The Pot calling the Kettle Black. [Archive]

Krizoitz

Mar 20, 2004, 11:32 AM

But isn't considering something being black a criticism have ability to look like a racial slur against people who are black?

I can see both arguments...

Its not that being black is the criticism, its that they are the same. Honestly the use of the word black as a color has been around long before it was used to describe a racial group. Do we stop using black crayons? How about black holes? Next someone is going to try and claim that being black and blue has something to do with police brutality against african-americans...honestly. Maybe if we didn't worry so much about finding a term to describe them it wouldn't be such a big deal. Hey, I'm white...so what? Call me pink, caucasian, anglo-saxon, whatever, I don't care. Its not who I am, its just part of what I look like.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 11:54 AM

Hey, I'm white...so what? Call me pink, caucasian, anglo-saxon, whatever, I don't care. Its not who I am, its just part of what I look like.

Well, in this country, so long as people make judgements in accordance to what you look like, what you look like plays a large role in determining who you are. It's a bit of a catch-22, but there's no avoiding the fact that people still act differently around people of different colors, and thus, that varried personal input will play a role in determining who you are.

Davis

Neserk

Mar 20, 2004, 02:31 PM

Its not that being black is the criticism, its that they are the same. Honestly the use of the word black as a color has been around long before it was used to describe a racial group. Do we stop using black crayons? How about black holes? Next someone is going to try and claim that being black and blue has something to do with police brutality against african-americans...honestly.

Calm down!

Maybe if we didn't worry so much about finding a term to describe them it wouldn't be such a big deal. Hey, I'm white...so what? Call me pink, caucasian, anglo-saxon, whatever, I don't care. Its not who I am, its just part of what I look like.

Says the dominate white male...

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 02:58 PM

pseudobrit

Mar 20, 2004, 03:04 PM

Does anyone know the origin of this saying? And is it racist? I feel it is or could be taken that way/meant that way but not knowing the origin I wonder how it started out...

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable says:

"This is said of a person who accuses another of faults committed by himself. The French say, 'The shovel mocks the poker' (La pelle se moque du fourgon)"

So it's been around for awhile. And has nothing to do with race.

iGav

Mar 20, 2004, 03:29 PM

I'm with numediaman... there's nothing racially derogatory about this saying in my opinion, it's just another example of PC'ness going to the extreme.

A similar phenomena is the saying "to call a spade a spade"... quite recently a worker was sacked after using the well known saying in a meeting, to which a present black colleague deemed to be a racist comment and complained even though it was not directed at any ethinc group.

It's poor historical knowledge and understanding of it's original meaning and context that is the problem in these cases. Fair enough, not everyone may understand or be aware of the meaning, in which case it's dangerous to make the assumption that it's an offensive or racist comment without first knowing the meaning of that particular saying or proverb.

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtocall.html
http://www.quinion.com/words/topicalwords/tw-spa1.htm

I always found it puzzling that the term 'nig*er' can be used by 2 black people talking to one another and or referring to another black person and is not deemed racist, yet if uttered by a 'non-black' person, it becomes racist. Just doesn't make sense to me at all. :confused:

Krizoitz

Mar 20, 2004, 03:37 PM

Calm down!

Says the dominate white male...

And let me tell you I have lived such a life of privilege!!!! Oh wait...no...never mind...father a teacher, son of a minister, mother a nurse, daughter of a ship yard worker...working and loans to pay for college...

I'm still waiting for the privilege boat to roll in. I mean I do realize that I'm not as likely to get pulled over, and racism obviously exists I don't debate that for a second, but as far as being dominant goes, I just don't see it. At my university whites are actually UNDER represented, but so what, i don't care what color a persons skin is anyway. I have friends of all shades and types. Doesn't mean I can't see this is just an abusrd over-reaction to a raceless phrase. If you start making everythign about race its going to be real hard to ever move towards equality. And while I don't think we should stop fighting injustice for one second, i feel that taking things to far hurts more than it helps.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 03:37 PM

I always found it puzzling that the term 'nig*er' can be used by 2 black people talking to one another and or referring to another black person and is not deemed racist, yet if uttered by a 'non-black' person, it becomes racist. Just doesn't make sense to me at all. :confused:

To be quite frank, the reason why is because no black body has ever been nailed to a tree and lit on fire by a black man or group of black men chanting "nig*er, nig*er, nig*er". Racism is not the word, it is it's useage, and when white people have used it in the past, it has meant bad, bad news.

Davis

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 03:45 PM

And let me tell you I have lived such a life of privilege!!!! Oh wait...no...never mind...father a teacher, son of a minister, mother a nurse, daughter of a ship yard worker...working and loans to pay for college...

I'm still waiting for the privilege boat to roll in. I mean I do realize that I'm not as likely to get pulled over, and racism obviously exists I don't debate that for a second, but as far as being dominant goes, I just don't see it. At my university whites are actually UNDER represented, but so what, i don't care what color a persons skin is anyway. I have friends of all shades and types. Doesn't mean I can't see this is just an abusrd over-reaction to a raceless phrase. If you start making everythign about race its going to be real hard to ever move towards equality. And while I don't think we should stop fighting injustice for one second, i feel that taking things to far hurts more than it helps.

It doesn't really matter who you are - when someone looks at you on the street they have no idea what your parents did/do, and it is even hard to tell your economic status. But when anyone sees you they can see right up front that you're a white male, and that status alone puts you at the top of the heap in this country.

But your point is well taken - in my opinion, the backlash against the race card is much more dangerous than the race card itself, but anything that helps paint the charge of racism in a negative light (ie finding racism where few would agree - I don't know many black people who have been offended by this phrase) just hurts the cause even more.

Davis

numediaman

Mar 20, 2004, 04:12 PM

It doesn't really matter who you are - when someone looks at you on the street they have no idea what your parents did/do, and it is even hard to tell your economic status. But when anyone sees you they can see right up front that you're a white male, and that status alone puts you at the top of the heap in this country.

But your point is well taken - in my opinion, the backlash against the race card is much more dangerous than the race card itself, but anything that helps paint the charge of racism in a negative light (ie finding racism where few would agree - I don't know many black people who have been offended by this phrase) just hurts the cause even more.

Davis

What does any of this have to do with a Spanish author and two cooking vessels?

Sayhey

Mar 20, 2004, 04:19 PM

I don't know the answer to the original question, but I will take both pseudo and numediaman's answers as important guides to the source. I wonder if there is an element of the old view of those who were charcoal workers or chimney sweeps, etc. In other words looking down on those who worked in professions that covered them with soot. Just a thought. I would bet that given the age of the saying it is more likely than a value put on skin color. I would also point out that the important part of it is how it is used today. I don't think there is a particular racial aspect to its modern usage.

I have to agree with Krizoitz that the idea of privilege based on skin color is not a very helpful or accurate term. That is not to say that such societies haven't existed - antebellum US society in the slave states, South Africa under apartheid are examples of just such structures. The idea of "white privilege" doesn't describe, IMHO, what goes on in the US today. As someone who worked for years in the trade union movement it is easy to see the effects of racism on the day to day lives of people and the ability to make a decent wage. The division of people by race hurts everyone, to be sure it hurts some much more than others, but it does not help anyone who works for a living to live a life of privilege.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 04:22 PM

What does any of this have to do with a Spanish author and two cooking vessels?

I dunno, nothing really, I guess - I was responding to a post which was sparked by a conversation which resulted from the original question. Isn't that how it's usually done here? I didn't think my post was so off-target as to be not relevent to our conversation.

:confused:

I guess it has to do with the original phrase because I think finding racism within this phrase will only exasperate the issue of the racism backlash.

Davis

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 05:10 PM

exasperate
Um, that's exacerbate... ;)

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 05:13 PM

Um, that's exacerbate... ;)

Aren't they synonymous?

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 05:15 PM

Aren't they synonymous?
'Fraid not! Exasperate=drive to distraction
Exacerbate=make worse, literally more bitter

zimv20

Mar 20, 2004, 05:19 PM

Aren't they synonymous?
according to me, exacerbate is more correct, but exasperate is acceptable.

it's like that thing maureen dowd always does. where i would say, "i am skeptical," she always writes "i am dubious." dubious has a definition that means "skeptical," but imo skeptical is more precise, and therefore more correct.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 05:22 PM

'Fraid not! Exasperate=drive to distraction
Exacerbate=make worse, literally more bitter

That's not what I'm getting over at Dictionary.com

Exasperate:

1. To make very angry or impatient; annoy greatly.

2. To increase the gravity or intensity of: “a scene... that exasperates his rose fever and makes him sneeze” (Samuel Beckett).

Possible synynoms: exacerbate, aggravate

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exasperate

Or for a list of synynoms to "Exacerbate"

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Exacerbate

I knew I had corret useage!

Davis

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 05:22 PM

according to me, exacerbate is more correct, but exasperate is acceptable.

it's like that thing maureen dowd always does. where i would say, "i am skeptical," she always writes "i am dubious." dubious has a definition that means "skeptical," but imo skeptical is more precise, and therefore more correct.

Of course, over here it's "sceptical" :)

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 05:24 PM

That's not what I'm getting over at Dictionary.com

Exasperate:

1. To make very angry or impatient; annoy greatly.

2. To increase the gravity or intensity of: “a scene... that exasperates his rose fever and makes him sneeze” (Samuel Beckett).

Possible synynoms: exacerbate, aggravate

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exasperate

Or for a list of synynoms to "Exacerbate"

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Exacerbate

I knew I had corret useage!

Davis

:D Corret useage or correct usage? :D
And what the hell is a synynom?

zimv20

Mar 20, 2004, 05:30 PM

Of course, over here it's "sceptical" :)
about that, i am not dubious

:-O

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 05:30 PM

:D Corret useage or correct usage? :D

At least I knew the real meaning of exasperate... ;)

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 05:32 PM

:D Corret useage or correct usage? :D
And what the hell is a synynom?

It's a friggin' typo, that's what it is.

Someone took a whole lot of jerk pills this morning.
:rolleyes:

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 05:33 PM

It's a friggin' typo, that's what it is.

Someone took a whole lot of jerk pills this morning.
:rolleyes:

I guess that'd be me :p

numediaman

Mar 20, 2004, 06:51 PM

It's a friggin' typo, that's what it is.

Someone took a whole lot of jerk pills this morning.
:rolleyes:

Now, wouldn't that be the pot calling the kettle black?

(sorry, couldn't resist :D )

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 07:10 PM

Now, wouldn't that be the pot calling the kettle black?

