The N-word October 4, 2003 9:54 PM Subscribe
nigger
This post was deleted for the following reason: I have no idea how no one ever flagged this before now, but rectifying now. Thanks for flagging! -- jessamyn
WTF?
posted by Pineal Eye at 9:55 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by Pineal Eye at 9:55 PM on October 4, 2003
latin swear words don't turn any heads here. Why? they are just sounds.
the thing that seems to slip past most people is that ALL swear words are just sounds. You choose to be upset and offended by them.
Letting a single word get your riled up is silly and gives more power to that word.
everytime you shush a moron saying 'nigger' (like me?) you give more impact to the next moron who says it.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:57 PM on October 4, 2003
the thing that seems to slip past most people is that ALL swear words are just sounds. You choose to be upset and offended by them.
Letting a single word get your riled up is silly and gives more power to that word.
everytime you shush a moron saying 'nigger' (like me?) you give more impact to the next moron who says it.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:57 PM on October 4, 2003
Bye.
Oh yeah, save the nonsense about desensitizing us all... because, you know, it's only a word and loses it's power if repeated frequently.
You've had three threads to respond to this and rather than address it in them, you choose to start another? Cliches are my friend:
WHAT
THE
FUCK
On preview: What I said... or was saying... or something.
posted by cedar at 9:59 PM on October 4, 2003
Oh yeah, save the nonsense about desensitizing us all... because, you know, it's only a word and loses it's power if repeated frequently.
You've had three threads to respond to this and rather than address it in them, you choose to start another? Cliches are my friend:
WHAT
THE
FUCK
On preview: What I said... or was saying... or something.
posted by cedar at 9:59 PM on October 4, 2003
Tryptophan-5ht, exclusive of everything else, your post was a double. Plus, its Matt's site and he can do what he wants with it. If he doesn't think that certain words or phrases have a place on the front page of his site, then its his right to delete the post.
Leave it alone. Its just not worth it.
posted by anastasiav at 10:01 PM on October 4, 2003
Leave it alone. Its just not worth it.
posted by anastasiav at 10:01 PM on October 4, 2003
if you said 'leg' to a victorian woman, you got slapped. Get offended if some one is putting down someone because of their race, but 'nigger' is just syllables strung together.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:01 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:01 PM on October 4, 2003
The other two threads didn't do it for you? Wow.
posted by The God Complex at 10:03 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by The God Complex at 10:03 PM on October 4, 2003
but 'nigger' is just syllables strung together.
Technically yes, historically no. Obviously, you realize this, or you wouldn't have chose it (as you admitted in the thread).
Stop now.
posted by The God Complex at 10:03 PM on October 4, 2003
Technically yes, historically no. Obviously, you realize this, or you wouldn't have chose it (as you admitted in the thread).
Stop now.
posted by The God Complex at 10:03 PM on October 4, 2003
anastasia - im not demanding my post be put back. I understand its matt's site. but i also thought it was a 'community weblog' but yeah... if enough people (2 is more than enough) were offended, i have no problem with it being taken down.
i just want to say that getting offended is silly.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:04 PM on October 4, 2003
i just want to say that getting offended is silly.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:04 PM on October 4, 2003
It wasn't offensive. It was dumb. Here's my attention, so are you happy now?
posted by angry modem at 10:05 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by angry modem at 10:05 PM on October 4, 2003
So this is your way of educating us?
Or just getting noticed? WTF?
posted by batgrlHG at 10:07 PM on October 4, 2003
Or just getting noticed? WTF?
posted by batgrlHG at 10:07 PM on October 4, 2003
I'm not particularly offended by your language, actually. Just (as I said in another thread here somewhere) you let the wrapping be the story rather than the object inside the wrapping. Plus, you were (frankly) lazy and apparently didn't search. Your post was a double. End of story.
Look, if a story is important enough then people will discuss it, be interested in it, perhaps even get riled up about it. But you let you become the story, not the story itself.
Go to bed. Sleep it off. This will all seem less important in the morning I promise.
After all, its only the internet.
posted by anastasiav at 10:08 PM on October 4, 2003
Look, if a story is important enough then people will discuss it, be interested in it, perhaps even get riled up about it. But you let you become the story, not the story itself.
Go to bed. Sleep it off. This will all seem less important in the morning I promise.
After all, its only the internet.
posted by anastasiav at 10:08 PM on October 4, 2003
I do apologize for posting about something recently covered. I was unaware.
batgrl - I have no desire to make a name for myself here on mefi. I did want the article to get noticed though - i admit. I had just finished reading it and I was REALLY pissed.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:11 PM on October 4, 2003
batgrl - I have no desire to make a name for myself here on mefi. I did want the article to get noticed though - i admit. I had just finished reading it and I was REALLY pissed.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:11 PM on October 4, 2003
"...but 'nigger' is just syllables strung together."
This is stupid, offensive and a whole lot of other adjectives I haven't the energy (or the vocabulary) to come up with.
It's the same lame excuse I've heard all my life... it's NOT just syllables. It's a word that has an immediate and visceral impact on a great many people... you my friend, are not Lenny Bruce, George Carlin or Richard Pryor. Out of your mouth it is not humorus and does not challenge our thinking and preconceptions.
It is offensive. And you, my friend, are an asshole. You have had three chances to address this (the original thread, and two MeTa threads) and rather than act like an adult you spawn yet another thread to impress us all with your 'oh so not prejudiced' concept that it's just a word.
Say your sorry and move on. Otherwise, you'll reveal yourself as the adolescent shitheel that you sound like.
posted by cedar at 10:16 PM on October 4, 2003
This is stupid, offensive and a whole lot of other adjectives I haven't the energy (or the vocabulary) to come up with.
It's the same lame excuse I've heard all my life... it's NOT just syllables. It's a word that has an immediate and visceral impact on a great many people... you my friend, are not Lenny Bruce, George Carlin or Richard Pryor. Out of your mouth it is not humorus and does not challenge our thinking and preconceptions.
It is offensive. And you, my friend, are an asshole. You have had three chances to address this (the original thread, and two MeTa threads) and rather than act like an adult you spawn yet another thread to impress us all with your 'oh so not prejudiced' concept that it's just a word.
Say your sorry and move on. Otherwise, you'll reveal yourself as the adolescent shitheel that you sound like.
posted by cedar at 10:16 PM on October 4, 2003
here are my last words on the subject-
I am sorry that people are offended by the word 'nigger'. Im sorry that people say that word with hate behind it. -I am not sorry that I said it-. I meant no hate.
nigger does have meaning to it - but nigger isn't a universal. It hasn't been here since time and earth began. It only has the meaning and impact that people give it.
