or should be true. Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing you post anything from Croom or anyone else, directly and explicitly supporting this one crucial piece of your theory. It sounds to me like an arbitrary criterion that is not recognized nor shared by anyone else and it seems you have not presented an argument of your own that is sufficiently convincing to sway even one person to your side.

I’m not a linguist either, although I certainly find it a fascinating field of study. And one that I think has some particular relevance and value in these types of issues. Although not necessarily the deciding one as I think other aspects, notably cognitive science, are at least equally important if not more so.

But while I think it is probably more accurate to say “it’s only a [racist] epithet if applied to an entire class”, I quite agree with you that it is a “crucial piece of my theory” – item B, so to speak. And while Croom hasn’t, as far as I know, said anything in support of that item, I kind of think that the basic definitions for both racism and race do precisely that:

rac•ism (rā′sĭz′əm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

race (rās)
n.
1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. ….

So my interpretation is that because “race” is the entire group – composed of every person who exhibits the defining attribute – the use of a given epithet can’t be construed as being racist unless it clearly and unambiguously asserts that every member of the group is inferior, in some way, to every member of some other race. Or unless it’s clear that the race of the person is the only reason for the criticism implied by the use of the epithet. And I think Croom’s paper clearly shows, in Chris Rock’s use of the term, that such epithets can be used to convey criticisms for reasons other than simply race or class.

But to answer your question (again, as a non-expert here)... One obvious reason it wouldn't apply to out-group usage is because the very things that make it acceptable in the context of in-group usage (namely, re-appropriation, plus things like higher social cohesion, higher levels of familiarity and trust, more shared history, etc.) are absent in the out-group usage. It's a bit like asking: well, if one tends to get wet in the rain, one might reasonably ask why one doesn't get wet when it's not raining. Forgive the clumsy analogy but I think you can see the point I'm trying to make.

Seems like a reasonable analogy to me. Or at least a well-formed kick-at-the-kitty. However, I would argue, and have argued, that the aspects you described – the trust, the shared history, etc. – aren’t sufficiently significant to detract measurably from the similarities. Kind of like arguing that a 3-4-5 triangle isn’t analogous to a 9-12-15 one because the first is cut out of plastic and the second is drawn in the sand. But, more particularly, consider if I had told the following Jewish joke:

What is a moral quandry for a Jew? A sign in a butcher’s window saying, “free hams”

Which is of course based on the well-known stereotypes that Jews can’t eat pork, and that they are heavily, more or less, motivated only by financial concerns - and to a fault, e.g., Shylock.

Now that particular joke was told not long ago by Jerry Coyne, a secular Jew but, nonetheless, a Jew. So, by your criteria, he wasn’t guilty of racism in telling that joke because he has some “shared history”, some “higher levels of trust” with other Jews that would absolve him of that crime. But, by the same criteria, it would appear that you, and Kirbmarc among others, would think that my telling of it would be a case of racism. However, my argument is that because the joke clearly refers only to a single Jew – “a moral quandry to a Jew” – it is not claiming that all Jews exhibit the supposedly odious characteristics described or suggested. And is therefore not asserting that the entire race is “inferior” for that fault or moral failing. Therefore not racist. Now, if I had said, “what is a moral quandry for all Jews?” then I think the charge of racism would quite reasonably hold.

Takes some effort to differentiate between those aspects, those nuances. But I think it is quite important to do so – and for any number of reasons.

Let me ask you this: what would it take to convince you that you are wrong on this theory? Specifically what type of evidence would change your mind?

Good question. And one I’ve given some thought to before now. Don’t know if you’ve looked at the Wikipedia article on analogies, but it starts off with a picture of Rutherford’s model of the atom which “made an analogy between the atom and the solar system”. Which was also a reasonable kick-at-the-kitty, a reasonable first approximation. However, it was eventually found to be flawed because it turned out there were quantum level effects that were significant at the level of the atom, but not so for the solar system – though the details are sort of outside my salary range.

So, likewise, I would be convinced my theory, my hypothesis, was wrong if someone could prove that there were, likewise, significant features or factors that were present in one case but not in the other. And, as mentioned, I really don’t think that issues of “trust” or “shared history” really qualify, that they are anything more than peripheral aspects if not red herrings. Seems to me that, in each case, the underlying mechanism or process is virtually identical: a biological feature [genitalia, skin colour, sexual proclivities] is tagged or characterized with a pejorative appellation [cunt, nigger, faggot] which is frequently or periodically directed at various individuals. But because many people in the corresponding classes [women, blacks, males] share the same features [vaginas, black skin, homosexuality], many people, both inside and outside the in-groups, apparently infer that the same pejorative appellation is also directed at all members of those classes. Which, if it were true that the epithets were directed at all members, would of course qualify as sexism or racism.

And, so far, no one has yet provided any evidence that those epithets, and similar ones, are necessarily or intrinsically so directed – even in cases where there is a clear effort to differentiate between the individual and the group.

[Kirbmarc]

The way Kirbmarc phrased it seemed tantamount to insisting that Croom’s paper does not support any part of my thesis. Which I thought was a little disingenuous at best since I merely quoted and summarized a salient conclusion of Croom’s – that the use of a supposedly sexist or racist epithet by members of the corresponding in-groups don’t qualify as such. And used it as an integral part of my thesis.

THAT'S NOT TRUE. I explicitly pointed out that Croom's paper only supports one part of your theory in the previous posts. But yes if he doesn't support the rest of it you should accept this fact and stop claiming that Croom's paper is evidence for your theory. It doesn't. It only supports one part of it, and not even the most important one.

Don't put words in other people's mouth, and read my posts before replying to them.

It is maybe a little ambiguous, but if a thesis relies on a proof that several things are all true – that A is true AND that B is true AND that C is true – then I don’t see that it is unreasonable to say that someone supports “some aspects of the theory” if they have, in effect, proven that A is true.

Some evidence which supports evolution by natural selection also supports some parts of the Lamarckist theory, but it'd be highly disingenuous for any wannabe defender of Lamarckism to argue that a paper on the transmission of characters from parents to children supports "some aspects of Lamarckism" as if that somehow matters to the truth value of Lamarckism.

This is exactly what you're doing. You're using a paper which doesn't support your theory to argue that it supports "part of it", but this is pretty much pointless with regards to the truth value of your theory.

So my interpretation is that because “race” is the entire group – composed of every person who exhibits the defining attribute – the use of a given epithet can’t be construed as being racist unless it clearly and unambiguously asserts that every member of the group is inferior, in some way, to every member of some other race. Or unless it’s clear that the race of the person is the only reason for the criticism implied by the use of the epithet. And I think Croom’s paper clearly shows, in Chris Rock’s use of the term, that such epithets can be used to convey criticisms for reasons other than simply race or class.

Vocabulary definitions, especially if interpreted in an ideological way (as you do), are pretty much pointless to understand how language (and society) work in practice. Vocabularies are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words acquire different meanings in context (indeed that's what the part of Croom's paper which talked about "linguistic anchors" was all about).

The real nature of racism is engaging in a reduction of the individual to his race, and in stereotyping a certain race according to certain (usually negative) traits. This is what "discrimination" and "prejudice" mean.

By using a certain word which has acquired a racist connotation, a member of the out-group is perceived as reducing the person they're addressing to their race, and to do it in a generally negative way. A member of the in-group can "re-appropriate" the word by using it themselves with the clear implication that as a member of in-group they can't include themselves in the negative stereotype and, therefore the word loses its racist connotation and becomes simply an insult directed to people which the member of the in-group perceives as adhering to the negative stereotypes that the member of the out-group has built up for the entire in-group.