(sorry, couldn't resist :D )

What is this, pick on Davis day?

Why all the hate? First I make a relevant comment to the discussion and strangely get called out for being off tangent, then I correctly use a word and am told it's wrong, then get dumped on for a handful of typos.

If you ask me, you're the pot calling the tea-cup black in defense of the kettle!!! ;)

I am not pot, I am not kettle - I am a wee, fragile, porcelain tea cup - what's up with all this? What happened to Thanatoast's thread on incivility?

DavisBTeaCup

EDIT: Edited for spelling to avoid the wrath of skunk.

blue&whiteman

Mar 20, 2004, 07:14 PM

pot? yes please

skunk

Mar 20, 2004, 07:15 PM

What is this, pick on Davis day?
DavisBTeaCup

I don't think anyone is being uncivil. I'm sorry I criticised your typos. Just messing about. Put on the kettle and have another cup of tea. :) Or pot :p

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 07:19 PM

I don't think anyone is being uncivil. I'm sorry I criticised your typos. Just messing about. Put on the kettle and have another cup of tea. :) Or pot :p

I did just make a totally sweet bong out of my tea kettle ;)

Oh I'm just joking!

Davis

Sparky's

Mar 20, 2004, 09:40 PM

DavisBAnimal

Mar 20, 2004, 10:04 PM

Are we posting just for posting sake?
I believe the Spanish author had no idea the controversy he was stirring up when he coined the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" I find it ludicrous that anyone would even question it. After numediaman and IJ Reilly posted, that should have been it, end of sentence. Makes all the sense to me.

Political Posts don't even count towards post-count, right?

I disagree - I think, with the exception of the grammar-spelling posts (which was all fine in the end), I think it's good to discuss racism and the possibility for racism, in certain phrases, etc. - it's something that isn't talked about enough. At least not in a civil, understanding way.

Davis

Desertrat

Mar 21, 2004, 11:49 AM

Sceptical? With a "k"? Since when?

:D, 'Rat

skunk

Mar 21, 2004, 12:01 PM

Sceptical? With a "k"? Since when?

:D, 'Rat

Don't you start... ;)

Neserk

Mar 21, 2004, 06:07 PM

Political Posts don't even count towards post-count, right?

They didn't as of when I signed up. I thought I'd be a newbie for ever but my status has changed.

I think it's good to discuss racism and the possibility for racism, in certain phrases, etc. - it's something that isn't talked about enough. At least not in a civil, understanding way.

Thank you! My husband was hooked on "The apprentice" when he went out of town. We watched a recap of it on Thursday night. Someone uses the phrase and the African-American woman says it is racist. That sparked my curiosity because it has struck me as potentially racist in the past. So I thought I'd ask.

The conclusion I've come to is this: The original phrase is basically saying: You are saying my hair and face are a mess but you don't even realize that your's is, too!

That being said, I suspect that for some *now* there is a potentially racist tone to it because our society has developed a negative connotation to "black." If I were black I think I it would *feel* like a slur even if the phrase was not coined that way. The best I can explain it is when I was in my mid to late twenties and people would talk about how "skinny" I was. They all insisted it was a compliment but it certainly didn't feel that way nor did it sound that way.

Neserk

Mar 21, 2004, 06:08 PM

Are we posting just for posting sake?
I believe the Spanish author had no idea the controversy he was stirring up when he coined the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" I find it ludicrous that anyone would even question it.

People like you let bad things happen because you don't ask question!

After numediaman and IJ Reilly posted, that should have been it, end of sentence. Makes all the sense to me.

See above!

skunk

Mar 21, 2004, 07:30 PM

Let's not hear any talk of "white flags". It might imply whites are "yellow".... :rolleyes:

Krizoitz

Mar 21, 2004, 07:37 PM

Thank you! My husband was hooked on "The apprentice" when he went out of town. We watched a recap of it on Thursday night. Someone uses the phrase and the African-American woman says it is racist. That sparked my curiosity because it has struck me as potentially racist in the past. So I thought I'd ask.

The conclusion I've come to is this: The original phrase is basically saying: You are saying my hair and face are a mess but you don't even realize that your's is, too!

That being said, I suspect that for some *now* there is a potentially racist tone to it because our society has developed a negative connotation to "black." If I were black I think I it would *feel* like a slur even if the phrase was not coined that way. The best I can explain it is when I was in my mid to late twenties and people would talk about how "skinny" I was. They all insisted it was a compliment but it certainly didn't feel that way nor did it sound that way.

I figured that might be what you were refering too, yeah the problem is that woman had a HUGE chip on her shoulder and over-reacted and dramatized everything.

In this case it has nothing to do with black being good or bad, it just had to do with both things being black. In other cases black is used negatively as opposed to white because of the association with darkness and light. The problem isn't so much racism as the unfortunate occurence where their darker skin has caused them to be called the same word as other things associated with not so good stuff. There is a reason Darth Vader wore all black, and it wasn't a fashion statement.

Neserk

Mar 21, 2004, 10:11 PM

Let's not hear any talk of "white flags". It might imply whites are "yellow".... :rolleyes:

Perhaps you need a lesson in what it means to be the dominate race...

Neserk

Mar 21, 2004, 10:12 PM

I figured that might be what you were refering too, yeah the problem is that woman had a HUGE chip on her shoulder and over-reacted and dramatized everything.

Between the faked injury and the bitchiness I didn't much care for her but her response brought to mind what I had been thinking for a while...

Sparky's

Mar 23, 2004, 08:11 PM

originally posted by neserk
People like you let bad things happen because you don't ask question!

try "questions" plural

And what the hell are you implying by that statement???
People like what??

I take things as I see them and have a fond respect for history, for I do want want to be condemned to repaet it! What I don't understand are peole who insist on looking way too far into things just to base an agenda on. It's a d**n historic saying, GET OVER IT.

Neserk

Mar 24, 2004, 12:11 AM

try "questions" plural

That will teach me not to proof my posts ;)

And what the hell are you implying by that statement???
People like what??

I thought it was obvious: People who accept the answer and don't push further by asking questions!

I take things as I see them and have a fond respect for history, for I do want want to be condemned to repaet it! What I don't understand are peole who insist on looking way too far into things just to base an agenda on. It's a d**n historic saying, GET OVER IT.

I don't have an agenda. Like I said: I've thought of the comment as racist before and when I heard a black person saying the same thing I knew I wasn't the only one. So I asked the question. I can see that it was probably not intended to be racist but today could easily be seen as racist.

Krizoitz

Mar 24, 2004, 10:22 AM

I don't have an agenda. Like I said: I've thought of the comment as racist before and when I heard a black person saying the same thing I knew I wasn't the only one. So I asked the question. I can see that it was probably not intended to be racist but today could easily be seen as racist.

So now we have to start assuming anything having to do with color is racist?

PHRASE
I got a black eye
REAL MEANING
Refers to often black discoloration associated with being punched in the eye
RACIST MEANING
Black people get brutalized by police, racists etc so having a black eye refers to black people getting beat up

ORIGINAL
I'm seeing red
REAL MEANING
Upset or angry, in reference to peoples eyes getting redder when angry due to blood circulation, etc
RACIST MEANING
Refers to native americans and their red skin color and how savage they are

ORIGINAL
Green with envy
REAL MEANING
Jealous
RACIST MEANING
Green refers to Ireland, alot of irish people especially in the past were poor, so of course that meant they were jealous

The point of course being that you can take ANYTHING and make it racist if you try hard enough. Which is EXACTLY what Omorosa (the black woman on The Apprentice) was doing. She heard the word black and immediately assumed someone was making a racist comment. For someone who claimed to be so educated and classy it surprises me that she is not familiar with an expression like that one. Honestly you could have asked someone to borrow their black pen and she probably would have accused you of supporting slavery by treating black things as property. Gimme a break. The phrase has ABSOLUTELY nothing racist about it. NOTHING.

Does racism exist? Sure does. Should we try and stop it when it happens? Yep. But this is a case of the boy who cried wolf. If you start accusing people of being racists all the time, pretty soon they are going to stop caring, because they will know that no matter what they do they will be accused of it.

I am white. I'll admit it. But what really gets me is when people accuse me of being racists simply because I'm white. Lets forget the fact that I don't say racist things, I have friends of all races and I have never once discriminated against someone based on their skin color. But because my skin color is white I must be racist. Who is the racist one now?

mactastic

Mar 24, 2004, 12:01 PM

Here's a match for the fuel in here....

How about niggardly?

zimv20

Mar 24, 2004, 12:17 PM

Here's a match for the fuel in here....

How about niggardly?
yeah, no kidding. a scandal that should have been solved by consulting a ****ing dictionary

numediaman

Mar 24, 2004, 01:24 PM

If you guys don't watch out I'll start a thread called "A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush" -- that should start something. ;)

applebum

Mar 24, 2004, 02:18 PM

Here's a match for the fuel in here....

How about niggardly?

Uh oh - how many people do you think will know that word has absolutely nothing to do with the "bad" word? Careful, you are liable to be called a racist....

mactastic

Mar 24, 2004, 03:25 PM

Uh oh - how many people do you think will know...

Not enough unfortunately.

2jaded2care

Mar 24, 2004, 03:51 PM

How about the pot calling the kettle colourless?
But really, this is very silly: black is the colour of the soot on both pot and kettle. How this could be construed as a racial slur is beyond me. Are "feeling blue", "seeing red", "white heat", "purple prose" and "brown study" also to be avoided as potentially insulting? Give us a break...

I used to wonder about the term "white noise", until I found out the reason it's called that:

"White noise is a type of noise that is produced by combining sounds of all different frequencies together...

The adjective "white" is used to describe this type of noise because of the way white light works. White light is light that is made up of all of the different colors (frequencies) of light combined together (a prism or a rainbow separates white light back into its component colors). In the same way, white noise is a combination of all of the different frequencies of sound." (from howstuffworks.com)

IOW, "white noise" is not the sound of a GOP rally. Well, not officially anyway. :)

Neserk

Mar 24, 2004, 09:20 PM

So now we have to start assuming anything having to do with color is racist?

Now you are just being silly

I am white. I'll admit it. But what really gets me is when people accuse me of being racists simply because I'm white. Lets forget the fact that I don't say racist things, I have friends of all races and I have never once discriminated against someone based on their skin color. But because my skin color is white I must be racist. Who is the racist one now?