It was a lazy way of drawing attention. I apologize for that also. I read the article and was so depressed thinking about how many people would never hear about black people being deprived of their right to vote, I wanted to tell some one - anyone.
so yeah, if this be grounds for getting posting privs taken away then do so, and delete my account also. If this is the way things are, Ive no desire to be part of such a closed and high strung community. no offense.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:29 PM on October 4, 2003
I am sorry that people are offended by the word 'nigger'. Im sorry that people say that word with hate behind it. -I am not sorry that I said it-. I meant no hate.
nigger does have meaning to it - but nigger isn't a universal. It hasn't been here since time and earth began. It only has the meaning and impact that people give it.
It was a lazy way of drawing attention. I apologize for that also. I read the article and was so depressed thinking about how many people would never hear about black people being deprived of their right to vote, I wanted to tell some one - anyone.
so yeah, if this be grounds for getting posting privs taken away then do so, and delete my account also. If this is the way things are, Ive no desire to be part of such a closed and high strung community. no offense.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:29 PM on October 4, 2003
Okay, I'll buy it.
I may have been a little over the top with my reaction-- it's something of a sore point with me.
But, man, oh man, was it stupid.
posted by cedar at 10:38 PM on October 4, 2003
I may have been a little over the top with my reaction-- it's something of a sore point with me.
But, man, oh man, was it stupid.
posted by cedar at 10:38 PM on October 4, 2003
It's not that big a deal tryptophan...reread anastasiav's comment above. It IS a really important issue, and your instincts were right (the words you used are, to me, exactly how some of the people perpetrating this speak and think)
posted by amberglow at 10:42 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by amberglow at 10:42 PM on October 4, 2003
well, this is an amusing little clusterfuck you have going here, tryptophan-5ht. it's sure to please the man.
posted by quonsar at 10:48 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by quonsar at 10:48 PM on October 4, 2003
This sort of thing works better in coversation than in text tryptophan. If you took that approach at a bar with your friends, it might achieve the desired effect, but all that you hvae done is jump up and down to prove your bold willingness to type loaded words.
Here's one:
Jesus rapes goats
I just wanted to make you all think about our paradoxical relationship with domesticated animals
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2003
Here's one:
Jesus rapes goats
I just wanted to make you all think about our paradoxical relationship with domesticated animals
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2003
Personally, I've always felt that a better way of raising people's consciousness about the intangible essence of politicized communication is by dumping dog shit into a mailbox.
posted by soyjoy at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by soyjoy at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2003
Silly wabbit... everyone knows dogshit belongs in a flaming paper bag.
posted by cedar at 11:01 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by cedar at 11:01 PM on October 4, 2003
Jesus rapes goats
i can hear the lamb of christ from up here!
*baaa! baaaaa!*
posted by quonsar at 11:02 PM on October 4, 2003
i can hear the lamb of christ from up here!
*baaa! baaaaa!*
posted by quonsar at 11:02 PM on October 4, 2003
cedar - no, the dogshit in the mailbox is sticking it to the man, while the flaming-paper-bag version is just sticking it to the man's shoe. Important distinction.
posted by soyjoy at 11:16 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by soyjoy at 11:16 PM on October 4, 2003
i can hear the lamb of christ from up here!
Up where?
posted by homunculus at 11:31 PM on October 4, 2003
Up where?
posted by homunculus at 11:31 PM on October 4, 2003
soyjoy- wouldn't the dogshit in the mailbox be sticking it to the mailman?
posted by cedar at 11:37 PM on October 4, 2003
posted by cedar at 11:37 PM on October 4, 2003
Tryptophan-5ht - Just so you understand what's going on here:
We've talked about the n-word vs other racial epithets many times in the past. And in general we've come to the consensus (a wobbly consensus - certainly not agreement) that only the most socially offensive terms are really off limits. For our own reasons, whatever they may be, we've decided nigger is one of those words. In contrast, epithets for Asians will tend to sail past. This is because we seem to have several Asian members who say such things are just fine. We haven't taken up Latin epithets as far as I know, but I'm sure we'd be happy to debate the issue if you can give some examples.
Taking all that as a given, we've also decided (this is one of the few things Matt has solidly put his foot down about) that we won't have any big turds on the front page. This was the real problem here - Not the word, but the execution. You didn't know the rule, now you do. No turds on the front page.
At the end of the day this would have been deleted anyway since it's a double. Such is life here. And, in fact, this was double posted by at least one other person before you. You only hastened things by posting in such an inflammatory manner.
Also, please understand that MetaFilter *is not* suppose to be a discussion forum. It's suppose to be a place that filters good links to new things on the Internet. It doesn't seem that way most of the time, but it is something most members will take you to task for.
In other words - Try not to be so defensive. This site has a culture and a purpose, and you trampled all over that. I'm not saying that's bad, but you'll have a very hard time getting your point across in this manner. If you think the "hurling turds" method will work for you here, then go for it. Many here have done well with it. But personally I think you're doing it poorly. Perhaps best to regroup, find a new strategy, and start over.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2003
We've talked about the n-word vs other racial epithets many times in the past. And in general we've come to the consensus (a wobbly consensus - certainly not agreement) that only the most socially offensive terms are really off limits. For our own reasons, whatever they may be, we've decided nigger is one of those words. In contrast, epithets for Asians will tend to sail past. This is because we seem to have several Asian members who say such things are just fine. We haven't taken up Latin epithets as far as I know, but I'm sure we'd be happy to debate the issue if you can give some examples.
Taking all that as a given, we've also decided (this is one of the few things Matt has solidly put his foot down about) that we won't have any big turds on the front page. This was the real problem here - Not the word, but the execution. You didn't know the rule, now you do. No turds on the front page.
At the end of the day this would have been deleted anyway since it's a double. Such is life here. And, in fact, this was double posted by at least one other person before you. You only hastened things by posting in such an inflammatory manner.
Also, please understand that MetaFilter *is not* suppose to be a discussion forum. It's suppose to be a place that filters good links to new things on the Internet. It doesn't seem that way most of the time, but it is something most members will take you to task for.
In other words - Try not to be so defensive. This site has a culture and a purpose, and you trampled all over that. I'm not saying that's bad, but you'll have a very hard time getting your point across in this manner. If you think the "hurling turds" method will work for you here, then go for it. Many here have done well with it. But personally I think you're doing it poorly. Perhaps best to regroup, find a new strategy, and start over.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2003
you my friend, are not Lenny Bruce, George Carlin or Richard Pryor.