However, I would argue, and have argued, that the aspects you described – the trust, the shared history, etc. – aren’t sufficiently significant to detract measurably from the similarities. Kind of like arguing that a 3-4-5 triangle isn’t analogous to a 9-12-15 one because the first is cut out of plastic and the second is drawn in the sand.

Why is that so? Why are trust, shared history and social phenomena irrelvant to language. Provide some evidence which isn't just your unwarranted opinion.

And, as mentioned, I really don’t think that issues of “trust” or “shared history” really qualify, that they are anything more than peripheral aspects if not red herrings.

Why? Do you have any evidence for this claim? language is shaped by society and context.

Seems to me that, in each case, the underlying mechanism or process is virtually identical: a biological feature [genitalia, skin colour, sexual proclivities] is tagged or characterized with a pejorative appellation [cunt, nigger, faggot] which is frequently or periodically directed at various individuals. But because many people in the corresponding classes [women, blacks, males] share the same features [vaginas, black skin, homosexuality], many people, both inside and outside the in-groups, apparently infer that the same pejorative appellation is also directed at all members of those classes. Which, if it were true that the epithets were directed at all members, would of course qualify as sexism or racism.

Words change their meaning in different contexts. What you're doing is applying the rules of formal languages (like direct inferences) to natural language. You're stuck in a pre-second Wittgenstein, positivist, abstract linguistic approach which hasn't been taken seriously by anyone since, indeed, the second Wittgenstein.

The mechanism also doesn't work like you wrote. Racist connotations of a word do not determine the nature of racism, it's other way around.

The mechanism goes like this: prejudice against a specific group has historically (not abstractly, or philosophically in the minds of ideologues, but in real society) given some prejudicial connotations to certain words [nigger, faggot] which reduce an individual to a specific biological feature [black skin, homosexuality] and adds a strongly negative and prejudicial connotation to this word. This word is therefore perceived as prejudicial by anyone, except when used by some who possesses the biological feature [black sin, homosexuality] in which case the prejudicial connotation is canceled (because people are rarely prejudiced against themselves) and the word only retains its negative connotation.

In the case of "cunt", no such historical phenomenon happened: the word, which initially had only a neutral connotation as [vagina] later became graudally more and more vulgar (not prejudicial) and assumed a negative connotation as a generic insult in the UK, Australia and New Zealand while it was used more frequently against women than against men in the US but still only as a generic insult, not as a prejudicial word. There were no political, socially exclusive uses of the word "cunt", which was used in a way more similar to the insults "dick" or "prick" against men than to prejudicial insults.

Only in the late 70s-early 80s some radical feminist philosophers (among them Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin) abstractly argued that "cunt" had acquired a prejudicial connotation. Their conclusion wasn't based on historic, social and linguistic evidence, but only on abstract post-modernist philosophical speculations.

[Kirbmarc]

Hell,even Jezebel agrees with me. Freaking Jezebel!

People who use ethnic or racial slurs propagate long-held systems of oppression. But "cunt" doesn't have the same type of larger, disturbing historical context. Slate ran an etymology explainer post yesterday explaining how the word went from street name-suitable in the 13th century ("Gropecuntelane." Nice.) to vulgar (Francis Grose's 1785 A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue defines "cunt" as "a nasty name for a nasty thing") to scoring the #1 slot in a 2000 BBC ranking of the most offensive words of all time.

[CuntajusRationality]

The length of this reply is out of control (had to trim to stay under the 10k character limit!) and we're starting to go "meta" here, but I had some time to kill. The below is probably about as deep as I'll go down this particular rabbit hole, so don't be offended or surprised if I switch back to lurker mode on this thread after this.

...if a thesis relies on a proof that several things are all true...

I don't dispute that if your theory relies on Parts A, B, and C, then citing a paper (of sufficient quality and respectability) supporting Part A does bolster your theory, to some degree.  The degree to which your theory is bolstered would seem to depend on how much influence Part A has, in relation to the rest of the Parts, on your overall theory; and how strongly the cited paper supports Part A.  I think we are in agreement up through this point.

My criticism in this instance is that Part A refers to something that we all seem to agree on; and so we could all make the same claim as you, namely, that Croom's paper supports Part A of our own counter-theories.  Which seems to get us nowhere in terms of differentiating the correct/valid theories from the incorrect/invalid ones.

Alternatively, if your theory relied on Part A whereas ours relied on Not Part A, then citing Croom's paper in support of Part A would, in fact, be a useful data point in trying to figure out which theory was right.  But if both of our theories contain Part A, then citing Croom's paper bolsters my theory as well as your own.  The only potential difference might be the degree to which each of our theories would be so bolstered; but there doesn't seem to be much value in trying to suss out that level of detail [the degree of bolstering] given how much inexactitude and subjectivity would be involved in that kind of calculus.

To be honest it comes off (to me at least) as an attempt to prop up your theory with a kind of a cheap trick or gimmick, not unlike labeling bottled water as "gluten free". In other words it undermines rather than helps your case. Just my two cents, FWIW.

consider if I had told the following Jewish joke:

Here is where I think you are missing (at least) two really important points.

First, while the grammatical subject in the joke, as stated "a Jew", is referring to a single person - for the joke to work as such, it relies on a stereotype that is applied to the entire class.

You said it yourself (emphasis added): "[Coyne's joke] is of course based on the well-known stereotypes that Jews..." The joke is dependent upon such stereotypes, and a part of what makes something a stereotype is its wide applicability to an entire class. If you are just saying that a trait or behavior (such as being inordinately motivated by financial concerns) only applies to a single person, then it's not a stereotype and there is no joke there. Without the underlying insinuation that all Jews are inordinately motivated by financial concerns, the joke doesn't work. So while the grammatical subject of the joke (as phrased "a Jew") is referring to a single person, it still harkens back to and is dependent upon stereotypes that are applied to all Jews. The same would be true for use of the term "nigger", in that even if you are only calling a single person such, you are still drawing on and relying on the wider applicability for the power and impact that the word delivers.

As such, when applied to a racial slur instead of a joke, this would seem to fail your stated test "it’s only a [racist] epithet if applied to an entire class" - where the [it] doesn't refer to the grammatical subject, but to the disparaging stereotypes upon which the slur is dependent.

Second, I think you are really missing the most important underlying point here.  It's not the word, in and of itself, that carries the connotations of racism; it's the underlying attitudes, beliefs, and values that are (typically and historically) associated with use of that word.  The word is just a clue as to what else you might be thinking. Now granted, these clues can present false positives (i.e., the person who says "nigger" despite not really holding racist attitudes/beliefs/values).  However, use of term "nigger" (or similar racist epithets) has historically been a reliable indicator as to who is (likely to be) racist and who is not.  No amount of arguing or debate will change this, because we are talking about a brute historical fact here, and one that's rooted in decades (centuries?) of prior usage. Meanings and connotations can and do change or evolve over time, of course, but it doesn't happen so deliberately, easily, and quickly as you seem to think.

Croom explains it thusly in Slurs (2011) (key excerpts transcribed not copied so please forgive me any mistakes):

A slur is “a disparaging remark or slight that is usually used to “deprecate” certain targeted members. Utterances of slurs are usually explosively derogatory acts, and different slurs derogate members of different classes. For instance, racial slurs are “derogatory or disrespectful nickname for a racial group” and sexist slurs are “term of disparagement used to refer to members of a given sexual minority, gender, sex, or sexual orientation in a derogatory or pejorative manner.” Although different slurs target different members of different groups, slurs are in general derogatory terms that target members of a certain class or group.

