veganfan21 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Tad Queasy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Tad Queasy wrote:
Earlier today (around 9:15-ish) Goff was saying how he used to love to watch the NHL Draft and some Norwegian guy would get drafted and his family would be all excited because he just cashed in and they'd all be taking Slovenian.
Spiegel pointed out that Norwegian and Slovenian are two very different things and Goff laughed it off with a "whatever" or something.
Phil Jackson is racially insensitive, though.
Obviously what animates racial sensitivities here is slave history and then post-slave discrimination. Theoretically someone concerned with not inflaming racial tensions would extend that concern to all races, but the truth is not all races here have experienced what African Americans have, so the context is dramatically different when language targets African Americans or when African American stereotypes or whatever are invoked as opposed to the same thing happening to other people. Being a racial minority also adds some difference. If one is in the majority of whatever category, be it gender, race, religion, all of the above, etc., I think it's useful to think of yourself being placed in a nation where you're in the minority. Given your precarious situation numbers-wise, I think your language antenna would shoot through the roof if someone were to engage in racially coded language that targets your race, sort of like how some minorities react (whether justified or not) over here.
I understand what you're saying, but the word posse doesn't have a negative connotation and when it was frequently used in the 80s and 90s it wasn't in a negative sense. I don't think Jackson meant it that way.
I also happened to think it was insulting maybe but not racist, so I was surprised when I read about the reaction. Then again, I'm not black. Again you're going to hear things differently depending on context - being called "boy" is going to sound different coming from your best friend from high school as opposed to a millionaire executive with whom you have no personal relationship, for example.
This isn't really germane to the discussion, but while I think political correctness goes too far at times I also think critics of PC culture sometimes fail to have some basic empathy. For example, you have every right to use the word "retard" to describe my mentally disabled daughter/brother/whatever instead of saying "person with a disability," but you're coming off as a fucking douchebag to that person and his/her family while doing it.
To me, context means everything. I don't think there are "bad" words or words that should never be said. All words have their place. For example, if you said "the Special Olympics are played by a bunch of retards", I think most can agree that that's offensive, but if you said, "My God, Sean Hannity is a fucking retard", it's pretty appropriate.
I think this nuance is missed by the "call it like it is" crowd. There's no policing of language as much as there is a plea to understand what it means to speak respectfully in pluralistic societies. Now if you don't give a shit about respecting someone then that's your right of course, but for those that do then again all that's being asked for here is basic empathy.
I agree with your basic thought there, but I definitely think there is policing of language. Perhaps you remember the guy who got himself in a pickle with his use of the word, "niggardly". As someone who loves language and words,
I am highly offended by this type of thing. Here's a word that shares no etymological roots with that other "n-word", yet a person can't use it for fear of being deemed a racist. On the other hand, there are plenty of other words that can express the same idea- I particularly favor parsimonious and miserly- so in the interest of not offending the ignorant I refrain from using a word that would undoubtedly do so, but I reserve my right to be offended at having to eliminate a perfectly good term from my vocabulary.
I also think people need to stop making such a concerted effort to find offense constantly. As rude as it may be to use obviously offensive language, it's equally as impolite to constantly assume another person has bad intentions.
Here's a true story example. My wife had a co-worker who had a fairly high level position at their company. This white woman was having a conversation with a black woman who reported to her. These two had worked together for awhile and were ostensibly "friends", at least within the context of their jobs. A casual conversation led to a discussion about someone who had used a slur for homosexuals. The black woman expressed the thought that it wasn't really that bad. Her boss said something like, "Are you kidding? That would be no different than if someone had called you a "n-word". Except she actually said the word. Now, we can talk about the wisdom- or lack thereof- of actually uttering that word, let alone in the workplace, but I think it's pretty clear that there was no ill intent in any way. Yet this thing got run all the way up the ladder in HR and quickly resulted in the termination of the woman. To me, that's definitely language policing, someone purposely trying to be offended, and a company overreacting to what, at most, was a slight breach of etiquette.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