Being racist isn't just about what you say. It is about how you think and how you say things. You can not be human and not have *some* racism in you. So when ever someone says "I'm not racist" I tend to think they are more than they know it ;)

Neserk

Mar 24, 2004, 09:23 PM

Uh oh - how many people do you think will know that word has absolutely nothing to do with the "bad" word? Careful, you are liable to be called a racist....

Now comments like are just, well, you figure it out. Even though the origin of the word is not racist the fact that is so close to a word that is makes me unwilling to use it. And people who run around and use because "they know it is not racist" make me wonder about them. The words "arrogant" and "insensitive" come to mind.

applebum

Mar 24, 2004, 10:55 PM

Now comments like are just, well, you figure it out. Even though the origin of the word is not racist the fact that is so close to a word that is makes me unwilling to use it. And people who run around and use because "they know it is not racist" make me wonder about them. The words "arrogant" and "insensitive" come to mind.

When anyone has to stop using legitimate words because they may offend someone or they sound like a word that may offend someone then we are truly losing ground in society.

Go to a dog show and you will hear the word bit*h being thrown around, and no it is not because one handler is ticked off at another. It is just the proper word for their female dog.
If I said that in Britian they smoke fags, would you think I was acusing them of abuse toward homosexuals? The fact is almost any word can be used as a weapon and be offensive. You have to look at who is using the word, how they are using it, and why they are using it. If there is no intent to be offensive, then we shouldn't assume it was meant to be offensive.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 02:13 AM

When anyone has to stop using legitimate words because they may offend someone or they sound like a word that may offend someone then we are truly losing ground in society.

This is a little more serious than "may offend someone" we are talking about a group of people who were kidknapped, beaten, and enslaved. Who, to this day, are at a disadvantage *despite* affirmative action, and in somecases due to it, thanks to people's prejudices. (how many times have you seen an incompetant white man in a position of power and wondered if the only reason he got there was because he was a white man? Guess what? It happens all the time!)

If I said that in Britian they smoke fags, would you think I was acusing them of abuse toward homosexuals? The fact is almost any word can be used as a weapon and be offensive. You have to look at who is using the word, how they are using it, and why they are using it. If there is no intent to be offensive, then we shouldn't assume it was meant to be offensive.

Not if you were in Britian because in Britian everyone knows that is what a cigarette is called. Come back when you have a legitimate argument.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 10:33 AM

Not if you were in Britian because in Britian everyone knows that is what a cigarette is called. Come back when you have a legitimate argument.

But that's the point. People here should know what niggardly means.

Should we stop saying 'hanky' 'cause it's too close to 'honky'?

Is the word 'kite' on the chopping block too?

Don't panic

Mar 25, 2004, 11:06 AM

might as well go for the big prize...

....

white house!

Krizoitz

Mar 25, 2004, 11:19 AM

But that's the point. People here should know what niggardly means.

Should we stop saying 'hanky' 'cause it's too close to 'honky'?

Is the word 'kite' on the chopping block too?

why is it that its ok for people to use the term cracker to refer to white people? its a derogatory term and I'm sorry but i've seen plenty of minorities use it, especially blacks in the R&B/rap industry. why do we let that happen?

And the first person who says we aren't opressed so its different is missing the point, its still racist.

skunk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:39 AM

If I said that in Britian they smoke fags, would you think I was acusing them of abuse toward homosexuals?

Funnily enough, both "fag" and "straight" are used for cigarettes! "Straight" of course because they contain "straight tobacco" as in "straight whisky" (for those who sometimes adulterate their tobacco with nefarious substances...)

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 12:33 PM

But that's the point. People here should know what niggardly means.

Should we stop saying 'hanky' 'cause it's too close to 'honky'?

Is the word 'kite' on the chopping block too?

The point is, I know very few people who have a vocabulary where the word "niggardly" will just pop up in their heads. I don't go walking around talking about antidisestablishmentarianism everyday - it's not a part of my vocab. So when I hear people use niggardly, and then someone inevitably goes "dude, easy with the racism" they're always like "No! No! You idiot! You're so dumb, niggardly is a totally acceptable word with a meaning that goes back beyond the racist word! Stupid! You're such a moron!" And it's just like, give me a break. I know I learned that word in a discussion specifically about the racial slur, and I am confident a lot of the people who drop "niggardly" now use it the same way and are mainly just throwing it out their to get a response and show off how "smart" they are - niggardly is not a part of the common American lexicon. People are using it now for show, and that's dumb, and, yes, arragont is the right word. Kite? Come on now - Kite a common word, as is hanky. I just don't have much respect for people who use the word "niggardly" just cause they know it will get them a response and they can make their pseudointellectual point about how it's not a racist word, and isn't it awful that everyone else is so stupid as to not know that. It's annoying - I just hate it when people get hopped up on themselves and what they know like that.

Davis

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 01:22 PM

The point is, I know very few people who have a vocabulary where the word "niggardly" will just pop up in their heads. I don't go walking around talking about antidisestablishmentarianism everyday - it's not a part of my vocab. So when I hear people use niggardly, and then someone inevitably goes "dude, easy with the racism" they're always like "No! No! You idiot! You're so dumb, niggardly is a totally acceptable word with a meaning that goes back beyond the racist word! Stupid! You're such a moron!" And it's just like, give me a break. I know I learned that word in a discussion specifically about the racial slur, and I am confident a lot of the people who drop "niggardly" now use it the same way and are mainly just throwing it out their to get a response and show off how "smart" they are - niggardly is not a part of the common American lexicon. People are using it now for show, and that's dumb, and, yes, arragont is the right word. Kite? Come on now - Kite a common word, as is hanky. I just don't have much respect for people who use the word "niggardly" just cause they know it will get them a response and they can make their pseudointellectual point about how it's not a racist word, and isn't it awful that everyone else is so stupid as to not know that. It's annoying - I just hate it when people get hopped up on themselves and what they know like that.

Davis

So your argument is that because I am intelligent enough to use niggardly in conversation I'm a racist and an arrogant one to boot? Even if it is a rare word, there are situations where it_is_the_appropriate_word.

Should I have to dumb down all my vocabulary to satisfy your anti-intellectualism? Oops, was that too big of a word? How about pseudointellectual?

And you do know that that particular word has caused a perfectly competent person to resign, right? Isn't that a little much?

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 01:44 PM

So your argument is that because I am intelligent enough to use niggardly in conversation I'm a racist and an arrogant one to boot? Even if it is a rare word, there are situations where it_is_the_appropriate_word.

Should I have to dumb down all my vocabulary to satisfy your anti-intellectualism? Oops, was that too big of a word? How about pseudointellectual?

And you do know that that particular word has caused a perfectly competent person to resign, right? Isn't that a little much?

I never said you were a racist, and I don't think you are if you use the word niggardly - whether it's a part of your natural or forced vocabularly. And I will admit there are probably certain social situations, with certain company, where the word is a natural part of conversation. But these boards, on the street, the bus, talking to 95% the US population, the word niggardly is not common and therefore not used - the way I have seen it, it's most often just used to make a snobby-intellectual point. And that's stupid.

Now I don't know you at all, so I don't know where you first learned the word, or why you use it, but when you're talking to me and to others here there's no need to use big words that no one knows just to make a point about the fact that you know them. You don't have to "dumb-down" for me, but if you come in here talking about "the niggardly interagaent with the corpulant concomitant vacated the luncheonette post-haste so as to circumlocute an uncouth concurrence with the lackey" I'm just going to think you're a huge pointy-headed jerk. Sorry about it, man, but even though it's all english, it has no place in most polite conversation, and it'll look to me like the words are just being used for selfish, boasting reasons. To me, this is how use of the word "niggardly" comes off - when someone's using it, I don't think the dude is racist, I just think he's a bit of a prick who likes to show off.

Davis

PS - The ironic thing about this discussion is that a more common and known synonym for niggardly would probably be a racist slur on the Jews - ie "Don't be jewish, dude, leave a better tip". Obviously that's not what I'm calling for, but can't we just stick to "cheap" or "stingy" or "tight-fisted". Seems to get the same point across without the high-brow nose-in-the-air type snobishness.

PPS - the dude over in DC shouldn't have been fired.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 01:53 PM

Do you automatically assume that people who use big words are snobby or trying to make an intellectual point?

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 02:10 PM

Do you automatically assume that people who use big words are snobby or trying to make an intellectual point?

When they use them with people they know, or should know, aren't familiar with them, and when there's a more common word that fits just as well, yeah, I totally do.

Language has always been used as a class-creating device - a way of splitting up the commoners from the aristocrats, and even still has that effect today. To me, big words are a way of alienating one class - call them the "intellectual" class - from the common or "less educated" class of people, blue-collar workers, etc. That's the biggest lesson I learned from my one year at an elite private college - the classes weren't that challenging, they weren't stimulating and, you know, investigatory - they were vocabulary classes, centered around learning a lot of jargon. Granted, I was a Sociology major, but that's really the effect I got from the whole school - it was a way for us to learn how to talk like all the elites who have all the power, to make it possible for us to go out and become a part of that elite class.

It's more than just annoying to me when people use the way they talk as a way to identify themselves as somehow superior - it just perpetuates the social stratification of an already over-aliented and disgruntled populace ;) Or, to put it better, people need to stop worrying about how smart they are and just keep it real.

Davis

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 02:38 PM

It's more than just annoying to me when people use the way they talk as a way to identify themselves as somehow superior - it just perpetuates the social stratification of an already over-aliented and disgruntled populace ;) Or, to put it better, people need to stop worrying about how smart they are and just keep it real.

nice bit of anti-intellectualism there. reminds me of high school, where the way to get along w/ people was to pretend to be dumb. i didn't buy into it at 15 and i don't buy into it now.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 02:51 PM

nice bit of anti-intellectualism there. reminds me of high school, where the way to get along w/ people was to pretend to be dumb. i didn't buy into it at 15 and i don't buy into it now.

You know, how you talk isn't a matter of how smart you are. I'm not buying this. You can be smart and not use an alienating vocabulary - one that makes it so only a handful of people know what you're talking about. You can be intelligent without talking like a jerk, and using words you know people don't know is a jerk thing to do.

Take this board for instance - I think Desertrat is probably among the smartest of all the regulars here, definitely very wise, yet he never talks above anyone - he's a down to earth guy with a down to earth vocabulary. And he's also really smart. And that goes a long way in my book.

This isn't an anti-intellectual argument, this is an argument that, 1 - it's wrong to assume that your intelligence is somehow directly tied-in to your vocabulary, and, 2. it's arrogant to make word choice based on how you want other people to see you - ie you shouldn't be choosing your words in a certain way because you want people to think/know you're smart.

