I Hate Non-Words

For me, the whole topic isn't a matter of needing to "deal with it", or a matter of whether I like it or not. It's a matter of artificially creating more power in words than they merit. For a word like "******" to be given the additional power of being so taboo as to be unspeakable seems a bit unnecessary.

As you suggested, words by themselves are neither good nor bad... they're merely words. It's the intent and usage of the word that makes the difference. Well, if that's true, then why can't a mainstream newspaper use the word in a non-hateful and non-hurtful fashion, such as reporting the news?

Is it not the usage of the word, rather than the word itself, that makes it either acceptable or unacceptable as "polite language?"

A newspaper that uses "N-word" as a substitute for "******" does it with the full knowledge that we will all understand what they mean. In that situation, both "N-word" and "******" have the exact same meaning and the exact same intent. Why then, in that situation, is one of them acceptable and the other not?

 

I don't think they should replace words like ****** or faggot, I think they should consider writing about something else. Those sort of words do not need to be printed, because we have more polite methods of describing such people.

 

What bullshit.

Sometimes the point is to not use a polite message. If ****** Jim wasn't called ****** Jim, Huckleberry Finn wouldn't have been a very good commentary on the racism rampant in the country at the time.

 

The context, and especially the identity of the speaker and listeners, are important. Mass media generally reach a very wide audience and have different standards than people in private conversation. In a situation where there is a wide audience, it is more likely that the word itself will be objectionable. There are also libel laws in most countries.

Magazines such as Hustler, or various 'underground' newspapers, have narrow audiences and can usually get away these days with more relaxed standards. Mainstream newspapers, and most websites such as this, have moderators who control the use of offensive language. This site has restricted forums where more relaxed standards apply for erotica.

Like lots of other people, I don't need to see obscene, racist or hateful words in print, and I will soon avoid a particular newspaper or radio station where I see or hear objectionable language.

 

Obviously you are neither a bigger or a faggot then?

These words do alienate a lot of people. You don't have to use none words, but you could just call people black and gay instead.

If you don't agree, then fine. But it's not like i'm talking crap, i'm just talking unrealistically- and I will admit that.

I just hate those words, and I don't fancy being a word anarchist.

 

I do the same thing, which is why I seldom buy the Miami Herald because they use such infantile codewords such as "N-word" when they could just as easily use "n-----" if they are too delicate to write ****** in context.

There is a difference between me calling you a ****** or a faggot and a newspaper quoting the same offensive slang to show the full impact of the verbal assault.

I don't think some people understand what I was saying. I am not advocating the use of calling people by objectionable racist or sexist words. I was just saying that a news media should not give that word more power than it has by giving it a special code.

If they protect me from seeing obscene, racist or hateful words in print, perhaps they will decide to protect me by not printing disturbing, frightening or upsetting news.

 

Fnord!

 

That is so offensive!

I believe it is a conspiracy to cause discord on this thread.

 

Sometimes using the words 'black' and 'gay' aren't sufficient to get a point across.

If I'm writing a movie exposing the racism of a certain area, or an article exposing the bigotry of a certain public figure, censoring the words hurts the cause. It gives the person (or character's words) less bite, makes less impression, and makes it seem less derogatory overall.

Language is chaotic by nature. The meaning of the word 'faggot' has changed at least 5 times throughout history. Words like 'cool' and 'dude' go out and come back into usage. Vocabularies enlarge and dwindle, words return with different meanings, words gain multiple meanings - meanings of words cease to be.



I respect the importance of the words we use, I respect the impact certain words cause - but that's the very reason I defend their usage.

 

Well, Shale, I am surprised this wasn't about sex.

 

Well, we are talking about offensive words for "black" and "gay." It could very easily go off topic to sex with me.

Is "twink" an offensive slang word? Hmm, "black, gay, twink." Works for me.

 

Yeeeeeeeeah.

 

This whole thread was started by your objection to a newspaper not quoting '******' verbatim but rather going with the more considerate 'n-word'. While some do applaud your penchant for journalistic purism, I see it as the pettiest of complaints. The story was not changed one iota by the substitution and there's not a single person who can claim that they didn't understand what 'n-word' means. You say you want to be a writer and commentator and then pick an incident of such minimal effect that one can't help but wonder if the battles you choose are always this anal.

 

IDK - about the story not being changed when a word hurled in anger is codified to take out the sting of the invective.

Writing, "You F-word, N-word" does not convey the same hurt and outrage; elicit the same emotional anger as "You fucking ******" would incite.

These four pages of thread have pretty much covered all the reasons that ppl who deal in words like to use words and not #1 and #2.

BTW, what would Canadians know of "colourful" American words?

 

Probably if the Miami Herald writer was careful to attribute the word "******" to the person being quoted, the reader would understand this. If the reader is angered by the word, his anger would be directed at the person quoted, not at the writer or publisher. I'm not black and I've never lived in Florida. From what I know, they have more serious issues to deal with there than publication of the word "******" in a quotation. NAACP is still around. What would they say on the issue?

 

Exactly.

How much less impact would a book like Huckleberry Finn have today, if all references to "****** Jim" were changed to "N-word Jim", or just "Jim?" As silly as that sounds, that's exactly what goes on in the media when they use non-words. The word "******" is a double edged sword. It can be used to denigrate a person, but it can also be used to incite outrage against that usage. Why would we intentionally want to minimalize the latter effect?

 

Not much. We ignore Americans whenever possible.

 

Yeah, wish I had that option.

 

Grudb kjd kjeus

put that in your pipe and smoke it, all you non- word haters

 

So, it's important that the 'sting' be duplicated? That the same level of anger and resentment be incurred with a far greater number of African-Americans than the incident managed to offend on its own?

But, I'm straying. Your need to see the word unnecessarily repeated just to satisfy your own pet peeve is what I'm commenting upon. I also have concerns about the deterioration of journalistic expertise - about the ridiculous number of spelling errors, incorrect punctuation, poor sentence structures and all the other all-too-common evidence of the encroachment of illiteracy even at professional levels. However, it concerns me not at all that a word as hateful as this is given the illegitimacy it deserves whenever possible without detracting from the report. I find it peculiar that you were grieved enough to write a lengthy disapproving commentary.