It's as much up to me as anybody else. I won't be discounted because you think I don't have the right skin color to have a valid opinion.
> There is something resembling a consensus among black people
I doubt you have any reliable way of knowing whether your claim is true, but it wouldn't matter if it was. I simply don't respect your, or anyone else's, racist notions about what skin colors entitle the wearer to say certain words, any more than I would respect racist notions about who gets to use which drinking fountain.
I have no desire to say that word, but if I want to use it, I will, as is my right as a human, and if someone wants to persecute me because they think my skin color does not authorize me to that word, that is their own racist, neo tribalist, re-segregationist thing, and nothing I've done wrong.
> I think this one is particularly egregious given that the quote includes the term "nigga" - even though it was of course self censored - which I don't think is particularly appropriate coming from a white man.
I think it's fine that you don't like the word 'nigga'. If you don't like hearing something, it's your prerogative to tell people that so they'll stop saying it.
But realize that by giving white people a double standard in terms of how they can express themselves, you're being racist against white people, and for black people, furthering the racial and cultural divide. Rationalizing treating people differently based on the color of their skin isn't any less racist just because you're on the populist, politically-correct side.
> I have really no idea what you're talking about with respect to water fountains and busses.
Assuming good faith here. Let me try again.
The idea is that saying the n-word while not being black sends a signal of not caring about the word, not giving it enough weight, not caring about the plight of black people. Well, I'm saying that's not true. That information is not in the signal.
Suppose a young white person is sitting in a cafe. They raise a phone to their ear and uses the n-word the way that has become normal, to mean man/person: "hey, what up my (n-word)?"
If I overheard that, I wouldn't think anything of it. They're greeting a friend. I just don't have any notions about how only people of certain ethnicities are allowed to use certain words.
If you did have such notions, you might be offended. But that's in the machinery of your own mind, not the signal. The signal was just "how are you, man/person?"
Suppose you (Thomas) see a black man sitting near the front of a bus. What signal is he sending to you? Not much, right? He's just sitting there. Now, suppose it's the 50s, and it's Alabama, and the onlooker is an older white man. What signal do you suppose that guy gets? He might get a signal that an uppity negro thinks he's the equal of a white man. So, where is the problem? In the sitting, or in the looking?
Now, where is the problem in the situation we're talking about? In the speaking of a word that means man/person, or in the hearing of it?
I imagine there are a lot of black people who just loathe the n-word, and never want to hear it from anyone. This is actually the perspective that makes the most sense to me. But they have to concede that the meaning of the word has changed. The vast majority of the time, it just means man/person. Sorry. I would have preferred we just forget the word, but that's not what happened. Now it means man/person, and our squabble is about whether people who never had anything whatsoever to do with the racial persecution of anyone will be firewalled from certain parts of our language because of their perceived ethnic affiliation.
I'm saying no. It's unfair, and it's not a wise way forward, and just unacceptable to me personally.
> If you try to speak for the Black community, and you aren't black, you don't have the "wrong color of skin", you are speaking for others without their permission
So... wait... are you saying all these white people in BLM marches...
> Being required to, say, share drinking fountains or pools with people of another race should not be compared to this.
Indeed. And I didn't. I said "negro". Generations of people genuinely thought that was a neutral term. They were pissed as all fuck when all of a sudden it became a symbol of centuries of oppression. And they used language exactly like yours to express their exasperation. But the words changed anyway. And we all got over it, and civil society didn't dissolve.
And at the end of the process, most of us look back and think of it as largely a good thing that we went and, well, cancelled that old word as a symbol. The new one is better, simply because it was born out of the self-determinism of the oppressed.
Which is to say: get over yourself and declare your pronouns. (I'm a he/him, FWIW). Your grandkids will be ashamed that you fought it.
> But realize that by giving white people a double standard in terms of how they can express themselves, you're being racist against white people, and for black people, furthering the racial and cultural divide. Rationalizing treating people differently based on the color of their skin isn't any less racist just because you're on the populist, politically-correct side.
No you're not, you're being entirely consistent. The rule is simple - don't be offensive and context counts.
Taking race out of it - you can say something to or about your wife, girlfriend, husband or boyfriend which if I were to say it would be offensive. That's not a double standard, that's context. There is relationship (or lack of), a history (or lack of) and so on, all of which contributes.
Sadly, this does mean that simple, easy rules often aren't possible but that fact that those rules are complicated doesn't mean white people get to cry "racism" over a word which has historically been both offensive and oppressive, regardless of whether there is an attempt to reclaim that word.
All that's not to say that there can't be racism against white people - there can - just that this isn't it.
For what it's worth, I think if you're quoting a song (or work of literature, poetry or whatever), I think there is little reason to censor whoever you are, so long as you're doing it genuinely and reasonably (as opposed to just using it as an excuse to say something you wouldn't otherwise be able to).
> Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress.
It isn't (though recognizing that using the term “black” in ways which actually evoke racial stereotypes is), but both hostile provocateurs (deliberately) and people who don't understand the actual issue but want to try to appear supportive because they see social advantage (out of ignorance) act in ways which associate a more general rejection of the word “black” with what people genuinely concerned about social progress are trying to do.