Davis

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 03:05 PM

This isn't an anti-intellectual argument, this is an argument that, 1 - it's wrong to assume that your intelligence is somehow directly tied-in to your vocabulary, and, 2. it's arrogant to make word choice based on how you want other people to see you - ie you shouldn't be choosing your words in a certain way because you want people to think/know you're smart.

all right, you've just thrown me into an existential quandry...

is word choice about communication of ideas or communication of personality and culture?

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 03:11 PM

all right, you've just thrown me into an existential quandry...

is word choice about communication of ideas or communication of personality and culture?

When there's multiple words for the same idea, it's just as much about personality and culture as anything else. Language is a cultural practice. It happens cross language barriers - so when I hear a french person talking french I can say "hey look, a french dude" - but also within the same language. Language is an effective way of creating and practicing culture.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 03:22 PM

When there's multiple words for the same idea, it's just as much about personality and culture as anything else.
but if one word is more precise than the other, even if it's perceived as more intellectual, wouldn't that qualify as being about communication?

c.f. the discussion of exasperate vs. exacerbate the other day

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 03:28 PM

but if one word is more precise than the other, even if it's perceived as more intellectual, wouldn't that qualify as being about communication?

c.f. the discussion of exasperate vs. exacerbate the other day

Defining which is more "precise" is mainly a cultural thing. It's not self-evidently true which word is more precise. Which is more precise - exacerbate or aggravez? They both mean the same thing, not one can be seen as more precise than the other, as I can see it (given my only limited status as a french speaker) - but when you say one it puts you in one cultural group and when you say the other it puts you an ocean away. You say to me "exacerbate" and I'll know a lot about you in comparison to my beret-wearing friend who says "aggravez".

Davis

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 03:36 PM

Defining which is more "precise" is mainly a cultural thing. It's not self-evidently true which word is more precise. Which is more precise - exacerbate or aggravez?

i think it's more meaningful to compare two words in the same language. i don't think it's necessarily a cultural thing. take skeptical/dubious. both these sentences are correct:

- i am skeptical your dad is 10 feet tall
- i am dubious your dad is 10 feet tall

one of the definitions of dubious is 'skeptical,' but that's not the first thing most people think of when they hear 'dubious'. imo, 'skeptical' is more correct. is that cultural? or is it simply, according to our language, more precise?

------

take some time today and listen to how people talk, especially people who are of a different race than you. i find that a LOT of how people choose to speak is based on how they want others to perceive them. is that in and of itself wrong? how often do you judge people on the way they choose to communicate?

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 03:47 PM

i think it's more meaningful to compare two words in the same language. i don't think it's necessarily a cultural thing. take skeptical/dubious. both these sentences are correct:

- i am skeptical your dad is 10 feet tall
- i am dubious your dad is 10 feet tall

one of the definitions of dubious is 'skeptical,' but that's not the first thing most people think of when they hear 'dubious'. imo, 'skeptical' is more correct. is that cultural? or is it simply, according to our language, more precise?

------

take some time today and listen to how people talk, especially people who are of a different race than you. i find that a LOT of how people choose to speak is based on how they want others to perceive them. is that in and of itself wrong? how often do you judge people on the way they choose to communicate?

The reason I chose two words out of different languages is to show how it's really all the same - our language is tied into our culture. Language is more of a progressive spectrum going in every which way than it is certain subsections of speach.

And in terms of your example, I think your use of "imo" essentially proves the point that it is cultural - it's in "your opinion" that skeptical is more precise than dubious. These words didn't come down from Mt. Sinai with in-built levels of precision, our cultures have molded them and our attitudes towards them.

And people talk in accordance to who they are, and also largely how they want to be percieved. And I do have some beef with people talking unlike they word normally just to show off - ok, I have a big issue with that - but it bugs me the most when people do it in such a way as to make themselves feel or appear "better" than other people. Like what happens when people use a big-worded vocabulary and somehow think that makes them smarter than the average bear. It's more than annoying because it's the way a lot of people get f-ed over in this country, and plays a huge role in defining social classes and keeping them segregated. You can't be turned down for a job because of your color, gender, sexual orientation of veteran status, but you can sure as poo get turned down because they didn't like the way you talk. Don't talk the talk and walk the walk? Well f-you, bubba-boo, you're out of here.

That's why I get bugged and angry when people use a heavy-headed vocabulary when they know it's just going to alienate them for a whole lot of "uneducated" people. People do this on purpose! And I think it's mean and arrogant.

Davis

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 04:33 PM

That's why I get bugged and angry when people use a heavy-headed vocabulary when they know it's just going to alienate them for a whole lot of "uneducated" people. People do this on purpose! And I think it's mean and arrogant.

does the way i write bug you?

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 05:44 PM

why is it that its ok for people to use the term cracker to refer to white people?

I"ve been white for almost 35 years, I've yet to hear it be used.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 05:45 PM

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 05:46 PM

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 05:47 PM

nice bit of anti-intellectualism there. reminds me of high school, where the way to get along w/ people was to pretend to be dumb. i didn't buy into it at 15 and i don't buy into it now.

That is crazy. Not using an offensive word is equal to playing dumb? Hardly.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 06:22 PM

That is crazy. Not using an offensive word is equal to playing dumb? Hardly.

How is it an offensive word? Because it rhymes with one? Oh, better not say 'bigger' anymore...

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 06:40 PM

That is crazy. Not using an offensive word is equal to playing dumb? Hardly.
i don't agree. niggardly is a perfectly acceptable word that has no reasonable negative connotation. as a teacher i should hope you'd be open-minded about it.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 07:34 PM

How is it an offensive word? Because it rhymes with one? Oh, better not say 'bigger' anymore...

The answer is obvious. IF you have to explain to people that it is not racist then it makes more sense simply to not use it.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 07:35 PM

i don't agree. niggardly is a perfectly acceptable word that has no reasonable negative connotation. as a teacher i should hope you'd be open-minded about it.

No, as a teacher I am aware that the word is offensive because it appears to be directly related to a more sinister word. I am quite surprised at how many of you can't understand that sometimes appearances are more important than what the dictionary says.

Who knows what "moot" means? No looking it up!

Frohickey

Mar 25, 2004, 07:40 PM

No, as a teacher I am aware that the word is offensive because it appears to be directly related to a more sinister word. I am quite surprised at how many of you can't understand that sometimes appearances are more important than what the dictionary says.

Who knows what "moot" means? No looking it up!

Wait... wait... I know this one... I know this one.

That's the thing that is dug around the castle walls that are filled with alligators right? In colder climates, they use crocodiles.

:p

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 07:48 PM

The answer is obvious. IF you have to explain to people that it is not racist then it makes more sense simply to not use it.

Why is other people's stupidity a reason for me to talk in simple terms to them?

We've got two seperate objections going on here, one is that the word sounds racist, and the other is that it sounds snobby. Neither of those is an acceptable reason to choose one word over another.

What about poets? Their works can hinge on their choice of the perfect word. In essence, words are their pallete. Should we limit their pallet because some people are too ignorant to know the difference between words?

Would you dare suggest these words be modified to appease the masses?Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

skunk

Mar 25, 2004, 07:49 PM

Who knows what "moot" means? No looking it up!
At the risk of being boring, it's an old english word for meeting. As in debatable, i.e. to be decided at a moot.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 07:58 PM

Why is other people's stupidity a reason for me to talk in simple terms to them?

You are telling me that you can't think of an single intelligent synonym? :rolleyes:

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 08:01 PM

No, as a teacher I am aware that the word is offensive because it appears to be directly related to a more sinister word. I am quite surprised at how many of you can't understand that sometimes appearances are more important than what the dictionary says.

does etymology make a difference to you?

The Barnhard Dictionary of Etymology traces the origins of "niggardly" to the 1300s and the words "nig" and "nigon," meaning miser, in Middle English. It also notes possible earlier origins in languages including Old Icelandic, Old English and Middle High German. There is no evidence of any racial connotation.

link (http://www.coshoctontribune.com/news/stories/20020924/localnews/148807.html)

am i allowed to refer to the african country of Niger? *that's* where ****** comes from.

skunk

Mar 25, 2004, 08:01 PM

You are telling me that you can't think of an single intelligent synonym? :rolleyes:
If half the synonyms are disqualified through being vaguely related literally or phonically with another context where they might be construed as racist by someone who didn't know any better, our choice of expression would be severely curtailed.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 08:04 PM

edit: i feel that this post was made in bad taste. neserk, i certainly mean you no harm. peace.

for those who quoted my response, i request that my words there be edited out.

skunk

Mar 25, 2004, 08:06 PM

"her argument was left with only neserkian logic"
"You're nothin' but a dirty N*s*rk!!" :mad:

Frohickey

Mar 25, 2004, 08:08 PM

"her argument was left with only neserkian logic"

Is that related to the doctor that helped terminally ill people off themselves? ;)

skunk

Mar 25, 2004, 08:11 PM

Neserk, is your name not a calculated reference to drunken vikings? How do the Norwegians feel about this?

Oh, no, wait a minute.....

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 08:28 PM

does etymology make a difference to you?

I don't expect you to understand... obviously empathy is beyond you.

Obviously your right to say whatever you please regardless of it effects other is all that matters.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 08:28 PM

If half the synonyms are disqualified through being vaguely related literally or phonically with another context where they might be construed as racist by someone who didn't know any better, our choice of expression would be severely curtailed.

For example?

skunk

Mar 25, 2004, 08:35 PM

For example?

It's all very well to avoid words with clearly racist connotations (words used as racial slurs, based on disrespectful racial stereotypes) but if you start to include words which are in fact unrelated but might just be mistaken for other words which ARE related, the situation begs for more education, and less thought-police.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 08:43 PM

Obviously your right to say whatever you please regardless of it effects other is all that matters.

i'm not presenting this as a freedom of speech issue. this is an intellectual issue. i have very strong feelings about the dumbing down of america. some are dumb naturally and some by choice, to fit in. either way, i think it's a detriment to our society.

in this thread, you are lobbying for the dismissal of a perfectly good and non-harmful phrase and a perfectly good and non-harmful word. perception may indeed be reality, but it doesn't excuse your intentional mispresentation of each in a weak effort to appear as though you walk on higher moral ground.

i will not accept such anti-intellectualism in the spirit of not offending those who are ignorant as to true meanings, sources of origin and acceptable modern day use.

i am highly disappointed that you think i am not a sympathetic (or as you say, empathic) individual based on your artificial -- and incorrect -- measure. i am more disappointed to think that students may be indoctrinated with your own particular brand of anti-intellectualism designed to pander to and protect a group that, by and large, doesn't share your view.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 25, 2004, 09:20 PM

i'm not presenting this as a freedom of speech issue. this is an intellectual issue. i have very strong feelings about the dumbing down of america. some are dumb naturally and some by choice, to fit in. either way, i think it's a detriment to our society.

in this thread, you are lobbying for the dismissal of a perfectly good and non-harmful phrase and a perfectly good and non-harmful word. perception may indeed be reality, but it doesn't excuse your intentional mispresentation of each in a weak effort to appear as though you walk on higher moral ground.

i will not accept such anti-intellectualism in the spirit of not offending those who are ignorant as to true meanings, sources of origin and acceptable modern day use.

i am highly disappointed that you think i am not a sympathetic (or as you say, empathic) individual based on your artificial -- and incorrect -- measure. i am more disappointed to think that students may be indoctrinated with your own particular brand of anti-intellectualism designed to pander to and protect a group that, by and large, doesn't share your view.