For instance the racial slur nigger is explosively derogatory, enough so that just hearing it mentioned can leave one feeling as if they have been made complicit in a morally atrocious act.

The point is that to speak and think in the same terms as the racist is inappropriate. I suggest that this is because of the choice of which words one accepts as legitimate for use comes prior to the choice of what one will in turn use those words to say, and so the speaker’s choice of acceptable terms itself out-scopes their choice of the particular positions in which they choose to place those terms within their utterance. So the speaker, by virtue of choosing to use nigger as part of their utterance at all rather than opting to use a non-derogatory neutral descriptive such as African American instead, is thereby typically taken to be indicating to hearers that they approve of their linguistic choice. In other words, in this case even if a speaker needed to refer to someone by their racial features, speakers have a strategic choice to refer to that person with a neutrally descriptive term instead of an alternative racial slur. Given the fact that a speaker can choose to refer to an African American as an African American{/i] instead of referring to them as a nigger, by choosing to use the slur over the neutral description the speaker usually communicates to hearers that they approve of the legitimacy of uttering the slurring term and what that typically conveys. Likewise, a speaker can also indicate to hearers that they reject a slurring term as illegitimate by opting to use for instance, the neutral descriptive African American rather than the slur nigger.

There is more in this paper that speaks to my objections with your theory, particularly the bits in Part 5 about pragmatic (as opposed to semantic) use of slurs. I would strongly encourage you to read it if you haven’t done so already, with a focus on section 5.

Other people can't read your mind and they don't necessarily know you or your history, and so they can only judge you based on the very limited information you make available to them. If one of the very limited number of things you choose to make known to other people is that you are comfortable with use of words like "nigger" (given the historical and current usage) most will conclude that you are very likely, if not certainly, a racist. They may be wrong, but it works well enough most of the time.

Also, from a strategic standpoint, there seems to be something analogous to the euphemism treadmill problem underlying your campaign; such that if you succeed in convincing the world that "nigger" is acceptable to use, that will simply be replaced with some other word that is or becomes verboten and which thereafter will serve as a proxy or heuristic or indicator of racist attitudes/beliefs/values. And so your battle will need to be fought endlessly to gain acceptance for the new word or indicator; and the new one after that, and after that, etc.

Ultimately, we would need to stop relying on words-as-clues entirely in order for you to achieve your end-game goals. In other words, you would need to stop the treadmill. That doesn't seem like an achievable goal even in principle.

If none of that sways you, the bottom line here is this: you seem to believe that there is some set of criteria or characteristics differentiates "niggers" from other African Americans. So why not just use the words that describe those differentiators directly instead using the word "nigger"? That would be more direct, more precise in terms of communicating what you mean, and it would avoid the messy connotations that come along as baggage when slurs/epithets are used instead. Unless you are relying on the racist connotations for impact value, there is nothing lost (and much to be gained) by using other words instead.

[James Caruthers]

What I get from Steersman's response to "What would make you admit you are wrong" is this:

"Nothing, because I can reframe any proof against me in such a way that I cast it aside and refuse to let it impact my deeply held beliefs, which I won't mention but here, check out these quote-mined opinions that seem superficially to support me."

Language is defined by use. If the word "nigger" ceased to be a word referring to black people, and became a word exclusively used to refer to Steersman, the word "nigger" would no longer be offensive to black people. QED. Language is defined by usage and has ALWAYS been defined by use. Language is a product of culture and thus is a social construct, and its use is defined by the culture. Language only makes sense in cultural context. Anyone who has ever tried to translate expressions from one language into another knows this.

[Steersman]

Yea, I do want to change society. And I think many if not most here have a similar perspective or objective. And I haven't been claiming that Croom's paper entirely supports my thesis, only a part, albeit an integral part, of it - like the multiple pillars supporting a multi-span bridge. But seems rather intellectually dishonest to ignore that clear and frequent differentiation.

OK. If you really think it's an incredible injustice that you or other "white people" can't use "nigger" in a socially acceptable way, I can't fault your attempts to prove your point (although I can easily point out the reasons why your request basically ignores the historical widespread use of "nigger" as a mean to denigrate black people to make a spurious claim of "reverse racism" for not being socially allowed to use a word).

Just be clear about your intent instead or trying to build an "analogy" between "nigger" and "cunt" which isn't supported by social data but only by your ideology of abstract "fairness"

My intent has, I think, been clear from square one, and for about the last three years. One of my original posts on the issue:

[Benson] said something to the effect – on the RDF site, but the link I had is no longer valid – that pejorative sexist epithets are deemed acceptable but other similar ones are not and asked why that was. If “pussy” and “cunt” – and “prick” – aren’t always sexist – as I have also argued – then why can’t one credibly argue that “nigger” isn’t always racist, that “faggot” isn’t always sexist and that “retard” isn’t always “able-ist”? The magic of intent has limited scope and extent?

And I'm sorry to say, I really don't think your "social data" is anything more than special pleading- at best. If you're prepared to argue, in effect as seems to be the case, that it is merely the feelings of blacks that determine that "nigger", when used by members of the out-group, is necessarily racist then I think it is incredibly dishonest - at best, to be charitable - to think that the feelings of women who think that "cunt" is necessarily sexist can be cavalierly dismissed as simply "manufacturing the problem of the inherent sexism of 'cunt'", and based "only on abstract post-modernist philosophical speculations".

[Steersman]

The way Kirbmarc phrased it seemed tantamount to insisting that Croom’s paper does not support any part of my thesis. Which I thought was a little disingenuous at best since I merely quoted and summarized a salient conclusion of Croom’s – that the use of a supposedly sexist or racist epithet by members of the corresponding in-groups don’t qualify as such. And used it as an integral part of my thesis.

THAT'S NOT TRUE. I explicitly pointed out that Croom's paper only supports one part of your theory in the previous posts.

Maybe. But your most recent comment seemed not to concede that point - which is what I was specifically objecting to. You said:

If he doesn't support it Steersman will hopefully stop to say that his paper supports his theory.

As if to say that I was saying that Croom supports my theory. Which I really don't think I've said - only that it supports "some aspects" of it.

It is maybe a little ambiguous, but if a thesis relies on a proof that several things are all true – that A is true AND that B is true AND that C is true – then I don’t see that it is unreasonable to say that someone supports “some aspects of the theory” if they have, in effect, proven that A is true.

Some evidence which supports evolution by natural selection also supports some parts of the Lamarckist theory, but it'd be highly disingenuous for any wannabe defender of Lamarckism to argue that a paper on the transmission of characters from parents to children supports "some aspects of Lamarckism" as if that somehow matters to the truth value of Lamarckism.

Seems OK to me. If "some aspects of Lamarckism" are consistent with a recent paper then I hardly think it unreasonable to acknowledge that fact. A theory is disproved when facts are shown to be inconsistent with it - "The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact" - but facts that are consistent with it merely suggest that the theory might be true, not that it is true. Other tests or experiments must be done to decide the issue.

So my interpretation is that because “race” is the entire group – composed of every person who exhibits the defining attribute – the use of a given epithet can’t be construed as being racist unless it clearly and unambiguously asserts that every member of the group is inferior, in some way, to every member of some other race. Or unless it’s clear that the race of the person is the only reason for the criticism implied by the use of the epithet. And I think Croom’s paper clearly shows, in Chris Rock’s use of the term, that such epithets can be used to convey criticisms for reasons other than simply race or class.