Regardless of the merits of Trypto's arguments, that is a stupid, stupid remark.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 AM on October 5, 2003
Regardless of the merits of Trypto's arguments, that is a stupid, stupid remark.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 AM on October 5, 2003
Get offended if some one is putting down someone because of their race, but 'nigger' is just syllables strung together.
all words are just syllables strung together, but they express intent, opinion, our internal orientation to the world. Words are the primary way we communicate, and online, the only way. "you're a fucking asshole" is just syllables strung together, too, but if you can easily dismiss the meaning of statements, why are we talking to start with? What's the point of exchanging words if we all start from the premise that they're just meaningless sounds? Are we trying to start some kind of free jazz sound collective? 'cause that would be cool
posted by mdn at 8:18 AM on October 5, 2003
all words are just syllables strung together, but they express intent, opinion, our internal orientation to the world. Words are the primary way we communicate, and online, the only way. "you're a fucking asshole" is just syllables strung together, too, but if you can easily dismiss the meaning of statements, why are we talking to start with? What's the point of exchanging words if we all start from the premise that they're just meaningless sounds? Are we trying to start some kind of free jazz sound collective? 'cause that would be cool
posted by mdn at 8:18 AM on October 5, 2003
What y6y6y6 said. Metafilter isn't a discussion board. It's a group weblog.
posted by feelinglistless at 8:56 AM on October 5, 2003
posted by feelinglistless at 8:56 AM on October 5, 2003
I bet I could threaten to send Dubya a bag of loaded pretzels, and then just tell the secret service that it's all cool because I was just using syllables. This new rule is going to make life so much more fun.
posted by bargle at 9:06 AM on October 5, 2003
posted by bargle at 9:06 AM on October 5, 2003
$5 says this post stays up because matt is afraid to clip it.
posted by clavdivs at 9:17 AM on October 5, 2003
posted by clavdivs at 9:17 AM on October 5, 2003
"you're a fucking asshole" is just syllables strung together, too, but if you can easily dismiss the meaning of statements, why are we talking to start with?
I don't think that dismissing the meaning of the statement is the issue so much as presuming its meaning, as well as the intent behind its use. Using a word with an established derogatory meaning to denigrate someone, be it "asshole" or "nigger," is quite a different usage from merely referencing the terms in an indirect context. "Liberal" and "conservative" have become terms of frequent derogatory usage and, therefore (among other reasons), are of increasingly limited utility, but they do still have some legitimate uses and it would be silly and counterproductive (not to mention bullying) to try to browbeat people into not using them at all.
Language is certainly meant to communicate ideas and intentions, and it is a rich, constantly evolving tool for doing so, with a fascinating and complex history. The lazy application (and the ignorant interpretation) of language should be discouraged, lest it lead to such idiotic hamperings of communication as the "niggardly" debacle, which impoverish us all.
posted by rushmc at 9:25 AM on October 5, 2003
I don't think that dismissing the meaning of the statement is the issue so much as presuming its meaning, as well as the intent behind its use. Using a word with an established derogatory meaning to denigrate someone, be it "asshole" or "nigger," is quite a different usage from merely referencing the terms in an indirect context. "Liberal" and "conservative" have become terms of frequent derogatory usage and, therefore (among other reasons), are of increasingly limited utility, but they do still have some legitimate uses and it would be silly and counterproductive (not to mention bullying) to try to browbeat people into not using them at all.
Language is certainly meant to communicate ideas and intentions, and it is a rich, constantly evolving tool for doing so, with a fascinating and complex history. The lazy application (and the ignorant interpretation) of language should be discouraged, lest it lead to such idiotic hamperings of communication as the "niggardly" debacle, which impoverish us all.
posted by rushmc at 9:25 AM on October 5, 2003
$5 says this post stays up because matt is afraid to clip it.
$10 says clavdivs seeks to manipulate others into doing what he wants them to do by challenging their manhood in a public forum.
posted by rushmc at 9:27 AM on October 5, 2003
$10 says clavdivs seeks to manipulate others into doing what he wants them to do by challenging their manhood in a public forum.
posted by rushmc at 9:27 AM on October 5, 2003
"Metafilter isn't a discussion board. It's a group weblog."
Well, I should clarify that.
MetaFilter most certainly *is* a discussion board. We just try very hard to pretend that's not true. And rightly so.
My point was that posting something issue related, as opposed to web/resource related, is bound to get you jumped on. It added fuel to the fire.
Look, when he says that we're "a closed and high strung community" and that he won't play anymore because we prefer to attack people who don't fit the mold, rather than engage the new ideas, he misses the point. We love new ideas, especially things we can argue about. But when you come here you come to a place with a culture. And trying to press your point by *explicitly* crapping on that culture will get you nowhere. How could it?
MetaFilter is full of crap and assholes and radicals and trolls and bombast. These things are fine. Go ahead. Let it all hang out. Just realize that we do have rules, and that one of those rules is that you're guaranteed to get attacked. Not because we're a closed group that won't allow dissenting viewpoints, but indeed because we have so much diversity of opinion. We can't agree on anything. What we do best is yell at each other.
But we do agree that doubles (actually a triple here) are bad and crapping on the homepage is bad. Game over.
And, on review, I find it very interesting that someone who admits to posting while being a little too high strung is condemning us for being too high strung.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:28 AM on October 5, 2003
Well, I should clarify that.
MetaFilter most certainly *is* a discussion board. We just try very hard to pretend that's not true. And rightly so.
My point was that posting something issue related, as opposed to web/resource related, is bound to get you jumped on. It added fuel to the fire.
Look, when he says that we're "a closed and high strung community" and that he won't play anymore because we prefer to attack people who don't fit the mold, rather than engage the new ideas, he misses the point. We love new ideas, especially things we can argue about. But when you come here you come to a place with a culture. And trying to press your point by *explicitly* crapping on that culture will get you nowhere. How could it?
MetaFilter is full of crap and assholes and radicals and trolls and bombast. These things are fine. Go ahead. Let it all hang out. Just realize that we do have rules, and that one of those rules is that you're guaranteed to get attacked. Not because we're a closed group that won't allow dissenting viewpoints, but indeed because we have so much diversity of opinion. We can't agree on anything. What we do best is yell at each other.
But we do agree that doubles (actually a triple here) are bad and crapping on the homepage is bad. Game over.
And, on review, I find it very interesting that someone who admits to posting while being a little too high strung is condemning us for being too high strung.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:28 AM on October 5, 2003
"The lazy application (and the ignorant interpretation) of language should be discouraged"
What a pontificatious pile of total bullshit.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:36 AM on October 5, 2003
What a pontificatious pile of total bullshit.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:36 AM on October 5, 2003
I was once pontificatious, but then the doctor gave me a shot in my tushy and it cleared right up.
I got a lollipop, too.
posted by jonmc at 10:04 AM on October 5, 2003
I got a lollipop, too.
posted by jonmc at 10:04 AM on October 5, 2003
*throws stone*
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:10 PM on October 5, 2003
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:10 PM on October 5, 2003
Communication 101: all meaning is collectively created. Whatever "intention" you put into any word or action represents only part of its meaning; the rest of the meaning occurs in the minds of the perceivers and in the relationships between them and you.
Your post seems self-centered in many ways, Tryptophan-5ht.
Where's languagehat?
posted by squirrel at 3:24 PM on October 5, 2003
Your post seems self-centered in many ways, Tryptophan-5ht.
Where's languagehat?
posted by squirrel at 3:24 PM on October 5, 2003
This post was deleted for the following reason: the white media is shutting you DOWN!
Hahahahaha!
posted by insomnyuk at 3:58 PM on October 5, 2003
Hahahahaha!
posted by insomnyuk at 3:58 PM on October 5, 2003
Whatever "intention" you put into any word or action represents only part of its meaning; the rest of the meaning occurs in the minds of the perceivers and in the relationships between them and you.