Alright, enough of that, that's a low blow. The way you talk may not annoy me, but insulting a teacher for her views and accusing her of indoctrination is beyond offensive, and in need of an apology. That's incredibly rude, and teachers deserve more than that. How would you like if you were a teacher and I said the same thing about your views on the Bush administration? Teacher's have a right to opinion and a right to teach as they see the world, that's why we have lots of em - so kids can get varried perspectives. To insult a teacher for her legitimate view of the world is beyond insensitive, and highly inapropriate, and any other polite way for saying totally uncalled for.

This is not a matter of "anti-intellectualism". Intelligence shouldn't be associated with vocabulary. I mean, Mac, when you say something like "Why is other people's stupidity a reason for me to talk in simple terms to them?" I just get really frustrated. Not knowing a word has nothing to do with stupidity. You can be smart and not know the meaning of the word niggardly. You can be smart and have a vocabulary dominated by nothing but urban slang. You can be smart and say things like "it ain't where you from, it's where you at" (from rapper Rakim) as a way of expressing existentialist thought with "to be" deletion and a sentence with clauses ending on prepositions. The myth that intelligence is correlated with vocabulary and speech is one of, if not the, main way in which we continue to have perpetuated descrimination based on class and, often times, race. A large number of African-Americans speak a dialect of english called "African-American Vernacular English" and get dumped on and insulted everyday for use of a double negative, for saying things like "hissself" and "theyself" even though those are more consistent phrasing. This is bunk, this is chronic ************, this is embarassing. The "dumbing down" of America can't be proven in linguistic terms because language is a practice of culture, and matters such as "precision", vocabulary, "correctness" and grammar, are all cultural decisions, exploited by the power structure in order to maintain a divided class structure with language the tool of descrimination.

I'm really disapointed by a lot of what is being said around here.

Davis

Frohickey

Mar 25, 2004, 09:28 PM

i will not accept such anti-intellectualism in the spirit of not offending those who are ignorant as to true meanings, sources of origin and acceptable modern day use.

i am highly disappointed that you think i am not a sympathetic (or as you say, empathic) individual based on your artificial -- and incorrect -- measure. i am more disappointed to think that students may be indoctrinated with your own particular brand of anti-intellectualism designed to pander to and protect a group that, by and large, doesn't share your view.

WOAH!!! WHAT DID YOU DO TO THE REAL ZIMV20? LET HIM GO, AND STOP POSTING UNDER HIS NAME!!! :D

This is two things now that zimv20 and I agree on. I think that zimv20 got a hold of a mind-control ray, and I'm being mind controlled. Time to put on my tin foil hat.... er... anti-mind control helmet. :o

There is a point that the author is justified in tailoring his/her work to the level of the audience. But, as your audience level of sophistication rises, so to must your work. Discarding words because of their potential to be misunderstood by the audience means that you are writing to an unsophisticated audience, and are not determined to raise their level of understanding... that is definitely not the function of a teacher. If you are not teaching, if you are not raising your students level of understanding, you are not a teacher, but a babysitter.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 09:36 PM

Intelligence shouldn't be associated with vocabulary.
i don't judge someone's intellgence on knowing the definition of a given word. i do judge it based on intelligent behavior. remaining intentionally ignorant is an example of unintelligent behavior.

i will sympathize w/ neserk on this: when someone's gone that deep into a position, it's very difficult to admit one is wrong. but neserk is. retiring 'niggardly' won't make the world less racist, only more stupid.

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 09:41 PM

This started out as a nice inquiry into a very old phrase. The question was not only sincere, but it raised a legitimate issue about the use of words or phrases that could cause offense. I don't happen to think one changes their vocabulary because of what others might think a word or phrase means. To do so smacks of paternalism to me. At the same time it is certainly legitimate to wonder about the origins of such things. There is no need to get on a high horse, to use a good old phrase, about one's vocabulary. How many ancient phrases or obscure terms a person uses doesn't mean jack. The idea of language should be to communicate, not to communicate how smart one thinks they are.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 09:42 PM

Alright, enough of that, that's a low blow. [chomp]
if you think i'm out of line, then report the post. i'll respect Rower's judgement on it.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 09:45 PM

The idea of language should be to communicate, not to communicate how smart one thinks they are.
this is what i'd asked DBA earlier. regarding the first part of your sentence, is language about communicating ideas, or communicating something about the source (aside from "i am smart")?

Frohickey

Mar 25, 2004, 09:49 PM

Alright, enough of that, that's a low blow. The way you talk may not annoy me, but insulting a teacher for her views and accusing her of indoctrination is beyond offensive, and in need of an apology.

...

A large number of African-Americans speak a dialect of english called "African-American Vernacular English" and get dumped on and insulted everyday for use of a double negative, for saying things like "hissself" and "theyself" even though those are more consistent phrasing. This is bunk, this is chronic ************, this is embarassing. The "dumbing down" of America can't be proven in linguistic terms because language is a practice of culture, and matters such as "precision", vocabulary, "correctness" and grammar, are all cultural decisions, exploited by the power structure in order to maintain a divided class structure with language the tool of descrimination.

What is the function of the teacher? Is it to teach proper sentence construction, expanding the vocabulary, learning to communicate properly, or is it to blend in with the street crowd, and learn the lingo? If its the latter, why even have the teacher in the first place? You can learn all of that on the street?

In saying that proper grammar and use of language is because of the desire of the existing powers-that-be to maintain the divided class structure, what do you call the emergence of the other type of language that purposely deviates from the established norm? Seems that the practioners seek to enhance the divided class structure even more in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of society. How is this any less 'exclusionary' than the former? If anything, its more exclusionary.

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 09:54 PM

this is what i'd asked DBA earlier. regarding the first part of your sentence, is language about communicating ideas, or communicating something about the source (aside from "i am smart")?

In my opinion, it should be about communicating ideas. If a word is obscure, but is necessary to communicate either the idea intended or flavor only it can represent, then use it by all means. In short, if someone needs the word such as "niggardly" to communicate an idea - I've no problem with its use. If someone wants to use it to show that they have a "superior" understanding of the language, then I do have a problem.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 10:18 PM

You are telling me that you can't think of an single intelligent synonym? :rolleyes:

I can think of lots. But thats not the point. I asked you if rhyming with a derogatory term for a race/religion/sexual orientation is enough to make a word taboo in society.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 10:23 PM

In my opinion, it should be about communicating ideas. If a word is obscure, but is necessary to communicate either the idea intended or flavor only it can represent, then use it by all means. In short, if someone needs the word such as "niggardly" to communicate an idea - I've no problem with its use. If someone wants to use it to show that they have a "superior" understanding of the language, then I do have a problem.
i mean moreso than a single word. it's possible to communicate a thought or idea a number of different ways. one someone makes a choice to communicate that idea in a given way, what is driving that decision? is the strictly the audience? or does the communicator wish to say something about himself in the process?

if it's the latter, is that necessarily bad?

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 10:26 PM

This is not a matter of "anti-intellectualism". Intelligence shouldn't be associated with vocabulary. I mean, Mac, when you say something like "Why is other people's stupidity a reason for me to talk in simple terms to them?" I just get really frustrated. Not knowing a word has nothing to do with stupidity. You can be smart and not know the meaning of the word niggardly. You can be smart and have a vocabulary dominated by nothing but urban slang. You can be smart and say things like "it ain't where you from, it's where you at" (from rapper Rakim) as a way of expressing existentialist thought with "to be" deletion and a sentence with clauses ending on prepositions. The myth that intelligence is correlated with vocabulary and speech is one of, if not the, main way in which we continue to have perpetuated descrimination based on class and, often times, race. A large number of African-Americans speak a dialect of english called "African-American Vernacular English" and get dumped on and insulted everyday for use of a double negative, for saying things like "hissself" and "theyself" even though those are more consistent phrasing. This is bunk, this is chronic ************, this is embarassing. The "dumbing down" of America can't be proven in linguistic terms because language is a practice of culture, and matters such as "precision", vocabulary, "correctness" and grammar, are all cultural decisions, exploited by the power structure in order to maintain a divided class structure with language the tool of descrimination.

I'm really disapointed by a lot of what is being said around here.

Davis

Hello! You're telling the guy who like to quote Homer Simpson for life lessons that sounding smart doesn't equal being smart? There is a time and a place to speak in urban slang, and a time for speaking in whatever else you want to call it that doesn't sound like it's putting down urban slang. The point is, I don't care if you do sound 'urban' if what you say is intelligent and articulate and well expressed. And I expect the same in return from others. If I sound overly intellectual, don't take that as a put down. It's just me, in the same way you would ask to not be looked down on for sounding urban.

I can live with wiping out words that have taken on hurtful meanings. But I can't condone removing words that simply have the bad fortune to rhyme with them.

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 10:36 PM

i mean moreso than a single word. it's possible to communicate a thought or idea a number of different ways. one someone makes a choice to communicate that idea in a given way, what is driving that decision? is the strictly the audience? or does the communicator wish to say something about himself in the process?

if it's the latter, is that necessarily bad?

People do and should have to change their vocabulary depending on their audience. That is not always condescending. If you're writing for a peer reviewed journal it is not going to be written in the same way one writes for those without the same knowledge base. If you are talking to kindergarten kids it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use words that only college level kids might know. I know you are very well aware of all of this, but by way of response I just throw it out there.

Is it ok to also communicate something about oneself in the process? I would hope so! My only problem is when what one is communicating is how superior one is than others.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2004, 10:46 PM

Is it ok to also communicate something about oneself in the process? I would hope so!
there's a reason i find this important -- what is communicating something about oneself but art?

art is about more than communicating an idea, it's often about communicating what the artists thinks of the idea.