Vocabulary definitions, especially if interpreted in an ideological way (as you do), are pretty much pointless to understand how language (and society) work in practice. Vocabularies are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words acquire different meanings in context (indeed that's what the part of Croom's paper which talked about "linguistic anchors" was all about).

Bit of a stretch to insist that a dictionary definition - consistent across any number of them - qualifies as an interpretation "in an ideological way". One might even suggest that your bias is showing.

The real nature of racism is engaging in a reduction of the individual to his race, and in stereotyping a certain race according to certain (usually negative) traits. This is what "discrimination" and "prejudice" mean.

By using a certain word which has acquired a racist connotation, a member of the out-group is perceived as reducing the person they're addressing to their race, and to do it in a generally negative way. A member of the in-group can "re-appropriate" the word by using it themselves with the clear implication that as a member of in-group they can't include themselves in the negative stereotype and, therefore the word loses its racist connotation and becomes simply an insult directed to people which the member of the in-group perceives as adhering to the negative stereotypes that the member of the out-group has built up for the entire in-group.

Perceptions are not facts, and very frequently do not in the least correspond to reality. Why I've been trying to argue, with little success, that there's some merit if asking precisely why people have the perceptions they do. Simply accepting them as facts, as gospel, seems rather anti-scientific and anti-intellectual at best, and certainly not any mark of the skeptic.

In any case, that one person might be reduced to their race, or to an associated negative stereotype, is absolutely no justification for thinking that the epithet that supposedly did so is also doing that for every other member of the race.

However, I would argue, and have argued, that the aspects you described – the trust, the shared history, etc. – aren’t sufficiently significant to detract measurably from the similarities. Kind of like arguing that a 3-4-5 triangle isn’t analogous to a 9-12-15 one because the first is cut out of plastic and the second is drawn in the sand.

Why is that so? Why are trust, shared history and social phenomena irrelvant to language. Provide some evidence which isn't just your unwarranted opinion.

Don't think I said that they were totally irrelevant, only to the question of whether a given epithet is racist or sexist.

And, as mentioned, I really don’t think that issues of “trust” or “shared history” really qualify, that they are anything more than peripheral aspects if not red herrings.

Why? Do you have any evidence for this claim? language is shaped by society and context.

Yes, it is so shaped. But it is also shaped by agreed-upon definitions. Which you seem to insist on wanting to ignore.

Seems to me that, in each case, the underlying mechanism or process is virtually identical: a biological feature [genitalia, skin colour, sexual proclivities] is tagged or characterized with a pejorative appellation [cunt, nigger, faggot] which is frequently or periodically directed at various individuals. But because many people in the corresponding classes [women, blacks, males] share the same features [vaginas, black skin, homosexuality], many people, both inside and outside the in-groups, apparently infer that the same pejorative appellation is also directed at all members of those classes. Which, if it were true that the epithets were directed at all members, would of course qualify as sexism or racism.

Words change their meaning in different contexts. What you're doing is applying the rules of formal languages (like direct inferences) to natural language. You're stuck in a pre-second Wittgenstein, positivist, abstract linguistic approach which hasn't been taken seriously by anyone since, indeed, the second Wittgenstein.

I'll concede that Wittgenstein seems to have been a clever fellow. However, I doubt that he walked on water, as you seem to suggest, and I note several critiques of his position, including this one by A.J. Ayers, a fairly well-respected name in, I think, cognitive science.

The mechanism also doesn't work like you wrote. Racist connotations of a word do not determine the nature of racism, it's other way around.

That, I think, is unmitigated horseshit. The definition clearly indicates that to qualify as racism one has to be discriminating on the basis of race, or thinking or arguing that all of one race is superior, or inferior, to all of another. And absolutely none of the the relevant epithets - "cunt", "nigger", "faggot", etc. - do that as each of them clearly refers to a single individual in the corresponding groups.

One might suggest that your position isn't all that far removed from those at AtheismPlus, and elsewhere, who think that blacks can't be guilty of racism.

[Kirbmarc]

And I'm sorry to say, I really don't think your "social data" is anything more than special pleading- at best.If you're prepared to argue, in effect as seems to be the case, that it is merely the feelings of blacks that determine that "nigger", when used by members of the out-group, is necessarily racist then I think it is incredibly dishonest - at best, to be charitable - to think that the feelings of women who think that "cunt" is necessarily sexist can be cavalierly dismissed as simply "manufacturing the problem of the inherent sexism of 'cunt'", and based "only on abstract post-modernist philosophical speculations".

Stop putting words in people's mouth. I never talked about "feelings". I've talked about historical uses of words and socially induced behavior dependent on those uses, and so historical and social context. There's no reference to "feelings" except in your own posts. Try to get other people's points right before replying. You're only arguing against straw men otherwise.

Also, not all women, and not even a majority of women, or even a majority of feminists, think that "cunt" is necessarily sexist. Why? Because, as the Jezebel article I posted points out, there's no record of significant historical use of the word in a specifical sexist way, and society in general does not consider it sexist exactly for that reason.

It's only a tiny fraction of radfems who make that argument, and the reasons they provide for the case of "cunt" as a sexist slur are abstract post-modern philosophical considerations, exactly as I wrote.

You seem to believe that history and society are completely irrelevant to the meaning of words and that it's all a matter of "feelings" or of philosophical considerations. This hypothesis is untrue. Languages aren't a personal product of every single speaker, nor are they the abstract product of a "language programmer". They're social tools shaped by interactions in society and through history.

Social data isn't "special pleading" in the cases of languages becauselanguages are shaped by society.

There's no abstractly "right way" to use a language. There are different natural uses of a language in different naturally-occurring contexts. Social engineers try to manipulate the natural development of languages for various ideological reasons. This is what you're doing.

Bit of a stretch to insist that a dictionary definition - consistent across any number of them - qualifies as an interpretation "in an ideological way". One might even suggest that your bias is showing.

It's not the dictionary definition which I defined as ideological, it's your interpretation of it. And yes, your interpretation is ideological: it's specifically tailored to support your theory, and you completely ignore different contextual meanings in doings so, as plenty of people have shown to you.

If "some aspects of Lamarckism" are consistent with a recent paper then I hardly think it unreasonable to acknowledge that fact. A theory is disproved when facts are shown to be inconsistent with it - "The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact" - but facts that are consistent with it merely suggest that the theory might be true, not that it is true. Other tests or experiments must be done to decide the issue.

This is all true, but I think you haven't understood my example (which admittedly wasn't as clear as Cuntajus Rationality's argument).

The data from the paper supports both some aspects of Lamarckism and some aspects of Evolution by Natural Selection, therefore when you compare both theories the paper is inconclusive in determining which one might be more valid.

At the same time Croom's paper supports both your "nigger-cunt" theory and the alternative, much more accepted, theory that slurs are racist unless used by people of the in-group. In order to determine which one of those theories might be more valid we should provide new data, and historic and social contexts do that heavily against your "nigger-cunt" theory. You dismiss these contexts as "special pleading" with no justification other than your unwarranted opinion.

Perceptions are not facts, and very frequently do not in the least correspond to reality. Why I've been trying to argue, with little success, that there's some merit if asking precisely why people have the perceptions they do. Simply accepting them as facts, as gospel, seems rather anti-scientific and anti-intellectual at best, and certainly not any mark of the skeptic.