So it is your contention that I should be responsible for your interpretation of my words, independent of those words, whether it is accurate or not? Piffle. Understanding may require collective participation; meaning does not.
posted by rushmc at 5:15 PM on October 5, 2003
So it is your contention that I should be responsible for your interpretation of my words, independent of those words, whether it is accurate or not? Piffle. Understanding may require collective participation; meaning does not.
posted by rushmc at 5:15 PM on October 5, 2003
Piffle.
So many rather complex and important theories of communication are lost through communication (In understand the redundancy here, but it was necessary) because the ideas, as originally heard, are oversimplified and, therefore, misunderstood.
For instance:
So it is your contention that I should be responsible for your interpretation of my words, independent of those words, whether it is accurate or not?
Yes. And here's why: you are attempting to communicate something to me, hypothetically. You are attempting to help me understand a fact or convince me of an argument, hypothetically. Therefore, you, as the initial communicator and "seller", need to understand my dispositions, my history, my ability to learn new concepts, my ability to understand you. That final characteristic, my ability to understand and accept your words, are crucial to agreement: agreement to agree, agreement to disagree, or simply agreement to mutual understanding.
If you don't understand your audience, you're wasting your breath.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:29 PM on October 5, 2003
So many rather complex and important theories of communication are lost through communication (In understand the redundancy here, but it was necessary) because the ideas, as originally heard, are oversimplified and, therefore, misunderstood.
For instance:
So it is your contention that I should be responsible for your interpretation of my words, independent of those words, whether it is accurate or not?
Yes. And here's why: you are attempting to communicate something to me, hypothetically. You are attempting to help me understand a fact or convince me of an argument, hypothetically. Therefore, you, as the initial communicator and "seller", need to understand my dispositions, my history, my ability to learn new concepts, my ability to understand you. That final characteristic, my ability to understand and accept your words, are crucial to agreement: agreement to agree, agreement to disagree, or simply agreement to mutual understanding.
If you don't understand your audience, you're wasting your breath.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:29 PM on October 5, 2003
Where's languagehat?
Putting cold compresses on his head in a futile attempt to avoid getting a headache from all this unpleasantness. Actually, I had a comment ready to go, but mdn got there first. And since mdn already made a fool of me in the blue, and since she has a user number ending in three zeros, I think it's fair to say that mdn ownz0rs me.
posted by languagehat at 5:35 PM on October 5, 2003
Putting cold compresses on his head in a futile attempt to avoid getting a headache from all this unpleasantness. Actually, I had a comment ready to go, but mdn got there first. And since mdn already made a fool of me in the blue, and since she has a user number ending in three zeros, I think it's fair to say that mdn ownz0rs me.
posted by languagehat at 5:35 PM on October 5, 2003
wouldn't the dogshit in the mailbox be sticking it to the mailman?
Er, yeah - I was referring back to this, which I had imagined had already achieved cult status. It ought to, anyway. I guess I'm trying to help it along.
posted by soyjoy at 5:39 PM on October 5, 2003
Er, yeah - I was referring back to this, which I had imagined had already achieved cult status. It ought to, anyway. I guess I'm trying to help it along.
posted by soyjoy at 5:39 PM on October 5, 2003
Here and here are why it does not deserve cult status. It was just a story about a kid being an asshole--it had nothing to do with ideology or the 60s. Malice is an ancient and universal human quality.
I grew up in a small town in Idaho with a little park that had, among other memorabilia, a couple of bronze statues in it. One of a stag, which was once decor at the Union Pacific station in the railroad's economic heyday, and later moved to the park in its decline. Another was of a weary doughboy, walking with a Springfield rifle in his left hand, which was put up by the town to honor its World War I veterans.
Both were trashed. The antlers were torn off and glass eyes dug out of the stag long before I was born. The rifle the doughboy held was blown off with an M-80 when I was in grade school. All of this was the work of high school kids, of course. Vandalism is as old as humanity. Teenagers like to trash things. There's nothing particularly new or memorable about that fact of life.
posted by y2karl at 6:01 PM on October 5, 2003
I grew up in a small town in Idaho with a little park that had, among other memorabilia, a couple of bronze statues in it. One of a stag, which was once decor at the Union Pacific station in the railroad's economic heyday, and later moved to the park in its decline. Another was of a weary doughboy, walking with a Springfield rifle in his left hand, which was put up by the town to honor its World War I veterans.
Both were trashed. The antlers were torn off and glass eyes dug out of the stag long before I was born. The rifle the doughboy held was blown off with an M-80 when I was in grade school. All of this was the work of high school kids, of course. Vandalism is as old as humanity. Teenagers like to trash things. There's nothing particularly new or memorable about that fact of life.
posted by y2karl at 6:01 PM on October 5, 2003
If you don't understand your audience, you're wasting your breath.
That may likely haunt you longer, Blue Train, than attributing the chorus of Staircase to Heaven to Kathmandu. As La Rochefoucauld wrote:
It is easier to be wise for others than for oneself.
posted by y2karl at 6:16 PM on October 5, 2003
That may likely haunt you longer, Blue Train, than attributing the chorus of Staircase to Heaven to Kathmandu. As La Rochefoucauld wrote:
It is easier to be wise for others than for oneself.
posted by y2karl at 6:16 PM on October 5, 2003
i thought bluetrain jumped the rails a long time back. musta been wishful thinking.
posted by quonsar at 6:23 PM on October 5, 2003
posted by quonsar at 6:23 PM on October 5, 2003
than attributing the chorus of Staircase to Heaven to Kathmandu.
In your pathetic attempt to criticize me with your sophmoric words of wisdom, you misquoted me misquoting Led Zeppelin. Poetic irony.
Ramble on Karl.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:26 PM on October 5, 2003
In your pathetic attempt to criticize me with your sophmoric words of wisdom, you misquoted me misquoting Led Zeppelin. Poetic irony.
Ramble on Karl.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:26 PM on October 5, 2003
sophomoric...forgive me.
Ah quonsar, if you could only be so lucky. When you were banned a couple months back, here I thought that the 'Filter had spoken.
musta been wishful thinking.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:30 PM on October 5, 2003
Ah quonsar, if you could only be so lucky. When you were banned a couple months back, here I thought that the 'Filter had spoken.
musta been wishful thinking.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:30 PM on October 5, 2003
y2karl, I have no position on this Blue Train misquote that seems to be a running gag with you two. But if, as you asserted, this anecdote actually happened with the dogshit and the mailbox, it's definitely worthy of cult status. It doesn't compare to mindless, pointless desecration of town monuments at all. It's a wonderful, perfect little parable of the mindset that, I believe, inspired this very thread.
I get that you don't want this one asshole to become the archetype for revolutionaries in general, as though all anyone who's fighting the power is really doing is sticking dogshit in a mailbox. But I think people here - OK, most people here - have enough intelligence and class to see the difference: there is a certain subset of rebel to whom that action made sense. That particular subset is funny, and deserves mocking, if not immortalizing.
posted by soyjoy at 6:38 PM on October 5, 2003
I get that you don't want this one asshole to become the archetype for revolutionaries in general, as though all anyone who's fighting the power is really doing is sticking dogshit in a mailbox. But I think people here - OK, most people here - have enough intelligence and class to see the difference: there is a certain subset of rebel to whom that action made sense. That particular subset is funny, and deserves mocking, if not immortalizing.
posted by soyjoy at 6:38 PM on October 5, 2003
here I thought that the 'Filter had spoken.
oh, it pains me to the bottom of my heart that you would fling the banning, the absolute nadir of my entire existence, in my face like this. just when i had begun to recover, too. to remind me anew of the rage and despair expressed by filtrites upon my return is nothing but cruel and, well, republican.
posted by quonsar at 7:25 PM on October 5, 2003
oh, it pains me to the bottom of my heart that you would fling the banning, the absolute nadir of my entire existence, in my face like this. just when i had begun to recover, too. to remind me anew of the rage and despair expressed by filtrites upon my return is nothing but cruel and, well, republican.
posted by quonsar at 7:25 PM on October 5, 2003
I think we can sum up this thread by saying:
Republican is the new Nigger.
posted by wendell at 8:37 PM on October 5, 2003
Republican is the new Nigger.
posted by wendell at 8:37 PM on October 5, 2003
it's only a word and loses it's power if repeated frequently
That's fucking possible, although I don't really fucking know the fucking answer to it. I've fucking heard that certain fuckers become desensitized to certain fucking swearwords, but as I find all fucking swearwords highly fucking offensive, I try not to fucking use any in the fucking things I say.
posted by wackybrit at 8:57 PM on October 5, 2003
That's fucking possible, although I don't really fucking know the fucking answer to it. I've fucking heard that certain fuckers become desensitized to certain fucking swearwords, but as I find all fucking swearwords highly fucking offensive, I try not to fucking use any in the fucking things I say.
posted by wackybrit at 8:57 PM on October 5, 2003
In your pathetic attempt to criticize me with your sophmoric words of wisdom, you misquoted me misquoting Led Zeppelin.
I got the title of Kashmir wrong. Well, excu-u-use me! I mean, the first Led Zeppelin album was why I stopped listening to the radio, and I'm proud to say I've never owned or listened to one album of theirs since. I don't know any song by Zeppelin except the incredibly execrable Lemon Song and the song Ooh it makes me wonder was in... How could have anybody escaped that main support beam of Classic Rock Radio except by living in a cave? Needling your thin skinned self on your braindead boneheaded mistake is not criticism. It's just needling you. I've just tweaked you a few times. You're the one who makes a big deal about it.
Sorry, soyjoy, rhetoric aside, tossing dogshit in a mailbox is the same as small town vandalism--a malicious antisocial act performed by an adolescent. The New Left was a joke and a waste but that is not its paradigm.
posted by y2karl at 9:06 PM on October 5, 2003
I got the title of Kashmir wrong. Well, excu-u-use me! I mean, the first Led Zeppelin album was why I stopped listening to the radio, and I'm proud to say I've never owned or listened to one album of theirs since. I don't know any song by Zeppelin except the incredibly execrable Lemon Song and the song Ooh it makes me wonder was in... How could have anybody escaped that main support beam of Classic Rock Radio except by living in a cave? Needling your thin skinned self on your braindead boneheaded mistake is not criticism. It's just needling you. I've just tweaked you a few times. You're the one who makes a big deal about it.
Sorry, soyjoy, rhetoric aside, tossing dogshit in a mailbox is the same as small town vandalism--a malicious antisocial act performed by an adolescent. The New Left was a joke and a waste but that is not its paradigm.
posted by y2karl at 9:06 PM on October 5, 2003
This seems like the best place to say this tonight:
ANGRY GOT LAID!
posted by angry modem at 9:06 PM on October 5, 2003
ANGRY GOT LAID!
posted by angry modem at 9:06 PM on October 5, 2003
And besides, Blue Train, apart from the fact that I've beaten this dead horse into a pool of rancid protoplasm, it's not like I'm linking to a video of you in your Darth Maul outfit. So, I'm hereby declaring a one year moratorium to let the poor horse re-coalesce. ;)
posted by y2karl at 9:20 PM on October 5, 2003
posted by y2karl at 9:20 PM on October 5, 2003
ANGRY GOT LAID!
Shouldn't that be
PACKETS RECEIVED!
I hope you used a firewall young man.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:30 PM on October 5, 2003
Shouldn't that be
PACKETS RECEIVED!
I hope you used a firewall young man.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:30 PM on October 5, 2003
So it is your contention that I should be responsible for your interpretation of my words, independent of those words, whether it is accurate or not?
If by "responsible" you mean "liable," then no. If by "responsible" you mean "aware that inferences differ from implications," then yes.
Understanding may require collective participation; meaning does not.
Please explain meaning without understanding. All understanding is built through meaning, even yours.
posted by squirrel at 10:52 PM on October 5, 2003
If by "responsible" you mean "liable," then no. If by "responsible" you mean "aware that inferences differ from implications," then yes.
Understanding may require collective participation; meaning does not.
Please explain meaning without understanding. All understanding is built through meaning, even yours.
posted by squirrel at 10:52 PM on October 5, 2003
Also:
...your interpretation of my words, independent of those words...
How could this be, rushmc? How could my interpretation of your words be independent of your words?
posted by squirrel at 10:55 PM on October 5, 2003
...your interpretation of my words, independent of those words...
How could this be, rushmc? How could my interpretation of your words be independent of your words?
posted by squirrel at 10:55 PM on October 5, 2003
WE GET SIGNAL
posted by angry modem at 5:09 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by angry modem at 5:09 AM on October 6, 2003
I just want to post for the record that, no, angry has not "got" me.
oh, and " the song Ooh it makes me wonder was in..."
Just wanted to see that again.
posted by signal at 7:00 AM on October 6, 2003
oh, and " the song Ooh it makes me wonder was in..."
Just wanted to see that again.
posted by signal at 7:00 AM on October 6, 2003
And here's why: you are attempting to communicate something to me, hypothetically.
It's the "hypothetically" that gets you in trouble. Your presumption that you are part of my target audience may or may not be valid. If I publish a coherent essay, some people will take more from it than others, and some people will interpret parts of it in ways I did not intend, i.e., erroneously. Crafting perfect communication is impossible, so my only responsibility is to be as true to the message of my intent as possible. What others bring to the exchange is beyond my control, and I cannot be held responsible for anything beyond my control.
posted by rushmc at 7:11 AM on October 6, 2003
It's the "hypothetically" that gets you in trouble. Your presumption that you are part of my target audience may or may not be valid. If I publish a coherent essay, some people will take more from it than others, and some people will interpret parts of it in ways I did not intend, i.e., erroneously. Crafting perfect communication is impossible, so my only responsibility is to be as true to the message of my intent as possible. What others bring to the exchange is beyond my control, and I cannot be held responsible for anything beyond my control.
posted by rushmc at 7:11 AM on October 6, 2003
Please explain meaning without understanding. All understanding is built through meaning, even yours.