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 11:00 PM

there's a reason i find this important -- what is communicating something about oneself but art?

art is about more than communicating an idea, it's often about communicating what the artists thinks of the idea.

As a skilled writer, it must be central to what you do everyday. I have no quarrel with you on this issue.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:01 PM

It's all very well to avoid words with clearly racist connotations (words used as racial slurs, based on disrespectful racial stereotypes) but if you start to include words which are in fact unrelated but might just be mistaken for other words which ARE related, the situation begs for more education, and less thought-police.

For example? Be specific, please.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:03 PM

i'm not presenting this as a freedom of speech issue. this is an intellectual issue. i have very strong feelings about the dumbing down of america. some are dumb naturally and some by choice, to fit in. either way, i think it's a detriment to our society.

.

I hardly think having respect for a group of people by refraining from using 1 word is a dumbing down. I'm sure there are equally good words you can use to make your meaning clear.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:09 PM

I can think of lots. But thats not the point. I asked you if rhyming with a derogatory term for a race/religion/sexual orientation is enough to make a word taboo in society.

Actually, it is the point.

This isn't about rhyming. This is about 2 words that have the same appearance of the same root. Both are used derogatorily. I'm sorry you can't see beyond your personal need to use the word.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:12 PM

I can live with wiping out words that have taken on hurtful meanings. But I can't condone removing words that simply have the bad fortune to rhyme with them.

Are you sure you know what "Rhyme" means? :confused:

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 11:13 PM

For example? Be specific, please.

Neserk, the thread has two prominent examples already, including the phrase you started it all with. I don't often feel the need to use the word "niggardly," but if I start not using it when it is necessary (can't quite think of when that might be) don't I make the mistake of a paternalistic underestimation of my audience? I'm all for not using racial slurs and I'm pretty damn sure most everyone else who has contributed to this thread is of like mind, but it seems to me you make the mistake of projecting your worry of what others might think a step too far.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 11:18 PM

I hardly think having respect for a group of people by refraining from using 1 word is a dumbing down. I'm sure there are equally good words you can use to make your meaning clear.

Why would it stop with just that one word? Are we going to pretend the country of Niger doesn't exist because when I type it someone could misunderstand it and think I'm referring to something else?

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 11:20 PM

Are you sure you know what "Rhyme" means? :confused:

You are correct. My bad. But are you going to dodge the question further, or are you going to step up and say that you think words that are similar to racist words should be taboo just as much as the actual racist words?

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:34 PM

Neserk, the thread has two prominent examples already, including the phrase you started it all with. .

But you make it sound like it is going to be such an epidemic that we aren't going to be able to use half the words in the english language if actually are sensitive to how they sound to others!

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:37 PM

Why would it stop with just that one word? Are we going to pretend the country of Niger doesn't exist because when I type it someone could misunderstand it and think I'm referring to something else?

Long i, short i (I teach elementary school) they don't even sound alike, hon. And in context they would know you are refering to a country, where as your other two words are both derogatory. Try again, if you must.

I'm not looking to take words out of the dictionary, folks. Just suggesting that you make choices about using said word that reflects an acknowledgement of the problem of racism.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 11:37 PM

Ever used the expression 'gypped'?

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:37 PM

You are correct. My bad. But are you going to dodge the question further, or are you going to step up and say that you think words that are similar to racist words should be taboo just as much as the actual racist words?

So far we have exactly one example of a word that appears to be racists, despite its origins. Find me another example and we'll talk.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2004, 11:41 PM

So far we have exactly one example of a word that appears to be racists, despite its origins. Find me another example and we'll talk.

How about the pot calling the kettle black?

or

Niggardly is to N***** as wop is to whopper.

Neserk

Mar 25, 2004, 11:49 PM

How about the pot calling the kettle black?

not a word, a phrase.

Niggardly is to N***** as wop is to whopper.

What is wop? Never heard it before.

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 11:49 PM

But you make it sound like it is going to be such an epidemic that we aren't going to be able to use half the words in the english language if actually are sensitive to how they sound to others!

I'm not trying to make it sound that way. I'm all for being sensitive to your audience. I'm not for underestimating people based on what they might think.

Sayhey

Mar 25, 2004, 11:53 PM

Ever used the expression 'gypped'?

mac, are you saying this isn't an offensive term? I've always understood it is from gypsy and meaning to cheat or steal. Am I wrong?

Ugg

Mar 26, 2004, 01:21 AM

not a word, a phrase.

What is wop? Never heard it before.

W.O.P. = without papers, it referred to illegal immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Its use was general at first and then came to refer to Italians specifically. Mostly out of use now but highly offensive well into the 50s.

One aspect of this argument that seems to have been glossed over is the fact that certain words "belong" to generations. In the 30s, 40s and 50s, happy was a code word for homosexuals. It is not used at all anymore and it morphed into gay.

Is it right to ban certain words or phrases from our vocabulary when for the most part many derogative terms simply fade away with time only to be reincarnated in the next generation? Banning certain words and phrases is a form of totalitarianism that should not be encouraged. Open discussion of their usage should be encouraged but never, ever banned. Is Huck Finn and evil book for its use of the "N" word? Isn't it better to confront our past than to bury it when we know for a fact that it is something that can't be buried?

Krizoitz

Mar 26, 2004, 02:18 AM

So far we have exactly one example of a word that appears to be racists, despite its origins. Find me another example and we'll talk.

chink
NON DEROGATORY MEANING
A narrow opening, such as a crack or fissure.
DEROGATORY MEANING
Refering to a person of Chinese descent

completely unrelated origins, but the same spelling and pronunciation, so do I stop using it appropriately?

fro
NON DEROGATORY MEANING
Away; back: moving to and fro.
POTENTIONALLY RACIST MEANING
slang term for a specific type of hairdo associated with black people

dam and damn?

hoe - garden tool
ho - short for whore?

niggardly has absolutely NOTHING to do with the derogatory n-word
NOTHING
and just in case you missed it, NOTHING

Going out of your way to use niggardly in a situation where it will easily be misconstrued is obviously a bad thing to do, you are threatening the potential correct use AND implying racial slurs, but if you use it appropriately why not? its NOT related one bit.

And I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive, but if you are offended by the proper use of a word that has absolutely nothing to do with a racist term and just happens to sound similar than, well too bad, I really think you are over reacting, just like I think anyone who takes the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" is over-reacting/looking for a reason to be pissed off, which was the case in the show where this whole thing got started.

Also, as an aside, what DO black people prefer to be called? I mean obviously there are valid situations where you might need to describe their skin color, so which is the least offensive term? Personally I think African-American is dumb, most black people around now adays have never even been to africa, as far as I'm concerned they are as American as the next guy. Obviously n****r is out, and colored too. Negro because of its relation to the aforementioned word seems not so great either. Black seems to be kicking up a lot of controversy now adays too. Politcal correctness really gives me a headache sometimes...

skunk

Mar 26, 2004, 05:02 AM

Alright, enough of that, that's a low blow. The way you talk may not annoy me, but insulting a teacher for her views and accusing her of indoctrination is beyond offensive, and in need of an apology. That's incredibly rude, and teachers deserve more than that. How would you like if you were a teacher and I said the same thing about your views on the Bush administration? Teacher's have a right to opinion and a right to teach as they see the world, that's why we have lots of em - so kids can get varried perspectives. To insult a teacher for her legitimate view of the world is beyond insensitive, and highly inapropriate, and any other polite way for saying totally uncalled for.
So what are you saying: "Teacher knows best"? Are we not allowed to voice our own opinions? There are many teachers I disagree with. There's a difference between insult and criticism. Are we not allowed to use our own language? Of course, if you want to communicate, there's no point speaking a language which the person you are talking to doesn't understand. But if laws or philosophical treatises were written in "African-American Vernacular English" would we all understand the fine distinctions?

This is not a matter of "anti-intellectualism". Intelligence shouldn't be associated with vocabulary. I mean, Mac, when you say something like "Why is other people's stupidity a reason for me to talk in simple terms to them?" I just get really frustrated. Not knowing a word has nothing to do with stupidity. You can be smart and not know the meaning of the word niggardly. You can be smart and have a vocabulary dominated by nothing but urban slang. You can be smart and say things like "it ain't where you from, it's where you at" (from rapper Rakim) as a way of expressing existentialist thought with "to be" deletion and a sentence with clauses ending on prepositions. The myth that intelligence is correlated with vocabulary and speech is one of, if not the, main way in which we continue to have perpetuated descrimination based on class and, often times, race.
I do not agree with the word "stupidity" as a synonym for poor vocabulary, but there are things called dictionaries. That's where you find words you don't understand. There's nothing wrong with using idiom and dialect, but if you ONLY communicate this way your audience will be limited to your own peers and neighbourhood. English idiom and dialect are sub-sets of the language, not substitutes. It is in everybody's interest to be understood: "African-American Vernacular English" can be used to exclude just as much as any other jargon.

Time for another "cup of tea", Davis? ;)

mactastic

Mar 26, 2004, 09:25 AM

mac, are you saying this isn't an offensive term? I've always understood it is from gypsy and meaning to cheat or steal. Am I wrong?

No, I'm saying it IS an offensive term. One that many people say with no regard to the fact that it is as insulting to gypsies as 'getting jewed' is to jewish people. But then what is St. Patricks day (nowadays) but an expression of the stereotype of the drunken Irishman?

Sayhey

Mar 26, 2004, 09:38 AM

No, I'm saying it IS an offensive term. One that many people say with no regard to the fact that it is as insulting to gypsies as 'getting jewed' is to jewish people. But then what is St. Patricks day (nowadays) but an expression of the stereotype of the drunken Irishman?

thanks for the clarification.

mactastic

Mar 26, 2004, 10:31 AM

not a word, a phrase.

What is wop? Never heard it before.

How about 'spade'? 'Kraut'? 'Chink' was already mentioned. 'Queer'? 'Cracker'? Is it ok to say Shi-Tzu? What do you do about the Vietnamese folks whos last name is 'Phuc'? It's unfortunate that their surname is homonymonous? with our ultimate swear, but do we insist that they change it so as to not offend a group of people? And along those lines as well, do you not care that gay marriage is offensive to some?

And just for the sake of argument, pretend I do know what I'm talking about in that 'wop' is a derogatory term. What do you think? Do we need to have a talk with Burger King about what they call their premier hamburger?

mactastic

Mar 26, 2004, 10:46 AM

Oh and how about 'retard'? As in "This substance is used to retard the spread of flames." Does that word need to be striken as well? I understand it is highly offensive to some.