> The primary problem with this is that people don't get to make up their own definitions for words, and force those definitions on the rest of society.
Do you think that certain communities should not have their own dialect? Or do you think that if a member of such a community happens to use said dialect outside of the community and later clarified the specific definitions of the words that they used, they should not be given the benefit of the doubt?
> that it's a BS cop-out. They know what they mean when they use the word. We know what they mean when they use the word. Lying about it when they get called on exposes them as the hateful cowards that they are.
I am not black and I have been called a [censored] in the past, quite a few times in fact. It used to be quite common in multiplayer games and certain online communities around a decade ago, it still is but less so. If you know what they meant when they used that word then please do tell me, because I seriously doubt that they believed that I was an african american.
> For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song or reading a script)
Alright, I'll ask it: why? Or, perhaps a better question: how can you justify saying that there are situations in which it is constructive for a black person to say it but not for a white person? Is this not simply its own form of racism? As a word, I understand that it has cultural charge, but why should people's right to speak a word be derived simply from who they happened to be born to, an event completely outside of their control?
> you're not allowed to call black people certain words'
It’s actually much worse, the restriction itself is highly racist; only blacks are allowed to use the “n-word”, while whites (and other races I presume) aren’t.
> The implication is that: Only a racist would disagree with me.
rquantz is stating clearly that the word is offensive and implying therefore it's wrong to use it. If that is an issue, I believe it certainly should be raised.
What's interesting is that drawing attention to such things is now what is 'politically incorrect'.
> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it.
This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman.
In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. If true, that would simply invalidate the opinion of everyone who objects. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type. Especially if you're objecting to the specific term, not to the principle of insulting that personality type.
Edit: to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.
White people shouldn't call you bro like black people shouldn't call you bro either. I'm black, no one calls me bro or the n word, black or white, it shouldn't be a matter of color but respect. I don't understand why you need to single out whites on that matter.
Likewise it would be stupid to say it's ok for girls to call each other bitch or cunt, but not ok for a man to do that because he is a man.
> Imagine you go to a foreign country and point at something you like. To your surprise, this is a deeply offensive gesture to the locals and they get upset. Rather than apologizing for doing something unintentionally, you take the position that you didn't know, so you can't be held accountable for it. How do you imagine they're going to respond?
Except this wasn't foreigners taking offense. It was other white Americans that took offense at its use. And it's a very inconsistent taboo, as well. The New York Times has used the word in its own pieces [1].
> And secondly, I just don't really believe you. I don't believe you would feel comfortable saying the n-word around several black people you don't know and using it generically without feel acutely aware that you've likely put yourself in a very socially uncomfortable situation.
What am I supposed to tell you other than that you're wrong? In my experience black people are fully aware of the distinction between mentioning and use of of the word, and aren't offended by the former. I'm no less comfortable than talking about the word "kike" in front of Jewish people, or "fag" in front of gay people, etc.
Notice how this kind of hysteria surrounding mentioning this slur even in reference is mostly raised by other white people, not black people. This kind of intense taboo is more than a little condescending. It seems to be implying that black people are incapable of distinguishing between use and mention of slurs, while most (all?) other groups can.
> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black.
Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible.
> In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type.
Except that race and gender aren't personality types, whereas that's exactly what "Karen" is, and it's just the personality type that would object to the term.
> to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.
The analogy to "little black men" would be something like "white female busybodies" which is completely different because it's putting the focus specifically on that race and gender.
> Why exactly the n-word is exclusive to black people.
It's...not.
> Isn't it a better sign if I as a white dude like other cultures food, clothing etc.? That should signal to these cultures that I appreciate, accept and like them, right?
While I personally think some of the specific complaints of cultural appropriation that are made are...well, let's just say not things that I personally think are as problematic as the people raising the complaints seem to, still, no, decontextualized mimicry of isolated elements of culture, or similar consumption of products of the culture, while participating in structures of oppression of the people whose culture is being mined for your entertainment isn't seen by any audience, within or without the exploited culture, as a sign of appreciating, accepting, or liking either the culture (which is an abstract aggregate) or, more critically, the concrete people in the culture.
> I asked what the harm would be of you adopting the more sensitive language in your own usage.
"sensitive"
sensitive according to whom? what morals? what ideology? I'm not hurting my own feeling as a black man every time I use "blacklist" or "slave" in a specific context that is even explained in a dictionary, why are you trying to force your political beliefs (because that's what it is) on me? why are you constantly patronizing me? that I indeed find it offensive. I'm not going to change the canonical definition of the words I use to please you.
It's as much up to me as anybody else. I won't be discounted because you think I don't have the right skin color to have a valid opinion.
> There is something resembling a consensus among black people
I doubt you have any reliable way of knowing whether your claim is true, but it wouldn't matter if it was. I simply don't respect your, or anyone else's, racist notions about what skin colors entitle the wearer to say certain words, any more than I would respect racist notions about who gets to use which drinking fountain.
I have no desire to say that word, but if I want to use it, I will, as is my right as a human, and if someone wants to persecute me because they think my skin color does not authorize me to that word, that is their own racist, neo tribalist, re-segregationist thing, and nothing I've done wrong.
reply