The point here is that no one has an exclusive license on interpretation. You may "understand" me to be insulting you every time I say the word "discombobulate," but it is not a valid interpretation, if "validity" is understood to mean alignment with my intent. That's the easy case. The more difficult one for some people to grok is that it is also invalid to insist that everyone who uses the word "purple" must necessarily be referring to the color, simply because that is the most prevalent usage. In fact, they might be using it in the sense of "purple prose," or even in some unique, idiosyncratic sense, which may diminish their communicative success but is still valid. Language is not static but rather constantly evolves, from Shakespeare's many neologisms to the latest entries to the OED. It may be entirely appropriate to question someone's usage of a given word, but it's never appropriate to ban its usage because of mistaken beliefs about its exclusive, inherent meaning.
posted by rushmc at 7:23 AM on October 6, 2003
The point here is that no one has an exclusive license on interpretation. You may "understand" me to be insulting you every time I say the word "discombobulate," but it is not a valid interpretation, if "validity" is understood to mean alignment with my intent. That's the easy case. The more difficult one for some people to grok is that it is also invalid to insist that everyone who uses the word "purple" must necessarily be referring to the color, simply because that is the most prevalent usage. In fact, they might be using it in the sense of "purple prose," or even in some unique, idiosyncratic sense, which may diminish their communicative success but is still valid. Language is not static but rather constantly evolves, from Shakespeare's many neologisms to the latest entries to the OED. It may be entirely appropriate to question someone's usage of a given word, but it's never appropriate to ban its usage because of mistaken beliefs about its exclusive, inherent meaning.
posted by rushmc at 7:23 AM on October 6, 2003
What others bring to the exchange is beyond my control, and I cannot be held responsible for anything beyond my control.
to which I responded above:
"Therefore, you, as the initial communicator and "seller", need to understand my dispositions, my history, my ability to learn new concepts, my ability to understand you."
What others bring to the exchange IS within your control, to a certain extent. Their tolerance to hear or read your words, their wanting to hear you, is what you have the ability to control, to an extent. Each of us has a great deal of control over their audience through our language, demeanor, and history of "blank"---that blank being humility, arrogance, whatever.
This concept was previously discussed in the "racist asian remarks" MeTa thread when discussing the Simpsons' writers vs. any of us. The Simpsons' writers have created a legacy of humorous and edgy jokes, therefore, if they slip a little racial humor into their show, the audience tolerates their "racism" because they've proven themselves to poke fun at everyone and seem like tolerant, non-racist people who are simply being funny. On the other hand, many posters on this site do not have that same freedom because they haven't understood and enveloped themselves into this community, the audience. For instance, quonsar, ColdChef, and Stan Chin have consistently posted humorous remarks to this site and the audience has embraced them. So when they slip a non-sequitor that would normally be offensive, this site tends to be more forgiving.
This doesn't really excuse pseudo-racist remarks, but it explains why people have different standards for different posters. It's humanity. If people like you, they'll forgive you. If they don't, they'll pounce on your every thought. THAT'S what you can control, to an extent.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:27 AM on October 6, 2003
to which I responded above:
"Therefore, you, as the initial communicator and "seller", need to understand my dispositions, my history, my ability to learn new concepts, my ability to understand you."
What others bring to the exchange IS within your control, to a certain extent. Their tolerance to hear or read your words, their wanting to hear you, is what you have the ability to control, to an extent. Each of us has a great deal of control over their audience through our language, demeanor, and history of "blank"---that blank being humility, arrogance, whatever.
This concept was previously discussed in the "racist asian remarks" MeTa thread when discussing the Simpsons' writers vs. any of us. The Simpsons' writers have created a legacy of humorous and edgy jokes, therefore, if they slip a little racial humor into their show, the audience tolerates their "racism" because they've proven themselves to poke fun at everyone and seem like tolerant, non-racist people who are simply being funny. On the other hand, many posters on this site do not have that same freedom because they haven't understood and enveloped themselves into this community, the audience. For instance, quonsar, ColdChef, and Stan Chin have consistently posted humorous remarks to this site and the audience has embraced them. So when they slip a non-sequitor that would normally be offensive, this site tends to be more forgiving.
This doesn't really excuse pseudo-racist remarks, but it explains why people have different standards for different posters. It's humanity. If people like you, they'll forgive you. If they don't, they'll pounce on your every thought. THAT'S what you can control, to an extent.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:27 AM on October 6, 2003
How could my interpretation of your words be independent of your words?
The words may trigger your interpretation, but your interpretation may have little or nothing to do with the words themselves. If I write a sentence full of arcane scientific terminology which are not part of your vocabulary, you will not derive from the sentence the meaning I intended, though you may (or may not) create some idiosyncratic sense of your own from it.
posted by rushmc at 7:28 AM on October 6, 2003
The words may trigger your interpretation, but your interpretation may have little or nothing to do with the words themselves. If I write a sentence full of arcane scientific terminology which are not part of your vocabulary, you will not derive from the sentence the meaning I intended, though you may (or may not) create some idiosyncratic sense of your own from it.
posted by rushmc at 7:28 AM on October 6, 2003
You may "understand" me to be insulting you every time I say the word "discombobulate," but it is not a valid interpretation, if "validity" is understood to mean alignment with my intent.
Go discombobulate yourself.
posted by soyjoy at 7:36 AM on October 6, 2003
Go discombobulate yourself.
posted by soyjoy at 7:36 AM on October 6, 2003
Will you niggers shut the fuck up already?
Or at least do us the favour of linking to some wanktacular bullshit postmodern macro-deconstructo-theory to back up your sophomoric niggertalk? Silly niggers!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 AM on October 6, 2003
Or at least do us the favour of linking to some wanktacular bullshit postmodern macro-deconstructo-theory to back up your sophomoric niggertalk? Silly niggers!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 AM on October 6, 2003
Man, I love niggers!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:13 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:13 AM on October 6, 2003
No, no, I'm not fond of niggers at all!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:14 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:14 AM on October 6, 2003
Wait, wait, what's a nigger again? I'm pretty sure I like them...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:15 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:15 AM on October 6, 2003
Stop pissing on this site stavros.
Nigger? Nigger!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:46 AM on October 6, 2003
Nigger? Nigger!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:46 AM on October 6, 2003
[...which is is to say I would never piss on MeFi (the site), nor would I piss on Mefi (the people), but I'm more than happy to micturate freely all over those who would dictate to me what I can and cannot say (in full awareness of the consequences of laying down the word-cards as I write them). So fuck you gently, sweet bluetrain nigger friend!]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 AM on October 6, 2003
Sorry, folks.