Languages are social tools shaped by use in society which is shaped by social perceptions. Languages are the product of some basic physical and biological constraints, some psychological constraints AND of society and culture. Are you saying that society and culture don't matter? Are you saying that they're not real?

Even if you explain why a society is shaped in a specific way, there's no requirement for you to change the way it is shaped. You haven't provided any reason why society should change to accommodate to your personal feelings about the "fairness" of use while society is shaped by historical and social context which you conveniently ignore.

You're not simply being a skeptic, or investigating the origin of slurs in a scientific way. You're actively arguing for a social change because you think that your abstract considerations should matter more to society than society itself.

'll concede that Wittgenstein seems to have been a clever fellow. However, I doubt that he walked on water, as you seem to suggest, and I note several critiques of his position, including this one by A.J. Ayers, a fairly well-respected name in, I think, cognitive science.

The paper you have linked to has nothing to do with the specific Wittgenstein argument we were discussing, which is the social nature of language, not what Ayer critiques, which is Wittgenstein's private language argument. The paper is completely irrelevant to our discussion: have you even read it or did you just google "Wittgenstein was wrong"?

That, I think, is unmitigated horseshit. The definition clearly indicates that to qualify as racism one has to be discriminating on the basis of race, or thinking or arguing that all of one race is superior, or inferior, to all of another. And absolutely none of the the relevant epithets - "cunt", "nigger", "faggot", etc. - do that as each of them clearly refers to a single individual in the corresponding groups.

What does "discriminating on the basis of race" mean? It means ascribing negative stereotypes to an individual because they're are a member of certain race and acting as if those negative stereotypes were true.

People who discriminate against black people don't do it in a vacuum, just because they abstractly "hate" black people. This is a naive view of racism. People who discriminate against black people do it because they believe that certain negative stereotypes of black people are true, and that's why they're racist.

The epithet "nigger" has been frequently used to ascribe a series of negative stereotypes to a specific person because they're (or were) black. Re-appropriation of the term confirms the negative stereotypes but confines them only to those who actually provide evidence of stereotypical behavior. Re-appropriation, however, is only possible is the social implications of the general racist use are cancelled, and this is only true when it's clear that the speaker cannot reaffirm that all black people follow these stereotypes. The only way for the hearers to be sure of that is if the speaker clearly belongs to the black community

In the case of "cunt", since there's no significant history of deliberately sexist use of the term, which is used in many parts of the world as a generic, if very vulgar, insult against both against men and women, and even where it's used against women it's used as a generic insult, not a "sexist stereotype-carrying" word. What happened is that few radfems decided that since "cunt" was used as an insult and it also was a vulgar word for female genitalia it had to be sexist, social and historical contexts be damned.

One might suggest that your position isn't all that far removed from those at AtheismPlus, and elsewhere, who think that blacks can't be guilty of racism.

The AtheismPlus position is dumb because black can be guilty of racism, and in cases where they have relative power their racism can have meaningful consequences for white people. Historically white people have had more power in the US than black people and thereofre the consequences of white racism has been worse than the consequences of black racism.

The "racism is prejudice plus power" SJW definition is stupid because even relatively powerless people can be racist, however ineffectual their racism might be.

However there's a kernel of truth in that position in that when you're more powerful than someone else your prejudices against them are likely to affect them more than their prejudices against you. What the SJWs forget is that power is relative: a burly person with a baseball bat in a dark alley is more powerful than a rich, unarmed person; a woman with a gun and a clear visual is more powerful than a man who sits sipping coffee and doesn't even know he's been target and a black person who happens to be rich is much more powerful than a white bum.

[James Caruthers]

How many languages do you speak, Steersman?

[CuntajusRationality]

How many languages do you speak, Steersman?

All of them.
http://learnanylanguage.wikia.com/wiki/ ... y_Language

[Steersman]

How many languages do you speak, Steersman?

All of them.
http://learnanylanguage.wikia.com/wiki/ ... y_Language

:) But actually, only a large-ish subset: English, Basic, Pascal, Modula, C++, Assembly [8080, HC11], Prolog, Fortran ... ;-)

[Steersman]

The length of this reply is out of control (had to trim to stay under the 10k character limit!) and we're starting to go "meta" here, but I had some time to kill.

:-) I’ve periodically run into the same limitation – maybe you could ask Lsuoma to increase it? I would do so myself, but I expect the request might be viewed with some “disfavour” … ;-)

The below is probably about as deep as I'll go down this particular rabbit hole, so don't be offended or surprised if I switch back to lurker mode on this thread after this.

No problemo. But as you’ve given me quite a bit to chew on, and have to plead a deficiency in spoons, I might be obliged to be a little more terse than is my wont ….

My criticism in this instance is that Part A refers to something that we all seem to agree on; and so we could all make the same claim as you, namely, that Croom's paper supports Part A of our own counter-theories. Which seems to get us nowhere in terms of differentiating the correct/valid theories from the incorrect/invalid ones.

I find it frequently of some utility to explicitly state points of agreement as doing so can clear the air and provide a basis for further discussion. And, in this case, I think there’s some merit in being clear that various epithets, or slurs, aren’t necessarily racist or sexist, and that the interpretation depends crucially on the context. And we can then ask ourselves how that happens, and which contexts justify various judgements.

consider if I had told the following Jewish joke:

<snip>

You said it yourself (emphasis added): "[Coyne's joke] is of course based on the well-known stereotypes that Jews..." The joke is dependent upon such stereotypes, and a part of what makes something a stereotype is its wide applicability to an entire class.

While I might have phrased that somewhat better – maybe, “stereotypes that some Jews …” – I’m not sure that it would have been necessary as the “some” seems to be implied by the word itself. And while the dictionary definition is a little vague on the point, I think the Wikipedia article supports the contention:

… a stereotype is a thought that can be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things. These thoughts or beliefs may or may not accurately reflect reality. ….

In this tripartite view of intergroup attitudes, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of members of groups perceived as different from one's own, prejudice represents the emotional response, and discrimination refers to actions. ….

That is, some “expectations and beliefs” about some “members of groups” might well be accurate reflections of reality without that justifying any assertion that those “expectations and beliefs” are true of all members of those groups. And it is that latter type of assertion which underwrites and, I think, supports my contention that "it’s only a [racist] epithet if applied to an entire class".

Second, I think you are really missing the most important underlying point here. It's not the word, in and of itself, that carries the connotations of racism; it's the underlying attitudes, beliefs, and values that are (typically and historically) associated with use of that word.

Maybe. However, one might reasonably ask whether those “underlying attitudes, beliefs, and values” have any reasonable justification – apart from some nebulous and likely-to-be-suspect “feelings”. Which is actually part of my reason for questioning the rather untenable insistence that such words are always racist or sexist.

Speaking of which, I was amused to note that the second paper of Croom’s you quoted from acknowledges that there are such things as sexist slurs, which of course includes “cunt”, and which might reasonably be thought to exhibit the same dynamics as Croom has detailed with racist ones. And I was similarly amused to see that the abstract argues that “slurs possess a forcefully potent affective component that is clearly a key aspect of their employment” – i.e., the effects depend greatly on the feelings that hearing them engender.

If none of that sways you, the bottom line here is this: you seem to believe that there is some set of criteria or characteristics differentiates "niggers" from other African Americans. So why not just use the words that describe those differentiators directly instead using the word "nigger"? That would be more direct, more precise in terms of communicating what you mean, and it would avoid the messy connotations that come along as baggage when slurs/epithets are used instead. Unless you are relying on the racist connotations for impact value, there is nothing lost (and much to be gained) by using other words instead.