DavisBAnimal

Mar 26, 2004, 11:05 AM

I do not agree with the word "stupidity" as a synonym for poor vocabulary, but there are things called dictionaries. That's where you find words you don't understand. There's nothing wrong with using idiom and dialect, but if you ONLY communicate this way your audience will be limited to your own peers and neighbourhood. English idiom and dialect are sub-sets of the language, not substitutes. It is in everybody's interest to be understood: "African-American Vernacular English" can be used to exclude just as much as any other jargon.

Time for another "cup of tea", Davis? ;)

Ok, after some tea I think it's time to make some clarifications.

One, I'm no precribing that the word "niggardly" be dropped from the english language, certainly not because I think it's a racist word (I don't). I'm just describing the word as I see it being used. I don't think we should fault anyone who, when they first hear the word, assumes it has some sort of racist connotation - it isn't a common word, I don't know when or if it was ever a common word, and, to boot, it's a negative adjective with an extremely negative word built-in to it on appearance. Is it no surprise then that people assume it's derived from the racial slur? Are people who think it's racist when they first hear it stupid? No, of course not - they just don't know the word and I think it's natural to make that sort of assumption. I don't know about the people here, but I certainly only first heard the word in a discussion about it's controversy, and since then I have come across people who purposefully use the word a lot as a way of showing off that they know something other people don't know - they do it for show. And frankly that's obnoxious, and if that's the only reason you're using the word when there are plenty of fitting synonyms, then THAT is stupid and I will prescribe you stop being such a cotton-headed-ninny-mugins about it all.

Now I also know that African-American Vernacular English (lets call it AAVE) can have the effect, as any dialect, of exlcluding people. I'm not going to deny that. My biggest beef with the way language works in this society is that we prefer and reward one dialect over another. "Proper English", "Correct Grammar" is every bit as much a dialect as AAVE - the only difference is one dialect has societal power behind it while the other does not. Not being familiar with AAVE may exclude you from a number of inner city/southern rural social communities, but not being familiar with the dialect of "proper english" (a dialect spoken but the wealthy and the politically powerful) will make it harder for you to get a job, will make it harder for you to perform well in an education system dominated by a language that is different from your own. If AAVE can't be used as a substitute for the language as a whole, then why does the dialect of the ruling elites?

People need to learn to talk in different ways in different situations - that's how the world works and is essential to the theory of "Keeping it Real". I think we shouldn't use words like "proper" or "correct" as a way of coercing children to adopt a certain, limited dialect. I think AAVE should be taught in schools, especially where it is naturally spoken, as a way of legitmizing the way these children were raised to speak. I think kids should learn that AAVE is one of many fine, natural and accepted ways of conveying their thoughts and emotions in certain situations. Hopefully this will eventually lead to more acceptance of non-standard (standard meaning the typically "proper" dialect - standard being a bad word for it too) in the work force, such that we can work towards putting an end to this sort of linguistic descriminiation, in which assumptions on your intellgience and ability often coincide with reactions to the way you talk.

That's all I am saying.

Davis

Frohickey

Mar 26, 2004, 01:59 PM

Long i, short i (I teach elementary school) they don't even sound alike, hon. And in context they would know you are refering to a country, where as your other two words are both derogatory. Try again, if you must.

I'm not looking to take words out of the dictionary, folks. Just suggesting that you make choices about using said word that reflects an acknowledgement of the problem of racism.

One is the name of a country.
One is an adjective that describes what a tightwad is.
One is a noun, that is a slang term. Its use has been widely discouraged, but when you do hear it and the user is not harrassed for its use, the user is often a dark-complected individual talking to another dark-complected individual. So, why do these individuals have a word that they can use with impunity while others cannot? Doesn't that sound racist?

DavisBAnimal

Mar 26, 2004, 02:12 PM

Its use has been widely discouraged, but when you do hear it and the user is not harrassed for its use, the user is often a dark-complected individual talking to another dark-complected individual. So, why do these individuals have a word that they can use with impunity while others cannot? Doesn't that sound racist?

It's not a racist word inherently - words are nothing on their own, they're just abstractions. They only obtain meaning from within cultural contexts and attitudes. And when the word is used by a white person, it immediately calls up the historical context of the racial brutality white people inflicted on blacks. When black people use the word, it avoids this context, because blacks haven't used the word historically in the way white people did - as a means of hatred or oppression. I know I've said it before, but to put it bluntly, the reason why a black guy can use the word and get away with it is because no black person ever nailed someone to a tree and lit them on fire chanting "****** ****** ******". Because of this different context, it is more socially acceptable (though not fully) for a black person to use this word than it is for a white person, since the white usage will immediately call into mind the historical harshness of racial hatred.

Davis

mactastic

Mar 26, 2004, 02:24 PM

Davis, you think the words 'Die N*****' have ever come from a black person's mouth before they shot another black?

DavisBAnimal

Mar 26, 2004, 02:55 PM

Davis, you think the words 'Die N*****' have ever come from a black person's mouth before they shot another black?

Obviously I know it has, and I'm not even advocating use of the word ****** by anyone. And obviously putting that word into an angry context is equally as terrible, if not more terrible, than putting it into a "white context". But the word is something uniquely and terribly white in its history, in the way it was used institutionally, so as to have strong connotations come to mind when white people use the word. When a black guy says "die N*****" you don't think of angry black guys who have said that in individual contexts against other angry black people - you think of the mass lynchings, mobbed protests, white people shooting black people with fire hoses. Black people didn't shoot innocent other black people with fire hoses. Black people didn't try to prevent other innocent black people from obtaining an equal education. White people have used the word to reak instutitional, wide-spread hell on blacks. So, yeah, angry black guys may use the word to threaten other angry (probably not so innocent) black guys - but the only reason they even think to use the word is because of the power instilled in it by all those government white folks with the fire hoses.

Davis

Frohickey

Mar 26, 2004, 04:17 PM

It's not a racist word inherently - words are nothing on their own, they're just abstractions. They only obtain meaning from within cultural contexts and attitudes. And when the word is used by a white person, it immediately calls up the historical context of the racial brutality white people inflicted on blacks. When black people use the word, it avoids this context, because blacks haven't used the word historically in the way white people did - as a means of hatred or oppression. I know I've said it before, but to put it bluntly, the reason why a black guy can use the word and get away with it is because no black person ever nailed someone to a tree and lit them on fire chanting "****** ****** ******". Because of this different context, it is more socially acceptable (though not fully) for a black person to use this word than it is for a white person, since the white usage will immediately call into mind the historical harshness of racial hatred.

Davis

So, asians, hispanics, indians, and muslims can use the word then?

Taft

Mar 26, 2004, 04:28 PM

I think the reason the "N word" is still so powerful is because very hateful people continue to use the word in racist ways. Klansmen still whip it out in to verbally lash at black people.

Where I think the black community has made a HUGE mistake is in trying to take "ownership" of such a word by using it themselves. In my mind, when a black person uses that word, they are committing a act of hypocracy. They expect white people to respect them be not using the word, but use it carelessly and with an alarming frequency to describe themselves. By attempting to claim ownership of the word and at the same time attempting to prevent other groups from using it, the black community is contradicting itself. They will NEVER claim ownership of the word as long as they treat certain usages of the word as derogatory, because there will always be people with hate in their hearts who look to the word as a symbol of that hate and of their defiance of the black community.

But I would go further and say that they will never claim ownership of the word no matter what they do. I think only time will ever make the "N word" leave us (at least in the form of a racial slur).

And contrary to what many defenders of this behavior will tell you, I don't think a black person calling another black person the "N word" is any better than a white person doing it. Its just making it harder for our society to lose that nasty word.

Taft

zimv20

Mar 26, 2004, 04:29 PM

the only reason they even think to use the word is because of the power instilled in it by all those government white folks with the fire hoses.

you ever see/read lenny bruce's stance on the word?

3rdpath

Mar 26, 2004, 04:34 PM

So, asians, hispanics, indians, and muslims can use the word then?

sure...and be judged accordingly.

Neserk

Mar 26, 2004, 10:22 PM

Banning certain words and phrases is a form of totalitarianism that should not be encouraged.

Who said anything about banning them? I am simply saying that one should be considerate when using certain words concerning the audience... nothing about banning... just respect for others is all I am suggesting...

Neserk

Mar 26, 2004, 10:26 PM

wow, your attempt at "proving" your point is getting really desperate.

[=Krizoitz]chink
NON DEROGATORY MEANING
A narrow opening, such as a crack or fissure.
DEROGATORY MEANING
Refering to a person of Chinese descent

context, my dear, context. Fixing a chink or finding one is a neutral event. No one would ever even *think* the two were related.

fro
NON DEROGATORY MEANING
Away; back: moving to and fro.
POTENTIONALLY RACIST MEANING
slang term for a specific type of hairdo associated with black people

Since when is saying someone has a 'fro derogatory?

dam and damn?

hoe - garden tool
ho - short for whore?

context, context... can't do any better? Thank for proving my point.

Neserk

Mar 26, 2004, 10:30 PM

How about 'spade'? 'Kraut'? 'Chink' was already mentioned. 'Queer'? 'Cracker'? Is it ok to say Shi-Tzu? What do you do about the Vietnamese folks whos last name is 'Phuc'? It's unfortunate that their surname is homonymonous? with our ultimate swear, but do we insist that they change it so as to not offend a group of people? And along those lines as well, do you not care that gay marriage is offensive to some?

And just for the sake of argument, pretend I do know what I'm talking about in that 'wop' is a derogatory term. What do you think? Do we need to have a talk with Burger King about what they call their premier hamburger?

Thank you, too for proving my point. Your lack of argument does it quite well. Obviously a hamburger is a neutral word and no one would even make a connection between a whopper and a wop. Same goes for the rest of you arguments. When you have something relavent to say on the topic we will continue the discussion. In the meantime...

Krizoitz

Mar 26, 2004, 11:01 PM

Thank you, too for proving my point. Your lack of argument does it quite well. Obviously a hamburger is a neutral word and no one would even make a connection between a whopper and a wop. Same goes for the rest of you arguments. When you have something relavent to say on the topic we will continue the discussion. In the meantime...

And when you use niggardly it has nothing to do with racism, its not used in that context. And when you use the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" you are refering to hypocrisy and unless you are trying to say that all people of a certain race are hypocrits then its not used in a racist context either. And going back to the original question, having watched the TV show scene multiple times the phrase was NOT being used in a racist manner.