*rhetorically decelerates, wanders off to bed*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:12 AM on October 6, 2003
*rhetorically decelerates, wanders off to bed*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:12 AM on October 6, 2003
Rushmc, I think we're communicating ineffectively. It seems that we have different sets of assumptions about the way communication works, which is cool by me. You can write me directly if you want to continue discussing meaning. This thread is beginning to reek. Stavros, get ahold of yourself.
posted by squirrel at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by squirrel at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2003
Well, communication was really not what I was originally addressing. Meaning and communication of meaning are two separate things (i.e., there are things you know which you have not communicated to me). I will say this, though: the use of provocative language can also be an effective communication strategy. If it weren't, people wouldn't use it.
posted by rushmc at 10:51 AM on October 6, 2003
posted by rushmc at 10:51 AM on October 6, 2003
Come on, folks, on MetaFilter there's no black or white -- everyone's the same sickly yellow-green color.
posted by me3dia at 12:12 PM on October 6, 2003
posted by me3dia at 12:12 PM on October 6, 2003
Stav, I sure hope you don't mind this little episode being brought up next time you start sounding off about the need to preserve seriousness and dignity and mutual respect in the sacred halls of MetaTalk. I say this with the greatest possible respect, and it probably won't be me bringin' it up, unless I'm really cranky that day. Or drubk.
posted by languagehat at 2:53 PM on October 6, 2003
posted by languagehat at 2:53 PM on October 6, 2003
so, languagehat, are you saying that n_______ can't be serious, have no dignity, and are unworthy of mutual respect? i'd never have pegged you for that kind of bigot!
posted by quonsar at 3:52 PM on October 6, 2003
posted by quonsar at 3:52 PM on October 6, 2003
Wow. And I thought I went off the rails.
You did, and it was painful to watch. I was just trying to make a point.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:04 PM on October 6, 2003
You did, and it was painful to watch. I was just trying to make a point.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:04 PM on October 6, 2003
You did, and it was painful to watch. I was just trying to make a point.
If using the n-bomb 9 times in one thread is not wrong then I don't want to be right.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:34 PM on October 6, 2003
If using the n-bomb 9 times in one thread is not wrong then I don't want to be right.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:34 PM on October 6, 2003
Heh. The 'n-bomb'.
Funny people, you USAians. Makes me wanna give you all a good noogying!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:45 PM on October 6, 2003
Funny people, you USAians. Makes me wanna give you all a good noogying!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:45 PM on October 6, 2003
*gives quonsar atomic wedgie* : >
speaking of the n-bomb, what is up with the name Schwarzenegger? i know the first part means black, but the second???
posted by amberglow at 9:26 PM on October 6, 2003
speaking of the n-bomb, what is up with the name Schwarzenegger? i know the first part means black, but the second???
posted by amberglow at 9:26 PM on October 6, 2003
I don't care what they say,
I'm gonna keep it anyway.
I won't let them stretch their necks,
To see my little black egg with the little white specks.
I found it in a tree just the other day,
Now it's mine all mine, they can't take it away.
There comes Mary, there comes Lee :
I'll bet what they want to see.
I won't let them stretch their necks
To see my little black egg with the little white specks.
I found it in a tree just the other day,
Now it's mine all mine, they can't take it away.
Oh my, what can I do ? Little black agg's gonna tell on you.
I won't let them stretch their necks
To see my little black egg with the little white speck.
posted by quonsar at 10:20 PM on October 6, 2003
Not to revert back to the topic, but:
The rule, I think, is simple: if someone (or some group) is offended by a word, stop using it to refer to them. It's that easy.
"Nigger", like "Negro" come from the Latin-derived Portuguese word for "black": negro.
Here in Portugal, in the 70s and 80s, "negro" was the word preferred by the black Portuguese. Now it's africano and, very recently, it's reverted to a usage that was previously condemned by them: de cor, meaning "coloured".
Informally, most Angolans, Mozambicans, Cape Vertians, etc, prefer the old word preto, meaning "black" or, amusingly (my daughters have always had black boyfriends), with no nuances or overtones, the English word "black".
A word which I often see used here and, to the Portuguese at least, is derogatory is "denigrate", i.e. "make black".
The best usage, in my opinion, is the Brazilian - people who are more tanned and coffee-coloured are referred to as morenos, roughly meaning "brunettes" but actually meaning "sweet, non-blonde, attractive."
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:46 PM on October 6, 2003
The rule, I think, is simple: if someone (or some group) is offended by a word, stop using it to refer to them. It's that easy.
"Nigger", like "Negro" come from the Latin-derived Portuguese word for "black": negro.
Here in Portugal, in the 70s and 80s, "negro" was the word preferred by the black Portuguese. Now it's africano and, very recently, it's reverted to a usage that was previously condemned by them: de cor, meaning "coloured".
Informally, most Angolans, Mozambicans, Cape Vertians, etc, prefer the old word preto, meaning "black" or, amusingly (my daughters have always had black boyfriends), with no nuances or overtones, the English word "black".
A word which I often see used here and, to the Portuguese at least, is derogatory is "denigrate", i.e. "make black".
The best usage, in my opinion, is the Brazilian - people who are more tanned and coffee-coloured are referred to as morenos, roughly meaning "brunettes" but actually meaning "sweet, non-blonde, attractive."
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:46 PM on October 6, 2003
Now it's africano and, very recently, it's reverted to a usage that was previously condemned by them: de cor, meaning "coloured".
"colored" reminds me of Archie Bunker and my grandparents, although since we're all colored, it's not a terrible word, except it never was used to describe all of us, at least here. (Granted, those were the days when "flesh" -colored crayola crayons were peach.)
q: funny
posted by amberglow at 11:00 PM on October 6, 2003
"colored" reminds me of Archie Bunker and my grandparents, although since we're all colored, it's not a terrible word, except it never was used to describe all of us, at least here. (Granted, those were the days when "flesh" -colored crayola crayons were peach.)
q: funny
posted by amberglow at 11:00 PM on October 6, 2003
Quite right, amberglow. :)
By the way, the really offensive words here - we did, unfortunately universalize slavery and will forever have to shoulder the terrible shame of it - are cafre, which the South Africans and British use as kaffir - still, inexplicably used culinarily and, though only a few unspeakable racists use it (i.e. I've only heard it twice and got into fights because of it) is bumbo, which I'd say is similar to the English sambo, but more offensive. Bumbo was the name of a comic book African child in missionary publications during the authoritarian Salazar period.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:34 PM on October 6, 2003
By the way, the really offensive words here - we did, unfortunately universalize slavery and will forever have to shoulder the terrible shame of it - are cafre, which the South Africans and British use as kaffir - still, inexplicably used culinarily and, though only a few unspeakable racists use it (i.e. I've only heard it twice and got into fights because of it) is bumbo, which I'd say is similar to the English sambo, but more offensive. Bumbo was the name of a comic book African child in missionary publications during the authoritarian Salazar period.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:34 PM on October 6, 2003
you just reminded me--a symbol of how far we've come maybe--the top toy during the ww1 era (i'm reading Land of Desire, by William Leach and this toy was wildly popular and apparently kickstarted american toy manufacturing where it had been german-dominated before)
posted by amberglow at 11:57 PM on October 6, 2003
posted by amberglow at 11:57 PM on October 6, 2003
One of my great joys in life, is wrapping my lips round a negro.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:15 AM on October 7, 2003
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:15 AM on October 7, 2003
The rule, I think, is simple: if someone (or some group) is offended by a word, stop using it to refer to them.
Which, of course, is not the same thing as pretending that the word (and all that goes with it) never existed in the first place.
posted by rushmc at 3:23 PM on October 8, 2003
Which, of course, is not the same thing as pretending that the word (and all that goes with it) never existed in the first place.
posted by rushmc at 3:23 PM on October 8, 2003
Damn, I miss the most interesting threads sometimes.
Sorry to come in so very, very late, and of course my opinion in no way represents that of all black people or anything, but I wanted to get a word in before this thread gets archived. Personally, I've never understood all the confusion about the word nigger-- the whole "how come I can't say it" aspect, I mean. Let's see if I can explain...
I think that the reason that "nigger" is accepted as an intraracial term is because the range of potential reactions to the term under those conditions is (for the most part) binary. When you're black and another black person has just referred to you as a nigger you have basically two ways to interpret it:
1) The stranger speaking to you is trying to establish a common bond with you by using the word "nigger" in a friendly, take-the-power-back type way. (I hear "Yankee Doodle" was created by the British to denigrate the Americans during the Revolutionary War, but nobody gets offended by that anymore, do they?) Accept it as a nonhostile icebreaker and move on.
or
2) The stranger speaking to you is using the word "nigger" to insult you by associating you with such a negatively charged and loaded word. From here you can express your distaste at his use of the word, resort to a withering stare, etc.
Okay. The connection between the two options is the implication behind both that, no matter HOW the speaker intends the term, positively or negatively, and no matter HOW you receive it, positively or negatively, when the speaker uses the word "nigger" he automatically includes himself. You can walk away from that hypothetical conversation with a feeling of kinship or pity, but there's practically no chance that you'll come away with the feeling that the speaker, by referring to you as a "nigger," was hurling it at you from a position of supposed superiority. Does that make sense?
(Oh, and I know that there are exceptions to this-- black people who can refer to others as niggers and somehow think that they themselves remain unscathed. Hell, I've worked for a few... briefly, anyway. That falls largely under category #2 in my mind-- they might think they're exceptions, but they're really just unwittingly making things harder for themselves through their projected self-hatred: more to be pitied than anything else. But I digress.)
All that said, the reason people of other races don't get away with referring to black people as "niggers" seems obvious to me: unlike the earlier scenario, there is no way to intuit the (insert non-black racial group) stranger's motives on first sight. "Is he insulting me? threatening me? Mocking me? He can't possibly be trying to establish a bond with me; there's no outward indication that he views the world through the same racial lens..."
Sorry if I'm not explaining this right. It's not an isolated case, I don't think: Imagine the reaction if you were a woman and a man walked up and let fly with as barrage of menstruation jokes, or if you were verbally sparring (good-naturedly) with a close friend or relative only to have an eavesdropping stranger walk up and start piling on your friend/relative too. Would either of those situations likely end well? Since when do in-jokes and references NOT require a preestablished shared frame of reference?
Anyway, I've seen the question more than once while wandering the internet. "When can we call them what they call each other?" Um, probably never; not in that regard and not without censure, anyway. (Although my high school english teacher used the word several times when he was teaching Huckleberry Finn and no one in my majority-black class batted an eye. We're not all hysterical reactionaries, rushmc.)
That's all I have to say about that, I guess. Sorry it was so late.
posted by tyro urge at 8:54 PM on November 4, 2003
Sorry to come in so very, very late, and of course my opinion in no way represents that of all black people or anything, but I wanted to get a word in before this thread gets archived. Personally, I've never understood all the confusion about the word nigger-- the whole "how come I can't say it" aspect, I mean. Let's see if I can explain...
I think that the reason that "nigger" is accepted as an intraracial term is because the range of potential reactions to the term under those conditions is (for the most part) binary. When you're black and another black person has just referred to you as a nigger you have basically two ways to interpret it:
1) The stranger speaking to you is trying to establish a common bond with you by using the word "nigger" in a friendly, take-the-power-back type way. (I hear "Yankee Doodle" was created by the British to denigrate the Americans during the Revolutionary War, but nobody gets offended by that anymore, do they?) Accept it as a nonhostile icebreaker and move on.
or
2) The stranger speaking to you is using the word "nigger" to insult you by associating you with such a negatively charged and loaded word. From here you can express your distaste at his use of the word, resort to a withering stare, etc.
Okay. The connection between the two options is the implication behind both that, no matter HOW the speaker intends the term, positively or negatively, and no matter HOW you receive it, positively or negatively, when the speaker uses the word "nigger" he automatically includes himself. You can walk away from that hypothetical conversation with a feeling of kinship or pity, but there's practically no chance that you'll come away with the feeling that the speaker, by referring to you as a "nigger," was hurling it at you from a position of supposed superiority. Does that make sense?
(Oh, and I know that there are exceptions to this-- black people who can refer to others as niggers and somehow think that they themselves remain unscathed. Hell, I've worked for a few... briefly, anyway. That falls largely under category #2 in my mind-- they might think they're exceptions, but they're really just unwittingly making things harder for themselves through their projected self-hatred: more to be pitied than anything else. But I digress.)
All that said, the reason people of other races don't get away with referring to black people as "niggers" seems obvious to me: unlike the earlier scenario, there is no way to intuit the (insert non-black racial group) stranger's motives on first sight. "Is he insulting me? threatening me? Mocking me? He can't possibly be trying to establish a bond with me; there's no outward indication that he views the world through the same racial lens..."
Sorry if I'm not explaining this right. It's not an isolated case, I don't think: Imagine the reaction if you were a woman and a man walked up and let fly with as barrage of menstruation jokes, or if you were verbally sparring (good-naturedly) with a close friend or relative only to have an eavesdropping stranger walk up and start piling on your friend/relative too. Would either of those situations likely end well? Since when do in-jokes and references NOT require a preestablished shared frame of reference?
Anyway, I've seen the question more than once while wandering the internet. "When can we call them what they call each other?" Um, probably never; not in that regard and not without censure, anyway. (Although my high school english teacher used the word several times when he was teaching Huckleberry Finn and no one in my majority-black class batted an eye. We're not all hysterical reactionaries, rushmc.)
That's all I have to say about that, I guess. Sorry it was so late.
posted by tyro urge at 8:54 PM on November 4, 2003
« Older Not just a double, a double invoking the N-bomb is... | The spell checker's got some bugs. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:54 PM on October 4, 2003