Good question, although one might suggest that you ask Chris Rock why he thinks the word has some utility, some currency. And it seems to me that part of the reason is that, as the Wikipedia article on stereotypes argues, they can be an accurate summary, a thumbnail sketch, of problematic behaviours of various subtypes or subclasses within a group or superclass. And that they therefore emphasize or give some additional weight to the social sanctions which can be “a normal, healthy social tool". Don’t know if you read Chris Rock’s routine in that first paper of Croom’s but I think this illustrates and emphasizes the point:

There’s like a civil war going on with black people, and there’s two sides: there’s black people, and there’s niggas. The niggas have got to go. Every time black people want to have a good time, ignorant ass niggas fuck it up […]

And I think Rock’s efforts to “reappropriate” the word, but to still use it as a way of expressing social sanctions and opprobrium – even if the targets may not necessarily deserve that, is to be commended and supported. While I will certainly agree that it can be used in a racist way, I think it would help the black community if those in the out-group could use such words in the same way as there seems to be some justification for arguing that far too many in that community – as in many others – are of the view, “my race, right or wrong”. Which is, I think, intrinsically racist. But I think that Cathy Young addressed that point rather well in her Ferguson: Beyond Black and White. A salient quote:

Others on the right—not only Rush Limbaugh but black commentators such as Jason Riley—are taking a more traditional conservative view which sees the black community’s worst woes as due not to racism but to its own cultural problems, aggravated by the welfare state and liberal paternalism.

Seems “we” can’t really address and solve problems unless we can first deal with the one caused by identity politics, by that “my class or country, right or wrong”.

[James Caruthers]

How many languages do you speak, Steersman?

All of them.
http://learnanylanguage.wikia.com/wiki/ ... y_Language

:) But actually, only a large-ish subset: English, Basic, Pascal, Modula, C++, Assembly [8080, HC11], Prolog, Fortran ... ;-)

So just English then?

[Steersman]

[.quote="James Caruthers"]How many languages do you speak, Steersman?[/.quote]
All of them.
http://learnanylanguage.wikia.com/wiki/ ... y_Language

:) But actually, only a large-ish subset: English, Basic, Pascal, Modula, C++, Assembly [8080, HC11], Prolog, Fortran ... ;-)

So just English then?

You don't think those others qualify as languages?

But, as far as traditional, non-computer languages go, yes, just English. But your point is?

[James Caruthers]

:) But actually, only a large-ish subset: English, Basic, Pascal, Modula, C++, Assembly [8080, HC11], Prolog, Fortran ... ;-)

So just English then?

You don't think those others qualify as languages?

But, as far as traditional, non-computer languages go, yes, just English. But your point is?

If you had ever tried to translate from English to another language, or from another language into English, then you would never even consider arguing that language is not cultural or does not derive its meaning from culture.

Many ideas simply do not translate into other languages because they are cultural concepts. You cannot understand what a word like "honor" means in Homer's Iliad without studying the context of the culture in which it was written. Because "honor" or "valor" or "glory" are just our english translated words that we might use for the idea, because these are the concepts we have, but they fall far short to explain what Homer was actually talking about. The same might apply to seppuku. There is no English word that conveys the same meaning because there is no English CULTURE that has the same cultural expression.

Many scholars have debated, for example, the decision to rename the 1962 film Seppuku to Hara-Kiri, because even this change between two Japanese words completely changes the cultural meaning of the title and, extrapolating, the viewer's first impression of the film itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harakiri_%281962_film%29

Phrases like "son of a gun" and "sauce for the goose" are pure cultural expressions. They do not make sense to non-native speakers unless the cultural context has been explained by a native. Even then, sometimes a native cannot entirely get across the cultural meaning of a phrase to someone not raised in that culture, even if both are speaking the native's language.

[Kirbmarc]

Phrases like "son of a gun" and "sauce for the goose" are pure cultural expressions. They do not make sense to non-native speakers unless the cultural context has been explained by a native. Even then, sometimes a native cannot entirely get across the cultural meaning of a phrase to someone not raised in that culture, even if both are speaking the native's language.

Exactly. And even after native have explained the cultural context of those expressions to a non-native speaker, the mental images evoked by phrases like the ones you wrote are probably different from those evoked in most native speakers of English.

To me, a non-native speaker of English, the expression "son of a gun" sounds like it's straight out of a Western movie. It's pretty funny to my ears to hear "normal" people using that phrase. I almost expect them to put on a poncho, chomp on a cigar and start shooting at Mexican bandidos.

"Sauce for the goose" also has some connotations to me which probably aren't very common to native speakers. It's an expression that IMHO sounds incredibly old-fashioned, like something that an elderly butler would say in a Downtown Abbey episode.

I'd normally never use either of those phrases in public unless I was deliberately mocking them.

On the other hand there are some Italian (or German) phrases, words and cultural expressions which are pretty hard to translate into English. One of them, for example, is the word "paparazzi". The meaning is now clear to English speakers ("independent photographers who snap pictures at celebrities without their consent") but there was no specific cultural equivalent in English, and English speakers were forced to loan the Italian word. The same is true for scahdenfreude (i.e. "joy at someone else's misfortune").

If languages weren't heavily influenced by culture there'd be no need to loan foreign words or expression to express concepts that do not have a clear cultural equivalent in your language.

[Steersman]

And I'm sorry to say, I really don't think your "social data" is anything more than special pleading- at best.If you're prepared to argue, in effect as seems to be the case, that it is merely the feelings of blacks that determine that "nigger", when used by members of the out-group, is necessarily racist then I think it is incredibly dishonest - at best, to be charitable - to think that the feelings of women who think that "cunt" is necessarily sexist can be cavalierly dismissed as simply "manufacturing the problem of the inherent sexism of 'cunt'", and based "only on abstract post-modernist philosophical speculations".

Stop putting words in people's mouth. I never talked about "feelings". I've talked about historical uses of words and socially induced behavior dependent on those uses, and so historical and social context. There's no reference to "feelings" except in your own posts. ….

You might note that I did say “If you're prepared to argue, in effect as seems to be the case, that it is merely the feelings of blacks that determine that ‘nigger’ ….” That is, I didn’t say that you’ve “talked of feelings” but was merely arguing that “it seems, in effect” that you were. More particularly, since you seem to repudiate any notion that there are any causes that lead to people thinking that such epithets are racist or sexist, I wonder what else you might think that that conclusion is based on if not emotions, on feelings. You might note the following passage from an earlier paper of Croom’s on slurs:

Although I have considered not even mentioning such a derogatory term as nigger in the first place, I chose it because on the one hand there is a substantive literature on the term upon which to draw to aid in the analysis of slurs in general, and on the other hand, this term highlights the fact that slurs possess a forcefully potent affective component that is clearly a key aspect of their employment.

That is, the effects depend greatly on the feelings that are engendered by hearing such epithets. And, as mentioned before, unless you think that all of the processes in the brain are not subject to the rules and laws of physics, I’m at a loss to think of what cause other than logic or feelings you think there could be for those perceptions – even if they are heavily determined or influenced by social structures of one sort or another.

Also, not all women, and not even a majority of women, or even a majority of feminists, think that "cunt" is necessarily sexist. Why? Because, as the Jezebel article I posted points out, there's no record of significant historical use of the word in a specifical sexist way, and society in general does not consider it sexist exactly for that reason.