The point you seem to be unable to prove is that using a word or phrase correctly is wrong if it might be incorrectly considered racist. As far as I'm concerned people who get upset over the supposed racism in non-racist phrases need to get a grip and quit thinking the world is out to get them.

Neserk

Mar 27, 2004, 02:17 AM

And going back to the original question, having watched the TV show scene multiple times the phrase was NOT being used in a racist manner.

That wasn't the original question. Go back and read before you get all hot and bothered.

As far as I'm concerned people who get upset over the supposed racism in non-racist phrases need to get a grip and quit thinking the world is out to get them.

Since I'm not black, your comment doesn't make an ounce of sense. Unlike you, this isn't about *me* it is about others. Perhaps if more people were concerned with others as much as they were concerned about themselves we wouldn't live in a world where we go and blow people up for our entertainment.

mactastic

Mar 27, 2004, 09:48 AM

iGav

Mar 27, 2004, 10:32 AM

And when you use niggardly it has nothing to do with racism

Exactly... It may be a derogatory word, but it has nothing to do with racial hatred or abuse.

I also thought it was a relatively well known word, that I've heard used on many occasions.

Krizoitz

Mar 27, 2004, 10:38 AM

Neserk

Mar 28, 2004, 03:22 PM

Since I'm not black, your comment doesn't make an ounce of sense. Unlike you, this isn't about *me* it is about others. Perhaps if more people were concerned with others as much as they were concerned about themselves we wouldn't live in a world where we go and blow people up for our entertainment.

Whether or not you are black has nothing to do with being excessively politically correct.

Once again, this isn't about PC this about being concerned about others. As an avowed Christian you should be the one arguing this point.

As for your last point, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current discussion. I can't remember the exact term but there is a for using something completely unrelated to the argument to try and distract people when you have nothing else to actually say.

It has everything do with the conversation at hand.
It has everything to do with the issue at hand. Society's general lack of concern for anything that doesn't immediately effect them is the underlying problem both with the problem of racism and the our tendency to want to run around and blow other people up.

Neserk

Mar 28, 2004, 03:26 PM

Please make an effort to be less condescending in your posts.

:rolleyes: You could take your own advice.

Until then you aren't worth debating. And don't ever call me 'hon' again.

Most likely, I will call you "hon" again.

Krizoitz

Mar 28, 2004, 05:21 PM

Once again, this isn't about PC this about being concerned about others. As an avowed Christian you should be the one arguing this point.

It has everything do with the conversation at hand.
It has everything to do with the issue at hand. Society's general lack of concern for anything that doesn't immediately effect them is the underlying problem both with the problem of racism and the our tendency to want to run around and blow other people up.

Racism is a very real problem and I have said so in this thread. But claiming that something is racist when its not is like the boy who cried wolf, you claim everything is racist and people are going to look at you like an idiot and ignore everything you say. You lose all credability and then you can do nothing to help out. If someone walks around using the n-word I am the first to complain about it. I abhor racism and racist comments, but I also can't stand people who abuse it from the other side. There are people of color who use the existence of racism as a crutch, and as an excuse to be just as bad themselves.

Dr. King stood up to racism, not by asking for anything special. He didn't want privileges to make up for any past slights. He didn't want black people to be able to use racist words and not white people. He wanted people to be equal. He wanted a white child and black child to play together without anyone caring. THAT is what I fight for. I'm not going to let people sidetrack the issue with red herring phrases that have nothing to do with racism. It cheapens the real fight.

Neserk

Mar 28, 2004, 06:07 PM

Racism is a very real problem and I have said so in this thread. But claiming that something is racist when its not is like the boy who cried wolf, you claim everything is racist and people are going to look at you like an idiot and ignore everything you say. You lose all credability and then you can do nothing to help out. If someone walks around using the n-word I am the first to complain about it. I abhor racism and racist comments, but I also can't stand people who abuse it from the other side. There are people of color who use the existence of racism as a crutch, and as an excuse to be just as bad themselves.

:confused:

Responses like this make me wonder what side you are on.

Krizoitz

Mar 28, 2004, 06:39 PM

:confused:

Responses like this make me wonder what side you are on.

Lets simplify

racism = bad
common sense = good
finding racism in non racist phrases = against common sense = not good

Neserk

Mar 28, 2004, 08:31 PM

Lets simplify

racism = bad
inabilty to emphathize = bad
inability to connect a and b = bad

Krizoitz

Mar 28, 2004, 09:36 PM

racism = bad
inabilty to emphathize = bad
inability to connect a and b = bad

I empathize quite well thank you very much having known people who have been victims of discrimination and racist remarks. The phrase we are talking about is not one of them however, and I just don't think any reasonable person would take it that way. If we are to assume that this phrase can be racist then we must assume that ANY phrase which uses the word black is racist. Not only that but this phrase isn't even used in a context where a racist phrase might be used. Its used to point out hypocrisy, and last time I checked that was a universal human trait. And as others have repeatedly pointed out the phrase originated before black was even used to describe those of African descent. I refuse to stop using a phrase with no racist connotations simply because some one overreacts to it. Its not a lack of empathy, its being fed up with political correctness run amok and people who overreact to nothing. There is another phrase that comes to mind when describing this situation: Making a mountain out of a mole hill. Uh oh I better be careful somebody might think I'm making fun of the Swiss cause their country is so mountainous...

pseudobrit

Mar 28, 2004, 09:52 PM

racism = bad
inabilty to emphathize = bad
inability to connect a and b = bad

The fact is that the phrase has been around longer than the word "black" has been used to describe people of African descent and has several different versions in several different languages.

I don't know what you're getting at here. I think you're being stubborn because there really is no rational argument against the phrase in question, only a theoretical one.

Let's stop talking about how people *might* interpret it and talk about what it means literally and etymologically. When you look at this issue from a logical and historical perspective, there's simply no argument.

Neserk

Mar 28, 2004, 10:54 PM

The fact is that the phrase has been around longer than the word "black" has been used to describe people of African descent and has several different versions in several different languages.

I don't know what you're getting at here. I think you're being stubborn because there really is no rational argument against the phrase in question, only a theoretical one.

Let's stop talking about how people *might* interpret it and talk about what it means literally and etymologically. When you look at this issue from a logical and historical perspective, there's simply no argument.

We are no longer talking about the pot and kettle ;)

Neserk

Mar 28, 2004, 10:55 PM

I empathize quite well thank you very much having known people who have been victims of discrimination and racist remarks. The phrase we are talking about is not one of them however, and I just don't think any reasonable person would take it that way.

now, which phrase are you talking about? Because the discussion has changed considerably. The one about pot and kettle was concluded some time ago.

Krizoitz

Mar 28, 2004, 11:49 PM

now, which phrase are you talking about? Because the discussion has changed considerably. The one about pot and kettle was concluded some time ago.

well as far as everyone else seems to be concerned thats what we are talking about. But what else are you talking about, niggardly? Also a word with NO racist connections.

Neserk

Mar 29, 2004, 02:18 AM

well as far as everyone else seems to be concerned thats what we are talking about. But what else are you talking about, niggardly? Also a word with NO racist connections.

Other than the fact that all but the last 3 letters are the exact same word :rolleyes:

pseudobrit

Mar 29, 2004, 02:36 AM

Other than the fact that all but the last 3 letters are the exact same word :rolleyes:

Try its root, "niggard."

It's English.

Should we avoid phrases like "chink in the armour" too?

iGav

Mar 29, 2004, 05:37 AM

Other than the fact that all but the last 3 letters are the exact same word :rolleyes:

And??? :p :p :p it does not make it a racist word because it shares the first 4 letters... :rolleyes: the word 'niggardly' itself IS NOT RACIST... it could be used in a racist comment context, such as 'you're a niggardly ni**er', but it still doesn't make the word 'niggardly' racist... :rolleyes: ;)

Of course if someone uses the word in conversation (and I personally see no reason why they shouldn't) and a black person overhears this conversation and mistakenly thinks the word 'ni**er' was said and they take offense at this, well firstly they shouldn't have been listening to someone elses conversation... that's rude... :p

But if they decided to pull that person up about using a 'racist' word... then if it were myself being a accused, firstly I would ask that person what they heard, I wouldn then correct that person to the word I actually used and then I would ask them if they were aware of the words meaning. If they were not I would explain it to them, I would then ask, if the accusation was in earshot of the people surrounding me for a full and unreserved apology.

Then I would politely suggest to them, that if in future they hear a word that they think is racist, but they are unaware of the words meaning, that before they go and make such a serious and offensive accusation to that person, that they actually look up the word first as that is common courtesy.

Taft

Mar 29, 2004, 09:27 AM

Krizoitz said:Racism is a very real problem and I have said so in this thread. But claiming that something is racist when its not is like the boy who cried wolf, you claim everything is racist and people are going to look at you like an idiot and ignore everything you say. You lose all credability and then you can do nothing to help out. If someone walks around using the n-word I am the first to complain about it. I abhor racism and racist comments, but I also can't stand people who abuse it from the other side. There are people of color who use the existence of racism as a crutch, and as an excuse to be just as bad themselves.

Nezerk said::confused:
Responses like this make me wonder what side you are on.

Didn't he make it abundantly clear that he ISN'T racist?

If you think there aren't any racist black people out there, you need a serious reality check. And he is right that people often make excuses to justify their own racism. There are people who think that all white people are out to get them and therefore hate white people as much as a Klansman hates black people.

And it is a problem. Irrational hatred of an entire group based on the actions of a few in that group is the foundation for racism. And the only thing that racism from the black community will acheive is to make more white people hate them. Hate breeds hate. From both sides. As Krizoitz mentioned, Dr. King understood this. This is why his speeches weren't paranoid rants against the white community, but rather inspiring, uplifting and empowering for the black community.

Neserk, here's a newsflash: black people aren't perfect. They make mistakes and hate just like the rest of us. And to treat them differently when they make those mistakes (whatever the justification) is only going to breed more racism. In fact, I think such policies are inherently racist. If a black person is acting in a racist manner, it isn't acceptable; at least no more so than a white person acting in a racist manner. There is no justification for that behavior. And if you defend their racist actions, you are no better than a KKK sympathizer.

Everyone in this world has been put down upon in some way or another. But to use that experience as an excuse to hate a whole group of people is inexcusable, or at least it should be. Leave us, gross stereotypes!

And this post isn't about affirmative action or reparations, so don't go there. Thats a different discussion.

Taft