Sorry, but I don’t think that holds a lot of water. For one thing, you might note that there’s an article in Wikipedia – hardly a bastion of rad-fem thought and dogma – that lists any number of sexist slurs, the most salient one being “cunt”. In addition, you might also note that even Croom, in that earlier 2011 paper and in section 1 of it, acknowledges the existence of sexist slurs, as in this passage that CuntajusRationality quoted earlier:

A slur is “a disparaging remark or slight that is usually used to “deprecate” certain targeted members. Utterances of slurs are usually explosively derogatory acts, and different slurs derogate members of different classes. For instance, racial slurs are “derogatory or disrespectful nickname for a racial group” and sexist slurs are “term of disparagement used to refer to members of a given sexual minority, gender, sex, or sexual orientation in a derogatory or pejorative manner.” Although different slurs target different members of different groups, slurs are in general derogatory terms that target members of a certain class or group.

Considering that he’s clearly grouping racial slurs in with sexist slurs, I would say it’s reasonable to think that he thinks the same mechanisms are in play in each case. BTW, any response yet from him? You may wish to ask him that question if you get a chance.

Bit of a stretch to insist that a dictionary definition - consistent across any number of them - qualifies as an interpretation "in an ideological way". One might even suggest that your bias is showing.

It's not the dictionary definition which I defined as ideological, it's your interpretation of it. And yes, your interpretation is ideological: it's specifically tailored to support your theory, and you completely ignore different contextual meanings in doings so, as plenty of people have shown to you.

Pray tell, how does pointing out that each of those definitions refer only to single individuals – through the use of the indefinite article “a”, “denoting a single but unspecified person or thing” – qualify as an “ideological interpretation”?

Perceptions are not facts, and very frequently do not in the least correspond to reality. Why I've been trying to argue, with little success, that there's some merit if asking precisely why people have the perceptions they do. Simply accepting them as facts, as gospel, seems rather anti-scientific and anti-intellectual at best, and certainly not any mark of the skeptic.

Languages are social tools shaped by use in society which is shaped by social perceptions. Languages are the product of some basic physical and biological constraints, some psychological constraints AND of society and culture. Are you saying that society and culture don't matter? Are you saying that they're not real?

No, I’m certainly not saying that “society and culture don’t matter”. I’m saying that some of the values therein don’t hold any water. Considering the endemic and system racism, and sexism, present, I’m surprised that you seem unable, or unwilling, to differentiate between those aspects.

I'll concede that Wittgenstein seems to have been a clever fellow. However, I doubt that he walked on water, as you seem to suggest, and I note several critiques of his position, including this one by A.J. Ayers, a fairly well-respected name in, I think, cognitive science.

The paper you have linked to has nothing to do with the specific Wittgenstein argument we were discussing, which is the social nature of language, not what Ayer critiques, which is Wittgenstein's private language argument. The paper is completely irrelevant to our discussion: have you even read it or did you just google "Wittgenstein was wrong"?

True, or apparently or presumably so. However, my point was that if some credible people have provided some cogent criticisms of some of Wittgenstein’s work then it’s reasonable to think that other aspects of it might be similarly suspect. Particularly when it seems to conflict with some plain reading of the facts.

That, I think, is unmitigated horseshit. The definition clearly indicates that to qualify as racism one has to be discriminating on the basis of race, or thinking or arguing that all of one race is superior, or inferior, to all of another. And absolutely none of the the relevant epithets - "cunt", "nigger", "faggot", etc. - do that as each of them clearly refers to a single individual in the corresponding groups.

What does "discriminating on the basis of race" mean? It means ascribing negative stereotypes to an individual because they're are a member of certain race and acting as if those negative stereotypes were true.

And if it is clear that those “negative stereotypes” are actually true in the case of some particular individual? It’s not a case of “ascribing negative stereotypes” because of the person’s race; it’s because, at least in the non-racist use of the epithet, there’s some evidence that the stereotype actually applies to the individual in question. I think you need to take a real close look at the Wikipedia article on stereotypes, paying close attention to the implications of the statement that “[stereotypes] may or may not accurately reflect reality”.

People who discriminate against black people don't do it in a vacuum, just because they abstractly "hate" black people. This is a naive view of racism. People who discriminate against black people do it because they believe that certain negative stereotypes of black people are true, and that's why they're racist.

And you might pay close attention to what you’ve actually said there as it seems clear that you’re saying it’s racist to say that some “certain negative stereotypes” apply to all black people. Which is probably highly untenable, but which is probably less untenable if they are applied to some black people. As the Wikpedia article on stereotypes seems clearly to support.

[Steersman]

A response to Kirbmarc’s post in the main thread: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:20 pm • [Post 18190]:

Maybe you haven't followed all of the rather convoluted if not tiresome argument on the topic, particularly between Kirbmarc and me, but his argument is essentially that a white person calling a black person a nigger is essentially calling every black person a nigger - which is thereby racist. And my analogy is the same argument relative to "cunt": a man calling one woman a cunt is essentially calling every woman a cunt - which is thereby sexist.

This isn't my argument and you know it well, because I have spelled it out several times.

This is a straw man version of my argument. I never wrote that to "a white person calling a black person a nigger is essentially calling every black person a nigger - which is thereby racist".

What I have written is that due to a long history of racist use of the word "nigger", when a white person uses it as a generic insult to a black person plenty of people are going to infer pragmatically that the white person is a racist. This is understandable because of a long history of racist use of the word "nigger".

Ok, maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument - mea culpa if that's the case - although I doubt it. And I can with as much if not more justification argue that I've spelled out my argument several times and you seem to misunderstand it as well. *cough spinning dancers * cough ....

However, to claim that I was only creating a “straw man version of [your] argument” looks a little disingenuous. Sure looks like your “generic insult” is virtually equivalent to saying that calling one black person a nigger is the same thing as calling all black people that.

And your phrasing there suggests an underlying question: just exactly what do you mean by "racist"? The dictionary is quite clear on the point - "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" - and you don't get that unless someone is asserting that each and every member of race A is superior to each and every member of race B. So how is calling one person a nigger - or a kike, or a dago, or honky or any other racial epithet - asserting that? One might reasonably argue that the "insulter" is saying that the "insultee" is inferior to the "insulter", but how does that transfer to the entire race? What is the cognitive process by which that supposedly happens? Because they’re members of the same class? But we’re all more than just members in different classes. And what is the proof that whatever process is in play isn’t a case of misjudging or misinterpreting? That it isn’t a cognitive illusion of one sort or another?

And that's why I say that, for those who think that "nigger" and the like are racist terms, hearing a term like “nigger” apparently generates the highly questionable, if not self-serving, inference that the epithets are directed at the entire race that the "insultee" is a member of. Why I have said that your "argument is essentially that a white person calling a black person a nigger is essentially calling every black person a nigger". Which is, as suggested, maybe what you mean by a "generic insult", something that is not at all supported by any dictionary I've ever run across.

Seems you can't really refer to the "long history of racist use of the word nigger" as if that is an explanation or a justification for the claim that its use is intrinsically racist; you have to actually show that that is actually the case. Which neither you nor anyone else has actually done; you can’t just wave your arms about and claim that it is true. Words like “racist” or “sexist” or, for that matter, “man” and “woman” have some objective correlates that have to be present before one can reasonably use them to describe people. Otherwise, it seems entirely justified to simply describe those who do so as deluded – or as demagogues.

You seem to think that this is unfair for some reason, and want to change society to eliminate this pragmatic inference (for more on pragmatic inferences, read here)

Less a question of being "unfair", and more one of being ignorant or stupid or compounding the problems associated with the interactions between different races or ethnicities. "We" put those types of epithets into the realm of the taboo and we essentially limit our ability to identify problematic aspects or behaviours in each subgroup. Why I think Chris Rock's argument and routine - about the civil war between blacks and "niggahs" - was simply a brilliant bit of comedy and satire.

But, in passing, while that paper on inferences might be of some interest, although I doubt it's worth $38, I don't think it really changes the fact that inferences are frequently not at all justified. And you seem to think that just because someone infers something that means we should accept their conclusions and demands. Lots of the religious infer all sorts of cockamamie things - Allah, and Jehovah, and the Virgin Birth: you think we should accede to the attendant demands? People are entitled to feel offended at various insults, but no one is obliged to give any particular weight to the fact they feel that way, or to give any credence to any consequential claims that the insults are racist or sexist.

The word "cunt" has no such history of sexist use. It has been used against both men and women for a long time and in general it's a generic insult, just like "dick" or "asshole", albeit with a connotation of being more vulgar.

I get that you disagree with my argument, but the least you can do, if you want to be intellectually honest, is to represent it accurately.

Further evidence that you either don't understand my argument or that you're not making much effort "to represent it accurately". For one thing, if you insist that people are justified, on hearing epithets like "nigger", to "infer pragmatically" ["gesture hypnotically"?] that the "white person [using the term] is a racist" then why isn't it just as reasonable for someone, on hearing "cunt", to "infer pragmatically" that the person using the term is a sexist? Lots of people do so - why should the former group be more "privileged" than the latter? If all you're using is "visceral response", the feelings, to underwrite your "infer pragmatically" - a triumph of whitewashing and misdirection if you ask me - then I rather doubt you can reasonably claim any preferential treatment: sauce for the goose and all that.

And "no history of sexist use" just begs the question: it assumes - with diddly squat in the way of evidence - that it still isn't underwritten by, or entails, a belief that one sex is "superior to another". Even if not all those who use supposedly sexist epithets explicitly subscribe to that belief. While it is of course rather difficult to prove a negative, I don’t think it takes a lot of effort to provide any number of examples of rather egregious misogyny scattered if not endemic throughout society: Christianity, Islam, Lennon’s “Woman as Nigger of the World”, and even Benson’s & Stangroom’s “Does God Hate Women?”. You might take a look at this review of that book by Cristina Odone who “is a former editor of the Catholic Herald”; while she of course is none too happy to see the authors lay all of the blame at the doorstep of religion, she also concedes the prevalence of the syndrome. One might suggest that that misogyny is like the air we breathe: don’t really notice it until it isn’t there anymore.

[free thoughtpolice]

[youtube]V-a-HpjBwyE[/youtube]

[Steersman]

[.youtube]V-a-HpjBwyE[/youtube]

:) Maybe the guy is - shall we say? - a little "overwrought"? But it's hard not to see some justification in his argument.

But, in the interests of clarity & posterity, here's the Chris Rock video on the "civil war between blacks and niggahs" that I've referred to above:

[youtube]f3PJF0YE-x4[/youtube]


Audio is a bit crappy; this VIMEO (?) is better:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81670714/

But, meta, I see that there's some corrupted phrases - control characters and the like - scattered about. Any possibility of getting those corrected? Would be happy to contribute at least some time and effort to do so myself.

[Creativity73]

If someone chooses to call Blacks by the term "niggers" then they aren't necessarily "targeting" them, any more than when in days gone by Blacks were always called by that term or "Negroes". A rose is a rose by any other name (Shakespeare) and if that is what they are then that is the word that is used. Start using another word for the same thing and soon enough that word becomes offensive - perhaps because the problem is not the word but the subject causes offence. How long before whatever PC word we can use now to refer to Blacks (here in Britain at least this is still the acceptable word) becomes forbidden language?

[Steersman]

If someone chooses to call Blacks by the term "niggers" then they aren't necessarily "targeting" them, any more than when in days gone by Blacks were always called by that term or "Negroes". A rose is a rose by any other name (Shakespeare) and if that is what they are then that is the word that is used. Start using another word for the same thing and soon enough that word becomes offensive - perhaps because the problem is not the word but the subject causes offence. How long before whatever PC word we can use now to refer to Blacks (here in Britain at least this is still the acceptable word) becomes forbidden language?

While you might have a bit of a point about how words become offensive, and I'll agree, to some extent, with your "aren't necessarily 'targeting' them, you might note that the term is generally defined as an insult:

nig·ger (nĭg′ər)
n. Offensive Slang
1.
a. Used as a disparaging term for a black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger" (James Baldwin).
b. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people. ....

But my point - and one of the central arguments in my "hypothesis" - is that calling one black person that is not necessarily calling all black people that, and therefore that such use is not necessarily racist. But if you call all black people niggers then that is, ipso facto and with very little if any wiggle-room, a rather egregious case of racism. That is, claiming that all of one race are inferior to all of another one.

However, that argument is largely just a precursor to my broader argument and analogy that "the epithet 'nigger' is to racism as the epithet 'cunt' is to sexism" - a thesis that many here are rather uncomfortable with, though for not particularly credible or edifying reasons. You may wish to re-read some of the argument above for the gory details. :-)

[Lsuoma]

You may wish to re-read some of the argument above for the gory details. :-)

C73: you don't. Trust me - with 7 kids you're likely already in your 20s and life is too short for reading Steerzo.

[Steersman]

Hot off the press, a case-or-two-in-point related to my previous comment above:

But my point - and one of the central arguments in my "hypothesis" - is that calling one black person that is not necessarily calling all black people that, and therefore that such use is not necessarily racist. But if you call all black people niggers then that is, ipso facto and with very little if any wiggle-room, a rather egregious case of racism. That is, claiming that all of one race are inferior to all of another one.

"Jigaboo", Wikipedia informs us, being:

a term for a black person with stereotypical black features (e.g. dark skin, wide nose, and big lips).[161] Jiggaboo or jigabo is from a Bantu verb tshikabo, meaning "they bow the head docilely", indicating meek or servile individuals.

Maybe Clarke should just have said "stupid ass niggah" or "Uncle Tom". Although one might argue that the last at least is, more or less, exactly what Hill was saying; from the RealClear Politics post:

CNN's Marc Lamont Hill comments on Steve Harvey's visit with Donald Trump and other leaders in the black community who have made the trip to Trump Tower. Lamont Hill said while he has "respect" for Harvey, he's part of the "mediocre negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump's exploitive campaign against black people." ....

However, it seems not unreasonable, on the face of it, for Hill to suggest that, at least in comparison to some of his alternatives, those making "the trip to Trump Tower" were somewhat "mediocre"; amusing that many, apparently, white folks, think that that is manifest racism.

But what with various "celebrities" weighing-in on both sides of the Trump-antiTrump divide, it seems the issue should be what it is that they're saying rather than the colour of their skins - or their latest box-office triumphs.

In any case, one might suggest that if Sheriff Clarke can make with supposedly racist epithets without being accused of that then it is kind of racist to insist that any white folk who use the terms are necessarily racist. As if to say that all black folk are intrinsically superior in being immune to the charge - hardly a tenable claim given recent events, such as the 4 black youths terrorizing a white developmentally challenged kid for having voted Trump, and older ones such as that of the "Reverend" Al Sharpton's rant: