From her perspective (as well as mine), Dr. Laura had absolutely nothing for which to be sorry, and yet she apologized.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the tough talking "self-help" radio talk show host, has recently landed herself squarely in the midst of but another controversy. It would seem that this time, though, she elicited the wrath of the PC gods by committing the mother of all mortal sins: Dr. Laura, you see, dared to say "nigger" — and more than once — while on the air.
We needn't rehash the specifics of the context within which the good doctor sold her soul, for both her friends and foes, the demons and the angels, recognize that she ascribed this racial epithet to neither the black woman who called her show nor to any other black person; rather, as Dr. Laura explained — and as but a modest payment of attention to the now controversial call amply clarifies — she simply sought to demonstrate that our culture is populated by far too many people, both black and white (and other?) who have become hypersensitive to a word that, stripped of context, has none of the ruinous power typically attributed to it.
That the self-appointed guardians of our "Politically Correct" orthodoxy — "the Anti-Racists" — would demand Dr. Laura's head in spite of their knowledge that she never referred to anyone as a "nigger" should come as no surprise to all who are familiar with their modus operandi: after all, they believe in, or — what is much more probable — they want for the rest of us to believe in the superstition with which they have surrounded "nigger"; what is surprising, however, is that Dr. Laura issued an unequivocal apology for her use of the word — in spite of her awareness of what she had done and intended to do.
This story, though, gets yet more interesting.
About a week or so after Dr. Laura offered her tearful apology for the episode that, she confesses, compelled her to cut that edition of her show short for the uncontrollable shakes that her repeated use of "nigger" allegedly induced in her, she announces that come the end of the year, she will not renew her contract to continue the fabulously successful program that she has hosted for decades. The reason for her momentous decision, Dr. Laura says, is that she longs to regain her "free speech" rights, to liberate herself from the burdensome restrictions upon her speech under which has been made to labor for all of these years.
I can't be the only person to take note of the bizarre nature of this whole episode.
Let us leave to one side for the moment the obvious fact that few people have availed themselves of their first amendment rights to the extent that Dr. Laura has. However much she has helped others over her illustrious career — and there can be no doubt that she has indeed inspired legions of people to confidently contend with the contingencies with which human life is ridden — this cannot compensate for her astonishing, but, regrettably, all too common, ignorance of the first amendment and, thus, a key ingredient in American freedom: the right to free speech is emphatically not the right to be exempt from criticism, whether that criticism is rational or not. As far as I am aware, Dr. Laura has been targeted for her use of the word "nigger" by neither federal nor state governments, and because the right to free speech guarantees nothing other than exemption from government prosecution — and even then such exemption is qualified — her right to free speech has been unimpaired throughout this whole ordeal.
Secondly, presumably it is Dr. Laura's decision — no one else's — to leave the radio waves. If she feels "oppressed" by the "Anti-Racists" who are now targeting her sponsors and the stations on which she airs, this can only be because she allows herself to feel that way. No one has succeeded in running her out of town on a rail; it is of her own volition that she has resolved — after a mere week! — to get out of dodge.
Thirdly, Dr. Laura is evidently so incensed by the oppressive hypersensitivities of our "Politically Correct" culture that she both insists on employing its most forbidden term and leaving the radio waves. Yet inasmuch as she claims to have been upset to the point of being unable to complete the show in which she used that term, as well as author an apology both on her blog and on the air the following day for having done so, she actually strengthens that very culture by acting, well, hypersensitive!
Either the word "nigger," when shorn of abrasive contexts — as it apparently was within the context in which Dr. Laura used it — is as inoffensive as any other, or it is not. She maintains to this day that, intending as she did to make but a "philosophical point," she never attacked anyone. Supposedly, her "point" was that people like her caller were hypersensitive to a mere word. But then, Dr. Laura turns around and apologizes for using the word. For what, we must ask, was she apologizing? If the word isn't always offensive, or better, since Dr. Laura continues to believe that "nigger" was inoffensive, or should have been inoffensive, within the context of her exchange with her caller, then why is she apologizing?
Finally, to confuse matters yet further, Dr. Laura now announces her plans to move on to the next chapter of her life, one in which her free speech rights will be restored in all their glory. Now, this appears to be but more evidence that she is convinced of the righteousness of her cause on that fateful day when she dared to say "nigger" through her microphone. After all, she resents being told which words she can and cannot express, and the "philosophical point" she was trying to make is that "nigger" is not a word that should be categorically proscribed.
So, once more, we must ask, why did she apologize?
From her perspective (as well as mine), Dr. Laura had absolutely nothing for which to be sorry, and yet she apologized. There really is but one conclusion left for us to draw from this paradox: Dr. Laura has folded like the proverbial cheap camera so as to pay homage to the Left's idols. For this reason, I resolutely refuse to partake of the sympathy that her "conservative" peers now bestow upon her, and I just as firmly resolve to direct the anger and resentment that they have reserved for her leftist opponents to Dr. Laura herself, for she squandered a rich opportunity to inspire millions to emancipate themselves from the rigidities of "Political Correctness" while simultaneously promoting a restoration of both sobriety and maturity to thought.
Our verdict is inescapable: for all of the good that she has done, Dr. Laura has proven herself to be but one more "conservative" who takes with one hand what she gives with the other: for all of the lamentations and indignation that she expresses over the absurdities and hypersensitivities of our age, in the end she can be trusted to partake of them.
I, as well, fail to understand exactly what Dr. Laura is apologizing for. Two of the standards of conservatism, as I see it, are;
1. To actually hold convictions regarding certain issues. And
2. To actually have the courage to maintain those convictions in the face of liberal ‘high dungeon’.
To perform as she did; first repeatedly using the word ‘nigger’ to make a point; then to apologize for doing such negates both the above listed rules. It has the added difficulty of rendering more power to the word than it deserves.
It is conventional wisdom that the only portion of the population that is strictly prohibited from uttering such a word are conservatives.
The true question here is why the double-standard? A black man can call me a ‘cracker’ and a gay man can call me a ‘breeder’; but I cannot call a black man a nigger or a gay man a queer without those on the progressive left rending their garments as they say; “What need do we have for witnesses; you’ve heard the blasphemy. Let us proceed with the crucifixion!”
However; a progressive can be caught using these words and not only are they not asked to offer penance for their sin, they are often absolved of any wrongdoing by other members of their religion.
I think the real question isn’t “why not use the word ‘nigger,’ but rather why should one use it?’ Dr. Kerwick supposes that the word is harmless once it is “stripped of context,” but gives insufficient attention to how difficult that task might be. The word is offensive to many, perhaps most, Americans, black or white. I would think a conservative, who is supposed to respect social custom in his society, just might take this into account, although many conservatives haven’t learned this yet.
Dr. Laura tries to maintain a distinction she is not philosopher enough to carry off—between speaking the word and ‘using’ it. Once more, a conservative, at least if one’s standard is conservative criticism of such things as ‘hate’ crimes and speech codes, should be wary of resting too much of his position on the intention of the speaker. Dr. Laura did not refer to the caller as a ‘nigger’ and did not apply the word to others. Rather, she reported its usage. I think this could be done, but it would take the artful perphrasis of an academic to pull it off. I recall an incident at some college a year or so ago when a faculty member got into trouble for using the word ‘wetback’ in class. Turns out he was just explaining that this word has been and is still today used by some to refer to illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border into the US. I’ve reported on the use of various ethnic slurs in class but have never gotten into trouble by making very, even excessively, clear to students that I’m explaining the way a word is or has been used and nothing more.
As for ‘free speech’ rights, I’m unhappy that real conservatives have taken Dr. Laura’s bait on this one. Dr. Laura clearly buys into the liberal notion (from Supreme Court cases decided by liberal majorities) that the 1st Amendment means everybody has some sort of constitutional right to say whatever they want to, or about, anybody or anything whatsoever. Conservatives used to understand that ‘free speech’ was originally intended by the Founders to refer to speech related to the processes of governing, such as speech connected with the pros and cons of legislation or policy, or speech connected with the processes by which Americans may get into public office. Even more restrictive is the idea that this 1st Amendment protection was originally intended to apply only (as the language of the First makes clear) to Congress. We liberals expanded the concept to include ‘freedom of expression,’ and, frankly, I don’t think conservatives are entitled to buy into this unless they admit they’re on our side on this one. I’m always somewhat amused when conservatives go on about ‘freedom of expression.’
Now the question of racial privilege: There’s no denying that there are blacks—however, be careful about generalizing to blacks as such—who use the word ‘nigger’ frequently. It is a word that has currency hip hop performers and rappers—although there are many who do not use it at all in their lyrics. Again, generalizing can be hazardous.
There are a couple of possible ways to think about this. (1) One could argue consistently that, just as there are people of other races who use slurs and insults, there are blacks who do this, and they are, in that respect, rude, crude, uninformed, impolite, etc. Certainly I have black friends who take this position. (2) One could argue consistently that any ethnic/racial slur can be used by the people it labels, if they choose to do so, and that those not in the group in question do not have such a right. Use of an ethnic/racial slur could be regarded, then, as ‘insider’ language, which many groups (not all of them racial) have. I’m old enough to remember when some blacks favored the word ‘members’ as their insider designation, as in “I’m talking about members only,” signaling that the speaker was not addressing whites. Most ethnic groups have an insider code of labels and insults, and jokes about other groups. If blacks use ‘nigger’ in such a way, I don’t see that anyone else has any standpoint from which to deny them this usage. For blacks, there is yet another use of ‘nigger,’ where this means crude, rude, impolite, etc. blacks. For example, Duke Ellington was quoted several times in his career as saying that he didn’t want any ‘niggers’ in his band because they were an embarrassment. He once fired the great jazz bassist Charlie Mingus for picking a needless fight with and threatening another band member with a knife, telling Mingus that he didn’t want ‘niggers’ playing in his band.
Next, on the ideological issues raised by Dr. Kerwick and Mr. Wavering:
Again, I return to the question of why someone would want to use the word ‘nigger.’ I can only assume that if the user isn’t employing the word in one of the ways I mentioned above, he simply wants to shock or offend. The word, at present in our society, cannot be neutralized unless it is handled in the ‘academic’ way I mentioned. And even then, many people—and not just progressives—would object to it being used simply because it has been part of a vocabulary of oppression. Will the word ever be neutral in our society, perhaps in the same way that words like ‘redhead’ or ‘blonde’ are? I have no idea. But it isn’t so right now, and Dr. Laura, if she’s half as brilliant as she claimed to be, must surely know this. If she really does think she can choose to use it and not expect criticism, she’s outlived her shelf life.
Which brings me to what I suspect may be the real, and yet perhaps not well-understood, reason why conservatives typically react to this sort of episode as they do. Wouldn’t a lot of conservatives really like to go back to the days when they, as white Americans, were the masters of all ethnic/racial/religious slurs? Isn’t there a little bit of the idea, in conservative minds, that there was really nothing wrong with the labels used for Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Swedes, Chinese, Germans, Portugese, etc by ordinary (real) white Americans? Wasn’t something lost when Americans woke up one morning and realized that they just couldn’t get away with calling a Chinese a “Chink” or a Korean a “gook” or a Jew a “kike” anymore? I do think it’s painful for people to be told that they shouldn’t use words they grew up with using. Here we get another dividing line between conservatives and liberals: We think that in general it’s a good thing for there to be diminishing use of ethnic slurs, and conservatives, I assume, want to preserve such usage as part of individual liberty.
Now please notice I’m not even close to doing the Leftist thing of blaming Americans for this. As far as I’m aware, every society has words that the majority or dominant part of society uses that slam those not in that group. Sociology 101 tells us this, and anyone who has traveled abroad knows it is true. In the Netherlands, Santa Claus has long had his slave—now modified a bit to be his servant—called Zwarte Piet (“Black Pete”). Black Pete is represented as a clichéd little black figure who works for Santa. Many older Dutch people see no harm in this, but, of course, a younger generation is less happy with this traditional element of Christmas. I can give other examples, but I hope the point is clear.
Finally, on progressives and racist terms: Very few white progressives are going to try, and even fewer would get away with, using ‘nigger.’ They certainly won’t be praised for it by their fellow progressives.
Agreed on the point regarding why would one choose to deliberately use such a word. Having said that; “One could argue consistently that any ethnic/racial slur can be used by the people it labels, if they choose to do so, and that those not in the group in question do not have such a right.” Such a phrase cannot be construed as a right so much as a privilege. Rights must belong equally to all persons. That’s when we really wander off the reservation. Blacks are ‘privileged’ to call each other ‘nigger’ however; all other ethnic persuasions do not possess such a privilege? Huh?
I too am old enough to remember that a previous generation used this type of terminology, but my grandparents passed away almost forty years ago. What I find most odd is that persons are routinely excoriated for perceived blunders into this area.
For instance; in 2007 David Howard, a staff member of Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams was dismissed because he used the word ‘niggardly’ during a staff meeting. I myself fell into this same morass in 1985.
I’ve always been, and will always be, a fan of the NFL Rams. In 1985 Eric Dickerson was holding out for more money and a re-working of his NFL contract. I wrote a letter to the sports page of the then Orange County Register newspaper (the Rams were in L.A. at the time) and accused Eric Dickerson of being niggardly. The day that letter was re-printed in the newspaper you’d have thought I’d advocated the burning of crosses and the bombing of churches! There were several disparaging letters printed in subsequent editions. Most of the rants did little more than expose the authors’ woefully inadequate vocabulary skills. We also suffered several threatening phone calls. All this because publically educated morons thought I had said…
So; I must ask again, exactly what does the use of this word describe? And does it describe a situation of a group of characteristics that may be identified and expressed upon only by persons within that ethnic group? And if there IS a specific set of characteristics described by that particular word, why is it only permissible for blacks to acknowledge those through continued use of the word?
A reasonable person would believe that if a word is so distasteful as to no longer be permissible in polite company, that ‘polite company’ would extend to all racial groups. Or is; “rude, crude, uninformed, impolite” just keepin’ it real man?
As for; “conservatives, I assume, want to preserve such usage as part of individual liberty.” Nonsense! My folks didn’t raise me around that kind of language. None of those terms were considered appropriate in our house while growing up. Do I know persons who use such terms today? Yes I do: And I usually consider the source and just go forward with the conversation. It does no good to correct such people as they perceive they’ve nothing to be embarrassed over.
reply to Mr. Wavering,
Sorry about using the word “right” as I did. I had forgotten that on your side of the spectrum the everyday meaning of the word “right” isn’t applicable. In ordinary American English, most people make no distinction between “right” and “privilege.” [Tell me, have you been reading legal theorist Wesley Hohfeld?]
In any case, even if you prefer “privilege,” I think my point about how groups have ‘insider’ jargon still applies. So, the answer to your question at the end of your first paragraph is ‘yes.’ And it would be ‘yes’ if Germans or Swedes or Chinese had a word equivalent to ‘nigger’ that they used with each other. They could use it, but it would be rude for an outsider to use it. I think the rule here should be: call people what they seem to want to be called, and don’t call them what they seem not to want to be called. An applied golden rule.
Now as for ‘niggardly,’ I’m aware of this silly business. As you may well know, the word probably originates in Old Norse and means ‘stingy’ or some equivalent. Here there is no reason for anybody to get upset, although I’m aware of the David Howard issue and several others like it. Your own experience is unfortunate, but, as you know, ultimately the result of inferior education. By the way, it’s not just public education. I have had students educated in Catholic schools who were at least as nearly illiterate as any public school product might be. [My favorite: a female freshman student who'd had a 3.5 gpa in a Catholic high school who didn't know when the American Civil War was fought and who was involved.] On this issue, no one should have to quit a job or apologize; ‘niggardly’ simply has nothing to do with race. Period.
In response to your final restatement of your main question: I regard the word ‘nigger’ as offensive and a mark of rudeness, ignorance, etc. no matter who uses it. Just because there are blacks who use it doesn’t redeem it. It was used much more freely by both whites and blacks in decades past, but I learned at my mother’s knee that it was not a word polite people used, under any circumstances. If blacks choose to use it among themselves, as so many, but again not all, black comics do, or rappers, etc., so be it, and I’m under no obligation to try to reform their speech.
However, if they use such expressions while trying to get good jobs and improve themselves, they will soon run into the inevitable obstacles that arise for those who will not adopt what I’ll call ‘generally acceptable American English.’ My department right now has had problems with a black administrative assistant who, while she doesn’t use ‘nigger,’ uses very irregular grammar and seems to find it hard to acquire ‘business English.’ [You don't answer a department phone with 'Hold on,' however acceptable that phrase may be among some blacks.]
I’ve also seen very bright black students needlessly handicapped by their language skills who were afraid of being rejected by fellow blacks as ‘acting white’ if they use standard English. And yes, I know that what I’ve been calling ‘standard English’ or equivalent is the language of a white majority. Well, in any society some such language will prevail, and whoever belongs to a linguistic (or other) minority and wants to get along and ahead just has to become proficient in it. Actually, many liberals believe this, but many also don’t want to acknowledge it. One of my vices is to let cats out of liberal bags around my fellow liberals.
Re: “…far too many people … have become hypersensitive to a word…”
There is an old radar engineer’s saying that applies: “When you increase the sensitivity, you increase the false alarm rate.”
In ordinary American English, most people make no distinction between “right” and “privilege.”
Thanks to the total bastardization of the word and its meaning. Kind of like “democracy”. That a term is widely used inappropriately isn’t a good defense of the continued misuse of the word. I think Bill’s “niggardly” story is a case study in this regard.
In response to your final restatement of your main question: I regard the word ‘nigger’ as offensive… If blacks choose to use it among themselves… so be it, and I’m under no obligation to try to reform their speech.
In that case, are you (or “we”, collectively or individually) under any obligation to “try to reform” the speech of anybody, for any reason? It seems as if “you liberals” very much wish to “try to reform” the speech of some people, both officially through laws regulating speech and through social pressure including boycotts and public hysteria in response to the use of certain words by certain people. So I would ask if this lack of obligation is universal in your view, and if not, how the distinction is made between when the obligation to exercise legal or extralegal apparatuses of “reform” exists and when it does not.
Again, I return to the question of why someone would want to use the word ‘nigger.’ I can only assume that if the user isn’t employing the word in one of the ways I mentioned above, he simply wants to shock or offend. The word, at present in our society, cannot be neutralized unless it is handled in the ‘academic’ way I mentioned.
There is a bit that Lenny Bruce performed in a stand-up comedy routine, part of which I’ve posted here before in a similar discussion, which I think demonstrates not just that the context in which “nigger” or any other words is used is important, but how the use of the word “nigger”, even outside the esoteric context of the ivory tower of academia, and even without being disarmed of its power to shock and offend (or, in this case, specifically because of it), can itself “neutralize” the word. A transcript of the bit follows:
By the way, are there any niggers here tonight? “Whew, what did he say? ‘Are there any niggers here tonight?’ Jesus Christ! Does he have to get that low for laughs? Wow! Have I ever talked about the Schwarzes when the Schwarzes had gone home? Or spoken about the Moulonjohns when they’d left? Or placated some Southerner by absence of voice when he ranted and raved about nigger nigger niggers?”
Are there any niggers here tonight? I know that one nigger who works here, I see him back there. Oh, there’s two niggers, customers, and, ah, aha! Between those two niggers sits one kike – man, thank God for the kike! Uh, two kikes. That’s two kikes, and three niggers, and one spic. One spic – two, three spics. One mick. One mick, one spic, one hick, thick, funky, spunky boogey. And there’s another kike. Three kikes. Three kikes, one guinea, one greaseball. Three greaseballs, two guineas. Two guineas, one hunky funky lace-curtain Irish mick. That mick spic hunky funky boogey. Two guineas plus three greaseballs and four boogies makes usually three spics. Minus two Yid spic polack funky spunky polacks. “Five more niggers! Five more niggers! I pass with six niggers and eight micks and four spics”. The point? That the word’s suppression gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. If President Kennedy got on television and said, “Tonight I’d like to introduce the niggers in my cabinet”, and he yelled “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” at every nigger he saw, “boogey boogey boogey boogey boogey; nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” ‘til nigger didn’t mean anything anymore, till nigger lost its meaning, you’d never make any four-year-old nigger cry when he came home from school.
The only reason why being called, say, a “cracker ass peckerwood” (racial epithets seem to bring out the best of human creativity, if nothing else) by a black man doesn’t offend a white person as much as being called a “nigger” by a white man offends a black person is because we have armed the word with such power by our unhealthy level of reverence for it.
Would “white nigger” be acceptable? Why or why not?
“I had forgotten that on your side of the spectrum the everyday meaning of the word “right” isn’t applicable. In ordinary American English, most people make no distinction between “right” and “privilege.”
I really don’t understand what you mean here. There certainly IS a difference between right and privilege and people that fail to make the distinction are being imprecise with their vocabulary
A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group. A right is a legal, social, or ethical principle of freedom. To put it another way;
• A right is a privilege irrevocably coupled to an attendant responsibility
• A right is equally exercisable by all citizens
• A right is exercisable by one person without in any way negatively impacting the right of all other persons.
Your supposition of a ‘right’ for the use of the word ‘nigger’ by only African Americans fails both tests one and two of the above described conditions. That one race exclusively claims the ability to utilize this term while excluding all other groups places this firmly in the realm of privilege. Also; to try to equate ‘right’ and ‘privilege’ is to disenguiniuosly attempt to declare equivalence. The most direct way I can describe such a difference is to state; “I have a right to the fruits of my labors; but progressives believe that the dregs of society have the privilege of access to my income for their own comfort.” That statement ought to clear up any confusion you may have between the two terms.
PS
Hohfeld was correct!
reply to Mr. Wavering
I’ll go even further. In ordinary American English, most people understand a ‘right’ as an identifier of some action or belief that, everything else being equal, they may perform (or think), with the understanding that others may not prevent them for doing so. For example, I suspect most Americans assume they have a ‘right’ to wear their hair as they prefer. Note, however, that this can’t be an absolute, since, in the military, hair length is regulated, as are such things as headgear. There are federal court cases where Orthodox Jews claimed a ‘right’ to wear yarmulkas while in uniform, but the decision held that the interest of the military in maintaining order is a higher claim than that of the right of a person to wear his religious garb. As is often thte case, law is in flux about these sorts of issues. For example, can a restaurant owner fire an overweight waitress? How much overweight? Etc.
When it comes to thinking, surely you recognize that the average American will say that he has a ‘right’ to whatever political or religious opinion he prefers.
Of course it is possible to develop (as Hohfeld and lots of others have) an elaborate conceptual system which recognizes and attempts to distinguish various sorts of ‘rights.’ It is also possible to analyze ‘rights’ as they are embodied in a specific legal and constitutional system, or within a specific philosophy of law. I have no problem with such analyses, but the fact that there are many conflicting systems of ‘rights’ suggests to me that it may be useful (at least for some purposes) to stick to what seems to be the case for ordinary people who are neither lawyers nor philosophers. See how far you get talking Hohfeldian first- and second-order jural relations at the barber shop or over a beer at a tailgate party. Note also, again with reference to a system like Hohfeld’s, that it cannot be refuted by empirical evidence—that’s because it was designed not to be refutable in this way.
As for privileges, again thickets of concepts sprout up. Just to give an example, consider the US Constitution. The privileges and immunities that are protected under Article IV include the right to receive protection from state government; the right to acquire and possess all kinds of property; the right to travel through or reside in any state for purposes of trade, agriculture, or professional endeavors; the right to claim the benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus; the right to sue and defend actions in court; and the right to receive the same tax treatment as that of the citizens of the taxing state.
To go further, The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national government of a violation of its laws; the right to receive protection from violence when in federal custody; the right to have free access to U.S. seaports; the right to transact business with and engage in administering the functions of the U.S. government; the right to have access to federal courts; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
And then there is the whole area of Legal privilege involves the right to withhold evidence from discovery and/or the right to refrain from disclosing or divulging information gained within the context of a “special relationship.” Special relationships include those between doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, priests and confessors or confiders, guardians and their wards, etc.
Note that these ‘privileges’ are also ‘rights,’ and no constitutional lawyer will have a conniption fit if the words are used as synonyms. Thus, while you make one distinction between ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ you have in no way settled any question by providing a more systematic account.
Now to your specific claim about the use of ‘nigger.’ When it is said that blacks have the ‘right’ to use the word while others do not, you should not parse legal theory too closely to grasp this. Try this paraphrase:
If blacks have a ‘right’ to use the word ‘nigger,’ this simply means that, in the interest of respecting the social conventions of at least some blacks (and there is no need to figure out who or how many, etc.), there is a social convention that non-blacks have no legitimate way of preventing, restricting, or opposing the use of that word. Of course, non-blacks may, if they choose, express their own disagreement with the usage of the words (as I have), but the fact that I disagree with the usage gives me no status from which I can do any more than express my disagreement. Just as I have no ‘right’ to try to make the Orthodox Jew use ‘Christian’ terminology to praise God in his worship, I have no ‘right’ to make blacks stop using the word ‘nigger.’ To suppose that I do have such a right is to buy into what conservatives usually are quick to denounce as the ‘liberal’ concept that just because I am offended by something someone says, I therefore have some sort of ‘right’ to make them stop saying it. Or, knowing that loyal Southerners have their own name for what most Americans call the ‘Civil War’ does not require me to accept the Southern label, nor does it give the Southerner any sort of ‘right’ to try to prevent me from calling the event the ‘Civil War.’
What you have confused, to some extent, is a ‘right’ understood in a legal or even constitutional sense with ‘rights’ as used in plain old ordinary American English (and practice). In this much less orderly setting, I have a ‘right’ to believe the Earth is flat—but I don’t necessarily have a ‘right’ to require that my professor of geology give equal time to the flat earth theory.
reply to Mr. Mulligan,
1) The Lenny Bruce routine depends upon the premise that repetition of a slur will (and should) render it, in the end, meaningless. This is an abstraction that tells us little about the real world. In real societies, with real histories, with real people, things are not so pure. How many times, for instance, should we repeat a Nazi phrase calling for death to Jews to a Jewish audience before that audience finds the phrase funny or meaningless? I wonder if Bruce ever tried something like that…
Even the Supreme Court recognized the reality of ‘fighting words,’ as understood in American ordinary English. As in Davy Crockett saying ‘Them’s fightin’ words!’
I’m afraid your position amounts to the old idea that, after all, words are ‘merely’ words. Again, this sounds fine but doesn’t work. Religions that disagree with one another disagree about ‘words,’ but the words refer to deep-seated beliefs, identifies, even matters of life and death, and to fail to recognize this is unrealistic.
It’s not that “we” have made ‘nigger’ a word with great power; it’s because the word has had, and continues to have, great power, that we are aware of it as a point of contention.
Now, on to your comments on liberals and words:
Why do (some) liberals get upset about words? Very simple. Some words represent actual or possible threats to the safety or even the lives of real people. I’m aware that there are some conservatives who think that it would be great if everybody felt free to use any insulting words they wished, to address anyone, anytime, anywhere–they call this ‘free speech’ and imagine (contrary to both law and custom) that they have a ‘right’ to do so. I’m also aware that many on the Left believe something very similar. Neither side seems to understand that the use of some words, over time, can be connected with consequences. (Try paraphrasing Weaver’s title “Ideas Have Consequences” as “Words Have Consequences.”) So, during the Nazi era, Germans were bombarded,from every corner, in books, movies, etc. with the imagery of the Jew as vermin, as disease, as a corrupting force. Was it easier for a German to denounce his Jewish neighbor to the Gestapo after having heard for the thousandth time that Jews were vermin and infecting the German people by their very existence? You figure it out.
I have a response pending – some of the language undoubtedly caused it to be withheld for moderation. I assure you I intend no offense, but rather to discuss the language in the sort of academic context which fellows like Gestell would view as appropriate.
Gestell,
Interesting comment: You say; “If blacks have a ‘right’ to use the word ‘nigger,’ this simply means that, in the interest of respecting the social conventions of at least some blacks (and there is no need to figure out who or how many, etc.), there is a social convention that non-blacks have no legitimate way of preventing, restricting, or opposing the use of that word. Of course, non-blacks may, if they choose, express their own disagreement with the usage of the words (as I have), but the fact that I disagree with the usage gives me no status from which I can do any more than express my disagreement.” Simple explanation that covers the situation. Does it apply equally? Let’s find out.
Let’s change three words, all nouns. If Christians have a ‘right’ to use the word ‘abomination,’ (in relation to homosexual behavior) this simply means that, in the interest of respecting the social conventions of at least some Christians (and there is no need to figure out who or how many, etc.), there is a social convention that gays have no legitimate way of preventing, restricting, or opposing the use of that word. Of course, gays may, if they choose, express their own disagreement with the usage of the words (as I have), but the fact that I disagree with the usage gives me no status from which I can do any more than express my disagreement.”
Do all social groups merit this accorded respect? Or just those you choose? Does such an utterance constitute a ‘hate crime’? How so? Explain please?
A very good question. A couple of thoughts: On this issue there are a range of opinions among progressives/liberals.As far as I can tell, the further Left someone is, the more likely he or she is to assert that no one has, or should have, a right to engage in speech, write, etc. about a group in such a way as to try to generate hatred of that group or propose actions against that group that have no basis in law. This is sometimes expressed as the idea that even ‘disrespecting’ an ethnic group, gays, women, etc. should be prohibited. Often those who assert this make an exception for those they regard as likely to engage in such actions. This is why some on the Left have no problem with the idea that conservative Christians just shouldn’t be allowed to make anti-gay remarks, publish or disseminate them, and the like.
Although few of these Leftists would make the argument I’m going to make, I say they assume it anyway. Here’s the argument: all human societies must have limits on what can be said, advocated, proposed, etc. with regard to members of that society. Complete freedom of speech is undesirable and can be dangerous, since, if it is allowed, there is nothing to prevent one group from urging that another be persecuted, exterminated, etc. So, freedom of speech or expression cannot be absolute. Limitations on speech, expression, and advocacy are necessary for society to be orderly and stable. Most conservative thinkers I’ve read support some version of this position.
Of course, this is precisely the same argument that is made by religious persons, for example, who would impose legal sanctions on those who utter profanity, mock religious doctrine or images, and the like. Some of the old Massachusetts ‘blue laws’ imposed fines for swearing in public, and under some regimes, such as that of the Protestant leader John Calvin in 16th century Geneva, had a whole series of legal punishments for offenders against Christianity, including execution for heresy. Calvin also had a secret police to ferret out people doing or saying evil things at home, and encouraged family members to rat out one another as well.
The old-fashioned liberal, like me, is much more supportive of the general status of free speech as it has been protected in the US.
While I deplore the Westboro Baptist Church members who picket veterans’ funerals, I think that under the heading of ‘civil liberties,’ they can’t be silenced. The same must apply to conservative groups who engage in what I regard as offensive speech or expression about minorities, gays, or much of anything else. So, on this issue, I’m a garden variety civil libertarian.
However, supporters of the first position I sketched might use the ‘Nazi’ argument, as I did in my last post. Would the fate of millions of people—Jews, gays, the disabled—have been different if the German government of the 1920s had been able to shut down the Nazi movement? Suppose it had been strong enough (and backed by the general population, which it wasn’t) to impose stiff fines and prison time on anti-Semitic Germans? Of course, there’s no way to know if this would have made any difference, although some of the Leftists who would use this argument say, in effect, given the severity of the evil, why shouldn’t the German government have tried to suppress the Nazis?
The old-fashioned liberal is skeptical of this for one reason. Once the idea is abroad that government has the ‘right’ to suppress anyone’s freedom of speech because the speech is hateful, offensive, and the like, who gets to decide the limits to such a policy?
As for ‘hate crimes,’ my view is that, in legal terms, the legitimacy of this concept is already contained in traditional legal thinking under the heading of mens rea; in other words, just as, in both criminal and civil law, the intent of the accused can be taken into account by a court for other purposes, ‘hate crimes’ just extends the scope of this traditional legal concept.
However, in order for something to be a ‘hate crime,’ there must be some action. There are Supreme Court decisions in which the test is whether one uttering hateful words is, in doing so, advocating the taking of actions. So, if Rev. X tells his congregation that gays are all going to burn in hell, no hate crime is committed. If he urges his congregation to seek out and attack gays, he is crossing the line.
Although the first sort of Leftist often does not make this distinction, I see a big difference between ‘hate speech,’ which I say is legally protected, and ‘hate crimes,’ which I say cannot be legally protected. Once more, though, I think opponents of such speech are perfectly within their rights to criticize and rebuke those who engage in hate speech.
Rather than have any and all instances of things like hate speech instantly become legal issues, my preference is that public disapproval of such utterances and of those who make them is more likely to be effective in the long run. Certainly the frequency of anti-Semitic comments in American society has diminished in my lifetime. [If I was Obama, I'd have to say: because I have lived, this change happened, but I'm not as egotistical as he is.]
Gestell,
“As far as I can tell, the further Left someone is, the more likely he or she is to assert that no one has, or should have, a right to engage in speech, write, etc. about a group in such a way as to try to generate hatred of that group or propose actions against that group that have no basis in law.”
First of all; no one is generating hate against a specific person by witnessing biblical quotations regarding homosexuality. The Christian precept here is; “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” It is the gay community, along with a significant portion of the secular/progressive population that deliberately decides to frame the debate as a ‘personal’ affront. As I believe I have said in posting to other essays here. I have no authority to condemn, and most Christians would agree. I also have no authority to absolve. These two functions are reserved for One only. However; when one reminds a gay or a secular/progressive of;
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
• 1 Corinthians 6:1
• Deuteronomy 23:17-18
• Genesis 19, Hebrews 13:4
• 1 Kings 15:11-12
• 1 Kings 22:42-46
• 2 Kings 23:3, 7
• Leviticus 18:22
• Leviticus 20:13
• Romans 1:26-27
They start screaming; “Hate speech!” They are the ones taking it as a personal affront. We are merely pointing out, as is our right, that there is a long standing, opposing, point of view regarding homosexual relationships.
“…all human societies must have limits on what can be said, advocated, proposed, etc. with regard to members of that society. Complete freedom of speech is undesirable and can be dangerous,” This statement would imply that society unambiguously determines the ‘limits’ on free speech and we all know this is definitely NOT the case.
“The American Community Survey from the U.S. Census in 2005 estimated 776,943 same-sex couples in the country as a whole, representing about 0.5% of the population.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation If we include all other gays and lesbians not in relationships they still cannot measure more than 8% of the population. But for that 8% we need to codify that any criticism be silenced under penalty of law?
It doesn’t take much digging to find the true beliefs ascribed to by Margaret Sanger; founder of Planned Parenthood. I believe I can safely say that the amount of people that ascribe to the philosophy of eugenics is decidedly smaller than the population of the gay community in this country. Yet tens of millions of ‘useful idiots’ who have no idea of this woman’s core beliefs, avidly advocate for her policies.
There is a decided double standard here. Just as almost no abortion advocate on the planet knows anything about the core beliefs of the person that championed this cause. You cannot have a conversation regarding gay activism without a progressive bringing up the case of Matthew Shepard. But ask that same advocate to opine about Jesse Dirkhising and they give you a blank stare. They know absolutely nothing about that tragedy.
I don’t know how progressives and conservatives can be expected to reasonable debate such issues as long as one side continually denies any downside to their belief.
reply to Mr. Wavering:
Many liberals—I’m one—simply do not believe the Christian line about “hating the sin and loving the sinner.” When we see the words of Rev. Phelps and his Westboro parishoners, we do not doubt—and I think anyone who does doubt is delusional—that these men and women truly hate gays. And when Rick Warren denounces homosexuality, is it really so implausible to believe that his hatred of gays is merely less overt than that of Rev. Phelps?
“Hating the sin and loving the sinner” sounds wonderful—and I suppose I should allow for the possibility that there are people who truly do this, but consider: if I hate what a person does, and if what the person does is very important to who and what he is, then, ultimately, I am hating that person for who and what he is. QED.
I find it very hard to believe that you, as a conservative, are so tone-deaf to the utterances of conservative Christians on homosexuality. Is it really that hard for you to grasp what they’re getting at? To be sure, the hate generated by religious conservatives may not be directed at a ‘specific person,’ but, if anything, this is even worse, because the hate is directed against a group of people.
To me, anti-gay utterances by conservatives are just a short step away from the Nazi claim that Jews were vermin. Religious conservatives blame gays for everything from hurricanes[John Hagee said that hurricane Katrina was God's punishment of New Orleans for having gay pride parades.]to terrorist attacks, and even more ‘moderate’ conservatives have no problem characterizing gays as degenerates who corrupt society.
Now what is to be done with people who are this evil, as gays are alleged to be? Well, again, the Nazis provide a good example, and I contend that very few conservatives are really willing to follow through on the implications of their own position. If gays are what many conservatives say they are, then the only question is not whether to persecute them, but how and when. It can hardly be an accident that Evangelicals Pastor Martin Ssempa and Scott Lively supported Uganda’s proposed legislation on homosexuality.
Your use of Biblical passages to ‘prove’ that Christianity requires rejection—and I would add, hatred—of homosexuals. Very well, but remember that not everyone regards such passages as having authority. Many on the Left view them as simply products of 1st century AD superstition and ignorance. And even for some Christians, of the liberal variety, there are lots of dodges around the need to take such passages literally and authoritatively. Besides, since I enjoy pointing out hypocrisy on the Right, how come conservative Christians pick verses like these to take literally, while ignoring lots of other passages? There are, after all, some evangelical churches in which there are female clergy, and we know what St. Paul said about women in the churches. I can assemble Bible passages (the process is called ‘proof-texting’ in theology) to show that no Christian woman should wear makeup, dress attractively, or do anything other than submit to her husband. Also, no bathing suits, workout clothes, you name it. The only Christian women who measure up to Scriptural standards in this department are the Duggar women on cable. So, if conservative Christians want to be credible to me—not that they’re interested—they’ve got to do all of the things Scripture says, including absolutely rejecting the kind of worldly possessions Rick Warren says are ok, or they might as well just admit that they’re not really very Christian at all. But no, they’ll just pick the parts that justify hatred of people unlike themselves. This makes their religion so much more satisfying to them. It’s great to be a warrior for God. Just ask the Taliban.
Why do you think religious conservatives generally regard homosexuality as a matter of choice? It’s because if this is so, then those gays chose to be wicked and degenerate, and this means that their sin is compounded by their willfulness. Admittedly, Roman Catholic thinking has a way around this, with its idea that gays are ‘objectively disordered.’ In other words, nature made a mistake in making someone gay. Now that’s a fine sentiment. Tell gays that they are nature’s mistakes and then talk about love and kindness. What should we do with such disordered people? Hmmm..
You adduce data to try to make the point—I guess—that since gays are such a small minority, we should be indifferent to any persecution directed against them, and we need not take their interests into account. Sorry, but this is one part of conservative morality I’ll pass by. I’m old enough to remember when conservatives rejected, rather than embraced, majoritarianism. Not today’s conservatives.
I’m not quite sure why you went off on Margaret Sanger. Are you saying that because she was a eugenicist that anyone who practices family planning today is evil? That’s a stretch, even for a conservative. Sanger wanted family planning to lead to a reduction of the number of ‘inferior’ people in the population, and she was also a racist, but, once more, why should any of this score points against people who want to limit their family size, use contraception, etc? I see a galactic-sized disconnect here, but maybe you don’t.
As for Jesse Dirkhising, I would be interested if you could find any progressive advocate of gays who would say that this child’s murder is somehow less terrible than that of Matthew Shephard. And why do we have to compare murders anyway? Is this some sort of game where one side trades the murder of a gay for the murder of a child by gays? And what criteria of evaluation are at work? Presumably conservatives want to use the Dirkhising murder as part of an anti-gay argument. I find this hard to believe. My take on both murders is very simple: there are straight scumbags and gay scumbags. Find them, prosecute them, punish them. Seriously. There is no more need for liberal supporters of gays to make every gay a hero than there is for conservative opponents of gays to make every straight a paragon of virtue.
Gestell,
I think your mindlessly throwing around the word “hate” hoping it will stick to something is pretty much illustrative of the one-way thinking that Bill was intending to point on the part of those inclined to the left. The “comparative tragedy” he brought up was also intended to illustrate liberal thinking – not to reflect moral equivocation on his own part. The hystrionics on display here because Christians believe that having sex with members of the same gender is immoral is a pretty poignant example of why people like you should not be able to decide which animals are more equal than others as it regards their right to engage in free speech and expression. One could probably make the case that the very mainstream liberal position of comparing Christians to German National Socialists, a group responsible for the race-based slaughter of 6 million Jews and racial engineering through ethnic cleansing and eugenics, as you have here, is every bit as damaging and induces just as much hatred of that group as the very atypical Westboro Baptist Church position that “God Hates Fags”, which ostensibly reduces homosexuals to the level of “vermin” and justifies their extermination (I’m not sure that even the Westboro Baptist Church has ever actually articulated this position, but it’s a pretty minor quibble considering the entirety of the tripe you’ve used to build up your “conservative” strawman here).
My comment is apparently still hung up in the filter, but in it I noted that you still have yet to address my question about when the “obligation to try to reform speech” begins, in your view, since we have now clearly established that you do indeed believe that such an obligation does exist, but should not be exercised in cases where black people use the word “nigger”. You restated my question in terms of how liberals feel about offensive speech, which was nothing even remotely close to what I actually asked. We’ve established that you believe the Westboro Baptist Church is entitled to hold its “God Hates Fags” signs outside of the funerals of fallen servicemembers, and that black people are entitled to use the word “nigger” while white people are not, and you do believe that speech should be addressed by “hate crime” legislation when it, either in your perception or in reality, leads to a call to action against some person or group of people, regardless of whether it actually results in violence. So using some of the specific examples you’ve already cited, can you explain to us where the “line” is crossed where the “obligation to reform speech” becomes activated? It sounds as if Rick Warren’s speech may qualify, because he has publicly articulated that he opposes homosexual marriage. Yet the Westboro Baptist Church you are okay with, at least in philosophy. And of course “nigger” is dandy as long as it is used by black people, but may possibly be construed as a call to violent action when uttered by white people. These little eccentricities are very difficult to capture in a single piece of “hate crimes” legislation, so I’m very curious to hear your proposal on this.
IMHO, “where the ‘line’ is crossed” is when someone or some group tries to prevent a message they don’t want heard. ACORN, for example, has hired an expert in being able to out-talk critics of his organization by non-stop badgering. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, its members are disrupting a funeral which is a form of speech much like a parade is [hence the phrase, "paying last respects"]. They should all be stuffed into a baggie.
Gestell,
Just as there are progressives that actively wish for and cheer each time Dick Chaney goes into the hospital foe a cardio problem doesn’t’ give any of us license to paint an entire movement with that despicable brush. Likewise; the Rev. Phelps and his parishioners are not representative of all Christians.
Just as in the previous example of there being a distinct difference between right and privilege; there is a distinction between person and behavior. I most certainly believe myself capable of separating the sin from the sinner.
Do gays disrupt society? Being as how they are the biological equivalent of the Shakers, who eschewing reproduction, could only add to their numbers through recruitment; a case could be made for such a ‘corruption’ of society.
You have little problem believing Christians to be harboring hate against gays. While I’m certain you’ll agree that if such hatred is being harbored against gays in the Christian community, can you deny that the same hatred is harbored within Islam? While I’m certain that you would probably reserve equal condemnation against both religions, you are the exception as opposed to the rule. And this is the entire focus of the discussion. Equality
Christians and Islamists both proselytize against homosexuality; but no one can deny that there is more room for Islam in the hearts of progressives than for Christianity. At minimum progressives should be equally critical of each religion in this area. That they are not, especially given that in Islamic countries gays are actively prosecuted, speaks to the relativism practiced by progressives.
I brought up Sanger to emphasize this point even further. That many progressives give themselves over so reflexively to matters of “choice’ without even the least comprehension of the actual history of the movement and how such things disparately impact people of color.
The Dirkhising case was brought into the post opposite the Matthew Shepard incident to highlight yet another example of progressives being ethically challenges. That the Shepard case got such wide spread attention while poor Jessie was hardly heard from speaks volumes regarding the agenda of the progressive left.
A couple of simple observations: I think Dr. Laura is already aware of what Dr. Kerwick mentions. She apologized because she had to. She should have known this furor would have happened, and didn’t want the furor, so that means she did a stupid thing on the air. But since she doesn’t believe she did anything unkind, she resents having had to make the apology. So she feels that her freedom of speech was not upheld.
As far as blacks using the word with each other, I think among them it means “underdog.” That would be fine with me, but that’s not what’s happening. Blacks use it with each other for white audiences, so they should expect these bothersome questions. Some of them understand this.
As far as the word not having any power out of context, I don’t see how. How could I , a white guy, use the word, without it meaning “I could never like this person?”
As far as the word not having any power out of context, I don’t see how. How could I , a white guy, use the word, without it meaning “I could never like this person?”
My comment seems lost in the filter never to return, but in it I addressed that very question. My abridged response would be: How could you, a white guy, ever used the term “mother f***er” without it having the same meaning? Could you ever possibly think highly of a person who you would accuse of having an incestuous sexual relationship with his own mother? Obviously both terms are deeply offensive, right? In fact, the term “motherf***er” is far more descriptive and has a literal meaning that cannot be altered. So why can the term “motherf***er” be used without any furor in a PG-13 rated movie while the word “nigger” elicits gasps and groans when it is uttered by a radio talk show host referring to the word itself and not using it pejoratively against any one person or group of people? But then I guess if you really believe that the power of a word is independent of its context and usage – in effect that words are imbued with meaning supernaturally rather than given meaning by the language speakers who invent and use them – it doesn’t really matter whether the term was used pejoratively or not.
reply to Mr. Wavering (and to Mr. Mulligan at the end of my post).
It’s puzzling to me why so many conservatives imagine that most, let alone all, progressives admire Islam., or have no problem with that religion’s intolerance of gays. What progressive can you identify who says any such thing? In what progressive publication can you find an editorial policy that proclaims solidarity with Islam on this point? I’m very skeptical that you can find such things. I certainly condemn both Christian and Islamic hatred of gays.
Note that your proof-texting of Bible passages teaching the evils of homosexuality is further evidence for my claim that hatred of gays is deeply embedded in Christianity. I also will make the same claim about hatred of Jews; the New Testament has been the principal justification of Jew-haters and Jew-killers for two millennia, and no amount of Christian whitewashing can cover that up.
As for separating sin from sinner, again, it’s a great sentiment, but it doesn’t look like very much that I can see out there in the real world. I notice that you didn’t actually try to refute the following claim that I made: if I hate what a person does, and if what the person does is very important to who and what he is, then, ultimately, I am hating that person for who and what he is. So, if someone hates homosexual sexual activity, regards it as loathsome, evil, etc., then I think it is very, very unlikely that such a person will still ‘love’ the homosexual. Yes, I know that (on some interpretations) the Christian is supposed to be able to say, and truly mean, “I find what you do disgusting, but guess what? I still love you anyway.” Uh huh.
As for your statement that the only way gays can expand their numbers is through ‘recruitment,’ this is one of those uninformed and near-delusional beliefs that haters of gays trot out when they have run out of argumentative ammo. I know and work with many gays. A gay man was my first daughter’s godfather. He is a successful businessman and long-time friend; my wife and I had every reason to think that, should we die, he would mange honestly the funds and assets we would leave to our children. Now that our daughters are adults, this need no longer exists. By the way, this friend was a staunch Republican, contributing significantly to Republican candidates, until you conservatives took over much of the party, and the hatred of gays, so prominent among conservatives, became a dominant tone of the party. He was, in fact, a fiscal conservative, and he still is, but cannot support a party that is, in other respects, so contrary to his own interests. I have talked with many gay people and know of no one who was ever ‘recruited.’ And why would anyone choose to be recruited to a way of life that is so despised by so many in our society? No, Mr. Wavering, gays are gays all the way down; they know they are from very early in their lives.
I’ll return to your undocumented view of progressives on Islam. You write: ‘but no one can deny that there is more room for Islam in the hearts of progressives than for Christianity. At minimum progressives should be equally critical of each religion in this area. That they are not, especially given that in Islamic countries gays are actively prosecuted, speaks to the relativism practiced by progressives.”
The big problem with your analysis is that, once more, you make no distinction between people on the far Left and mainstream progressives (or liberals, if you like). For those on the far Left—who really do generally ignore Islamic hatred of gays—there is a simple explanation for their selectivity. On the far Left a big part of the agenda is to support anything or anyone who seems to be opposing global capitalism. For that sort of Leftist, nothing else matters than to challenge and bring down global capitalism. If Muslims can help do that, so be it. I have no interest whatever in bringing down global capitalism, and neither do progressives such as those who write for “American Prospect” or “The Nation.” Is global capitalism perfect and flawless? No. Does it have positive effects on the lives of billions of people? Absolutely.
You have, however, brought up a question that needs an answer: why do so many progressives say relatively little about Islamic homophobia? Here many of us on the Left are guilty of condescension. We assume that, due to their religion and the culture it formed, many Muslims indeed don’t ‘know better’ than to hate gays, Jews, and Christians, oppress women, etc. I know that, within the Islamic world, voices that oppose such things in Islam are few and generally threatened. The liberal beliefs we have about tolerance are a minority position within Islam. And that’s one reason why I always say, as clearly as possible, that Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world.
Again, your reference to Sanger puzzles me. I guess you mean that if I practice birth control today, I am somehow in agreement with Sanger’s eugenics. Now that is just plain silly. This is like saying that if I was a logician who used some of the logical concepts pioneered by the German Gottlob Frege (20th century), that in doing so, I am committed to that logician’s own hatred of Jews. Oh, course, I am not, and the person who practices birth control need not be a eugenicist.
[Also for Mr. Mulligan]
Finally, back to the question of the use of ‘nigger’: I go back to a previous question of mine. Why is it so important for you or any other conservative to be able to employ a word, presumably regularly, in ordinary conversation, that a part of our population regards as offensive? From your insistence that you, or white people, have a ‘right’ to use the word because many blacks do, I can only conclude, as I did before, that what you really want is to use an insulting word without any sort of disapproval from blacks or anyone else. In other words, you simply want to be able to say what you want, when you want it., with impunity. Children generally outgrow this if their parents are doing their jobs properly.
Consider: Let’s see how the following instances work if one wanted to use the word ‘nigger.’
On the job: You’re a manager and you want to get the attention of a subordinate black employee. Do you say “Hey, nigger, I need to talk to you.” I think not.
When your daughter talks about her college courses and teachers: “How do you like that nigger professor?” Well, in some parts of the country you might hear this, but still…
You’re talking sports with your buddies over drinks: “Ever since they started letting niggers ref in the NFL, the game has gone to hell…” It all depends on your drinking buddies.
Now presumably, what really irks you is if you use the word ‘nigger’ and one of us liberals goes of on you. Again, see my comment about children who outgrow…above.
So I ask, about my examples and many others I can invent: are you really all that eager to use the word ‘nigger?’ What vital interest of yours is thwarted if you can’t? Will it ruin your day if you can’t refer to the black kids down the block as ‘little niggers?’ Well, maybe this would be a hardship for you, but I really don’t see it.
One of the major reasons why your position is confusing (at least to me) is that you insist on bring a ‘rights’ framework into your discussion. What I think you’re really getting at is this: why shouldn’t the use of ‘nigger’ by whites be as socially acceptable as the use of ‘nigger’ by blacks seems to be among blacks? Note that ‘rights’ in any formal legal sense are irrelevant here. Ask Dr. Kerwick about this. In any society there are innumerable things that are socially acceptable or unacceptable without in any way falling under the category of ‘rights.’
About the only remotely plausible thing I can think of for your wanting to use the word ‘nigger’ at all is perhaps if you think (as Lenny Bruce did) that repeating the word a lot will make it meaningless and therefore (?) acceptable. I suppose if your vocabulary is very limited, this might be your aim, but since, empirically, it is not so limited, at bottom I still don’t get it.
A point for Mr. Mulligan: You mention the commonly used word ‘motherf***er. That word has largely lost any really specific meaning; it has become, for some Americans–white as well as black– simply another ‘bad’ word to be used alongside more ‘traditional’ swear words. I’ve heard it used repeatedly as a conversational filler, something like ‘um’ or ‘hmmm.’ Using it shows lack of breeding and good taste, but, as Oscar Wilde wrote in the 1890s, the problem today is to have any taste at all.
Reply to sedonaman for August 27th 2010 at 7.55am
My goodness, you poor conservatives have it so hard. That nasty old ACORN has hired an expert to “out-talk critics of his organization by non-stop badgering.” How sensitive and vulnerable you right-wingers are! Just imagine! The other side has people who try to ‘out-talk’ you! The horror of it all! Next thing you know, they’ll actually try ‘arguing’ with you. I suggest that if conservatives want to run with the big dogs they learn how to ‘out-talk’ their opponents. That’s what Bill Buckley was about.
I’m reminded of a line in “Unforgiven.” Someone says to Eastwood’s character, about a man he has killed, “But he was unarmed,” and Eastwood replies, “Then he shoulda armed himself.”
“…stripped of its context…” Are you kidding? Why don’t you white boys go take a walk. Get some fresh air.
reply to Suzanne Gentling,
About time somebody with some sense weighed in. There’s no way to strip something like this of its context except as the sort of academic exercise that even I, as an academic, think is ridiculous.
Call me old-fashioned, but in my book, if I offend someone, either intentionally or inadvertently, it is my responsibility to apologize.
This isn’t about conservatism vs. liberalism. It’s about being respectful of others. Those who are not respectful of others have no self-respect.
Why is it so important for you or any other conservative to be able to employ a word, presumably regularly, in ordinary conversation, that a part of our population regards as offensive?
Why is it so important for you, or any other ‘civil libertarian’ (you most certainly are not a civil libertarian, but we’ll use the term for the sake of argument), to be able to burn the American flag in protest of American government policy, when a large part of our population, including the men and women of the military, regard it as offensive? Since “you liberals” have been employing this argument for a century, I’m sure this will not be unfamiliar to you: the only speech that needs to be protected is unpopular speech!
I do not, despite your pathetic attempt to slime me as a racist by insinuation, make “regular use of the word ‘nigger’ in ordinary conversation”. I don’t make regular use of a hundred other deeply offensive words and phrases either, but that doesn’t mean they should be stricken from the English language or that I believe people should be thrown in jail for using them (a very real implication of “hate speech” laws that you have advocated).
What I don’t understand is that, if a word is so deeply offensive and supernaturally imbued with such unimaginable power to offend that its very use conjures images of Nazi gas chambers in your mind, why YOU are so adamant that the group against whom the word causes such offense should have any more reason or “right” to use it than anyone else. I find it curious that you don’t seem to employ this same line of logic as it regards any other racial epithet or offensive language. “Cracker”, “peckerwood” and “honky” are all offensive terms for white people (“Honky” was actually adopted by 1960′s black militants specifically as a rebuttal for the term “nigger”). Yet very few liberals/progressives/whateveryouwanttocallyourself (none that I saw, but I don’t travel within “liberal/progressive/etc” circles) felt the need to lament the use of the term “cracker” when video surfaced of King Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party using the term while advocating the murder of white people and their children, let alone to suggest that the term “cracker” should be the exclusive property of white people. The words “b*tch” and “c*nt” are extremely derogatory terms for women, such that “c*nt” is widely regarded as the most offensive word in the English language, and has been described as “the most heavily tabooed word of all English words”. Yet outside of the most radical feminist groups, there is no serious movement underfoot to make the word “c*nt” the exclusive property of women, and women are not frequently heard in ordinary conversation or in popular media calling each other “c*nt” while a separate standard applies to men who use the word. The only word for which this insane double standard both of social privilege and of legal right as you’ve described it appears to apply is “nigger”. THAT is the implication of your utterly backward logic with which I take issue. Not because I harbor a desire to be able to shout the word “nigger” at the TV screen when Kobe Bryan makes a basket while I’m swilling beer and picking my nose with my troglodytic friends while watching a basketball game. If you picked any other ostensibly offensive word from the vast vocabulary of offensive English words and subjected it to the same treatment I would have the same reaction. It is incredibly ignorant, and not just a little bit ironic coming from ‘civil libertarian’ liberals/progressives, to proscribe the use of a word, except by a particular minority group, or in an extremely limited context within the upper echelons of academia.
You mention the commonly used word ‘motherf***er. That word has largely lost any really specific meaning; it has become, for some Americans–white as well as black– simply another ‘bad’ word to be used alongside more ‘traditional’ swear words.
Indeed. That was kind of the point. What changed the meaning of the term “motherf***er” if words are imbued with meaning, not by context or by usage, but somehow supernaturally, by a power other than human beings defining and using them, as you contend is the case with the word “nigger”? If you acknowledge that “motherf***er” has been “stripped of its meaning”, your theory of the supernatural nature of language is obviously incorrect. And in that case, the only thing differentiating the term “motherf***er” from “nigger” is the arbitrary standard of “public acceptance”. Which means the only thing making “nigger” so ‘powerful’ in terms of its ability to offend is the power that the speakers of the language give it – which is what I said and what you took issue with initially.
Why don’t you white boys go take a walk.
If you are oh-so-sensitive that you are offended by hearing the term “nigger” in the non-pejorative context of a discussion about the nature of the term, why don’t you “walk the walk” of your simplistic, “old-fashioned” dogma and not use offensive racial terms like “white boy”. You’ve had too much to think – go sober up.
Gestell,
“Note that your proof-texting of Bible passages teaching the evils of homosexuality is further evidence for my claim that hatred of gays is deeply embedded in Christianity.” Please note that the passages overwhelmingly decry the practice, which in my mind is separation of sin and sinner.
Regarding recruitment. I also have many gay friends; some of which have admitted to such an avenue being a viable method of ‘expanding’ their numbers. In their mind they gays cannot afford to ignore any avenue that may assist in the mainstreaming of the lifestyle, recruitment included.
“…but no one can deny that there is more room for Islam in the hearts of progressives than for Christianity.” I stand by that statement and the best example I can come up with is the current situation in New York. Why is there overwhelming support for ‘fast tracking’ the construction of a Mosque at the ‘Ground Zero’ sight? Progressives will say that First Amendment protections guarantee the Muslims the right to build such an edifice on that property; and to decry the choice of property or to delay construction as insensitive is nothing less than Islamophobia. However you don’t see any progressives going to bat for the Coptics who have been trying, in vain, I might add to rebuild St Nicholas Orthodox Church ever since it was destroyed in the attack of 9/11 of 2001.
Apparently, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s liberal Port Authority of New York can ‘fast track’ an Islamic Mosque at ground zero, but has difficulty getting the reconstruction of an Orthodox church permitted within a decade. Hmmmm?
My personal belief is we should approve the construction of a Mosque at ground zero the day after plans are approved for the construction of a Catholic church in Mecca.
“We assume that, due to their religion and the culture it formed, many Muslims indeed don’t ‘know better’” C’mon man! It’s not as if they are the product of our public education system. It’s a real hard sell to look someone in the eye and say; “Sure the Iranians are enriching uranium, sure they’ve developed some of the most sophisticated Unmanned Aircraft presently known, but when it comes to cliterectomies, executing gays, and exterminating Jews they just ‘don’t know any better’. This is, by far, probably the weakest argument I’ve seen you try to advance in the more than two years I’ve been posting to this site.
As for Suzanne’s comments. Jealousy doesn’t become you dear.
“Call me old-fashioned, but in my book, if I offend someone, either intentionally or inadvertently, it is my responsibility to apologize.”
Yes you are old-fashioned, and so are most Americans in this regard. What you are defining is etiquette. It has different rules from intellectual debate. Dr. Laura attempted an intellectual debate and ended up offending people and realized she’d made a mistake, because, while she might not have minded offending people, she did not intend to pay the penalty for offending many people, all of the same mind, at once. Once she paid the penalty (apologizing) she resented having had to, and then began a ridiculous whine about having lost her rights to free speech.
This discussion is a good demonstration about when the usefulness of pure intellectual debate can be overestimated.
This discussion is a good demonstration about when the usefulness of pure intellectual debate can be overestimated.
I prefer actually discussing offensive speech to the alternative: willful ignorance – the intentional suspension of thought and speech. Ironically, modern “progressives” like Gestell find solidarity with the book burning reactionaries who they customarily associate with “right wing conservatives” in that regard. But they regard their suppression of thought and speech as somehow more noble and sophisticated than the religious reactionary whose sensibilities are offended by the secular blasphemy of his deity or the jingoist whose sensibilities are offended by the degradation of his flag or country. Irony is most often lost on the ironic.
reply to Mr. Mulligan 8/31/2010 6.41am
If you can find in my comments anything that shows ‘solidarity with book burning reactionaries” I’d appreciate the reference. And what ‘suppression of thought and speech’ have I recommended?
I see you’ve gone back to the conservative playbook: when you can’t or won’t engage in argument, you just plug in some boilerplate and (to mix metaphors) sling it to see if it sticks.
reply to ruminator:
You write “Dr. Laura attempted an intellectual debate.” Yes, she did say that, and conservatives have dutifully echoed it, but what, precisely, was the intellectual debate she attempted? Was it about when to use the word ‘nigger?’ Was it about how to make ‘nigger’ an acceptable word in polite society? Or what?
Gestell: I think her position was that it’s not fair if white people cannot use a word that blacks can use. She may think it is inconsiderate to keep the word in circulation when white culture has gone to the trouble to avoid it. Maybe she has a point there. I believe there is no instance in which a white person ought to feel a need to use it, so her argument was not worth the trouble. However, I have heard from a few black people who thought she posed a fair question. But I have not heard from anyone who is surprised that people were offended.
It seems to me that black people ought not use it either, but that’s their choice.
Patrick Mulligan: I don’t think it’s willful ignorance to say that etiquette prevails in matters of etiquette. Although if I a were really polite person, I wouldn’t have suggested that he apology was insincere. But at least in this forum, everyone knows that it’s supposed to be intellectual debate.
Gestell:
Re: “I see you’ve gone back to the conservative playbook: when you can’t or won’t engage in argument, you just plug in some boilerplate and (to mix metaphors) sling it to see if it sticks.”
Are your accusations of conservative “boilerplate” out of your playbook of liberal boilerplate?
If you can find in my comments anything that shows ‘solidarity with book burning reactionaries” I’d appreciate the reference.
The willful suppression of the printed word is really not any different than the willful suppression of the spoken word, which is what you are advocating.
And what ‘suppression of thought and speech’ have I recommended?
You have recommended, in the absence of self-censorship, which you regard as the ideal, that social pressure, though possibly not legal pressure (unless the situation really really warrants it, but then you haven’t explained when that distinction “kicks in”), should be brought to bear upon people who engage in speech that is offensive to minority groups. In particular, you believe that white people should be completely barred, through social ostracism if not legal order, from saying the word “nigger”, even in the context of a discussion of the nature of the word itself without any pejorative intention, while a special exemption is carved out for black people to use the word “nigger” with impunity. Curiously, you have either rejected or neglected to clarify any similar set of “rules” as it regards offensive speech in general, offensive racial speech directed specifically at white people, or offensive speech directed specifically at women, so it’s difficult to surmise the exact extent to which you recommend the suppression of speech and thought, so we’re left with just the one specific example, though I presume you would recommend a similar type of suppression of speech and thought if the group against whom the speech and thought were directed suited the whimsy of your “progressive” narrative.
I see you’ve gone back to the conservative playbook: when you can’t or won’t engage in argument, you just plug in some boilerplate and (to mix metaphors) sling it to see if it sticks.
And I see you’ve gone back to the “progressive” playbook: refuse to address any substantive counterpoint that addresses the utter and complete illogic of your position, hysterically decry the vitriolic “hate” of whoever the most convenient subject may be, and declare the issue a moral victory for “you liberals”. Well done.
reply to Mr. Wavering
Can you really maintain, with a straight face, that the Bible passages separate sin and sinner? I know that you’ve been taught that this is so, but read these passages with your mind at work and not your ideological reflexes.
As for recruitment of gays, clearly your experience with gays differs from mine. Do you really mean that your gay friends have been willing to tell you how they go about this nefarious practice of recruitment? Again, just as you and other IC readers often do not believe what I say about my experiences, I’ll return the compliment here.
I can just imagine a gay recruiting speech: “Join up! Do you want to adopt a lifestyle that most of your fellow Americans hate? Do you want to be loathed by the vast majority of Christians? Do you want to risk your life if you appear in public as a gay? If all of this really sets your pulse going, then join us today. Just imagine! You too can party with the A-listers.”
As for liberal support for the Ground Zero Mosque: I’ve made clear what I think of the whole idea several times on IC. Progressives who support the mosque are not lovers of Islam so much as they are believers in the ‘peaceful religion’ myth. They are ‘useful idiots,’ rather than Islamic sympathizers.
I agree that progressives have said nothing—at least I’ve seen nothing—about the problems the Coptic congregation has. The Coptic Christians haven’t protested, acquired any media support, etc., but I agree with you. Progressive silence about their plight is indefensible.
I agree: unless Muslims allow for a Catholic church to be built in Mecca, the proposal to build the Ground Zero Mosque should be rejected. Here are some comments in a similar vein from Muslim writer Irshad Manji in the WSJ on July 26 this year. He writes that he would like to ask Imam Rauf such questions as:
• Will the swimming pool at Park51 be segregated between men and women at any time of the day or night?
• May women lead congregational prayers any day of the week?
• Will Jews and Christians, fellow People of the Book, be able to use the prayer sanctuary for their services just as Muslims share prayer space with Christians and Jews in the Pentagon? (Spare me the technocratic argument that the Pentagon is a governmental, not private, building. Park51 may be private in the legal sense but is a public symbol par excellence.)
• What will be taught about homosexuals? About agnostics? About atheists? About apostasy?
• Where does one sign up for advance tickets to Salman Rushdie’s lecture at Park51?
It’s precisely in such areas as you mention that Muslims indeed don’t ‘know better.’ There is absolutely no reason why Muslims can’t build and operate high tech on the one hand and engage in barbaric practices on the other. The Soviet Communists had no problem exterminating millions of people, running death camps, and torturing people on a large scale, and that didn’t stop them from developing nuclear weapons and manned spaceflight. It is precisely because Islam allows and encourages the practices you mention, and, ultimately, because their religion demands that all mankind become Muslim that they don’t ‘know better.’ You may believe—some conservatives do, as well as many progressives—that there are many things that normal human beings should just ‘know’ are wrong. This happy theory, however, cannot be supported by any reasonable look at human history. Islamic culture, formed by Islam for many centuries, determines what Muslims ‘know’ is right or wrong. It’s amazing to me that you regard this as my ‘weakest argument.’ There was a time when conservatives were much more likely to see this truth than liberals, but, as I’m fond of saying, today’s conservatives have lost so much.
what, precisely, was the intellectual debate she attempted?
Didn’t you answer this question yourself when you said, in your fist posting to this discussion:
Dr. Laura tries to maintain a distinction she is not philosopher enough to carry off—between speaking the word and ‘using’ it… Dr. Laura did not refer to the caller as a ‘nigger’ and did not apply the word to others. Rather, she reported its usage. I think this could be done, but it would take the artful perphrasis [sic] of an academic to pull it off.
Has all this hatred gotten you so flummoxed that you’ve forgotten what the original topic actually was?
reply to Patrick Mulligan:
It’s still not clear that Dr. Laura was really trying to make an argument. I’ve listened to the broadcast in question and read a transcript of it and tried to make the most charitable assumption I could about her intentions. She’s still intellectually inept.
Dr. Phillip Jackson made the case for the “happy theory” here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/06/abortion-%E2%80%9Crights%E2%80%9D-vs-god-given-rights-the-conflict-between-man-made-rights-and-the-universal-moral-code.
It was your contention, not mine. But a charge of intellectual ineptitude coming from someone who can’t remember his own characterization of the argument he is ostensibly refuting is a particularly stinging criticism.
reply to Mr. Mulligan of August 31
This controversy is beginning to show its age. You ask for me to tell you when I think the distinction between social pressure and legal pressure with regard to speech offensive to minority groups should “kick in.” It must be reassuring to be the sort of conservative or libertarian who believes that such distinctions are knife-edged and transparent. Courts and judges have difficulty here, as the permanent condition of obscenity and pornography case law shows quite clearly. If you can solve this problem, make sure you’re on the short list for the first SCOTUS vacancy during Sarah Palin’s first term in the White House.
Do I think that ‘white people should be completely barred, through social ostracism if not legal order, from saying the word “nigger”, even in the context of a discussion of the nature of the word itself without any pejorative intention, while a special exemption is carved out for black people to use the word “nigger” with impunity.”? First, if you’ve spent any time living in any real society, including our own, and not in some libertarian fantasy land, you know perfectly well that nothing is or can be “completely barred.” Silly absolutes like this are simply fragile obstacles you’ve set up in the hope that they are arguments. And where have I ever said that the word ‘nigger’ should be ‘completely barred’ anyway? I do think that anyone who chooses to employ it, knowing at least something about present-day American society, needs to figure out why he or she seeks to use it. When considering the use of a word commonly regarded (and not just by blacks) as having a “pejorative” character, some sort of reason seems…well…..a reasonable thing to think about. I’m assuming that you don’t want to just blurt it out to see who yells back at you. And as for black people using the word with “impunity,” I’m not sure why this is so obsessively important to you or to other conservatives. Is your vocabulary really so small that you must, really, truly, must, be able to use that word just because other people do? Lots of groups of people use words—some regarded as objectionable by others, while other words are not, that are not in general use outside that group. Are you really such a linguistic imperialist that everybody just has to use the same words, in the same ways, across the board?
You think—clever fellow that you believe yourself to be—that you’ve caught me out with your chilling line ” either rejected or neglected to clarify any similar set of “rules” as it regards offensive speech in general, offensive racial speech directed specifically at white people, or offensive speech directed specifically at women, so it’s difficult to surmise the exact extent to which you recommend the suppression of speech and thought.” There are no ‘rules’ for such things—there are only forms of customary usage that differ widely, but not completely, across the various sorts of people that live in our society. I guess you are really looking for the foundations of some sort of comprehensive language regulation—and I thought I was the dangerous leftist here, not you. I didn’t mention white people or women because questions involving words offensive to them were not a primary focus of these exchanges.
In general, I think that reasonably polite people should try, no matter what part of society they come from, to avoid giving needless offense to others by their choices of words. I’ve raised my children that way, and perhaps you have done so as well. I do not like the words many rappers, or for that matter, rednecks, apply to women, but I see no need to “suppress” speech and thought to get rid of them. I’m also not fond of the casual way in which conservatives assume that all of us liberals are dope-smoking, gay-fornicating, moral degenerates—and tell us so at every opportunity, but, again, nothing can be done about this.
Although you avoided any obscenities, you just go ahead and give a good example of what I had in mind when you write: ” though I presume you would recommend a similar type of suppression of speech and thought if the group against whom the speech and thought were directed suited the whimsy of your “progressive” narrative.” I’m not sure what all of that ritualized right-wing verbiage is supposed to mean—although it sounds just awful. Since I haven’t recommended any suppression of speech and thought, it’s clear that I can’t be recommending it with respect to whatever it is your comment is about.
Then you rise triumphantly to your conclusion, claiming that I “refuse to address any substantive counterpoint that addresses the utter and complete illogic of your position, hysterically decry the vitriolic “hate” of whoever the most convenient subject may be,” I addressed a number of your points; you just didn’t see it. Now as for the “utter and complete illogic” of my position—in the absence of any demonstration that this is so, I assume that your phrase means you really, really didn’t like what I wrote.
Now I have suggested that there is such a thing as “hate speech.” You overlooked, in one of my earlier posts, the legal concept to which I am assimilating the concept of ‘hate speech’—namely, mens rea, which is a principle both in criminal and civil law.
Life being short, I’ll simply give you an online reference—but if you don’t believe me, ask a lawyer.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MensRea.aspx and the relevant text:
” Mens rea: Latin for “guilty mind”; guilty knowledge or intention to commit a prohibited act.
Also: “a particular state of mind such as the intent to cause, or some foresight of, the results of the act or the state of affairs.” (R v Daviault [1994] 3 SCR 63 at para. 74)
Many serious crimes require the proof of mens rea before a person can be convicted.”
Legal illiterates among conservatives (and the presence of such astonishes me) always get their underwear in a bundle when they rant that law doesn’t refer to “intent.” Well, it does, and the common law tradition has for centuries now. This is why I can say that Rev. Phelps’ band of loathsome fanatics engages in constitutionally protected free speech when they protest at a veteran’s funeral. When someone says to his drinking buddies, “Let’s go bust up some queer tonight,” he is disclosing his mens rea.
Now what about the conservative Christian minister who inveighs against gays with all seven of the Biblical passages usually adduced in such exercises? If he urges or even suggests that his congregants take action, he may have crossed the line—but this is a legal matter. And, prior to a specific determination by a judge or jury, the simple answer is: we just don’t know until the decision is made. If he simply stirs up hatred of gays, he is to be condemned by those of us who are enlightened. I gather, however, that what conservatives like you really, really want is simply to be able to vent with no criticism. You want public approval of your views. In short, like toddlers, you want what you want. QED.
Courts and judges have difficulty here, as the permanent condition of obscenity and pornography case law shows quite clearly. If you can solve this problem, make sure you’re on the short list for the first SCOTUS vacancy during Sarah Palin’s first term in the White House.
You are making my point for me here. Words that were considered so “obscene” that they quite literally landed people in jail two generations ago (Lenny Bruce, very notably, which is part of the reason why the bit I posted before is so ironic in historical context) now have no more or less meaning than more polite intensifiers and exclamations. Using the public acceptance or ‘power to offend’ of a word as the sole reason for disallowing its use, officially or unofficially, is A) arbitrary and B) reactionary. I find it ironic that you find yourself arguing from the same position as religious and cultural conservatives on this issue, but believe your position to be somehow more rational or noble because the words you wish to proscribe are offensive to people you actually care about. If we were discussing the terms “Jesus Christ” or “Goddamnit”, which Christians find incredibly offensive and blasphemous, I doubt you would display the same level of “sensitivity”. You’ve again failed to address whether your logic extends to derogatory terms for women or racial groups other than blacks, so we can assume they would fare no better. When it comes to the “Golden Rule”, it seems some are more equal than others in practice.
First, if you’ve spent any time living in any real society, including our own, and not in some libertarian fantasy land, you know perfectly well that nothing is or can be “completely barred.” Silly absolutes like this are simply fragile obstacles you’ve set up in the hope that they are arguments.
This is a philosophical discussion about regulating or stifling speech generally, not a discussion of case law as it regards free speech issues or the ability of a government to completely prevent some given activity (which is obviously impossible). Take your own advice: you should not parse legal theory too closely to grasp this. The “silly absolute” here is the moral/legal principle that certain types of speech should be barred – not the practicality of using a government apparatus to actually accomplish the objective. It’s the difference between discussing whether drugs should be completely banned and whether or not the government has the ability to enforce such a ban. Whether or not the government is able to accomplish the objective is irrelevant to the moral/legal principle that drugs should be banned. Being such a clever fellow yourself, you should easily understand this distinction.
And where have I ever said that the word ‘nigger’ should be ‘completely barred’ anyway?
That is a partial quote that misconstrues my characterization of your argument. I said:
you believe that white people should be completely barred, through social ostracism if not legal order, from saying the word “nigger”
I think you pretty clearly made that argument when you said that the term ‘nigger’ was “insider language” that should only be used by black people, if at all, and that addressing the term even from a historical or objective perspective, to the extent that such is possible, should be undertaken only by professional academics.
When considering the use of a word commonly regarded (and not just by blacks) as having a “pejorative” character, some sort of reason seems…well…..a reasonable thing to think about. I’m assuming that you don’t want to just blurt it out to see who yells back at you.
I’ve already addressed the pathetic “you only want to retain the right to use the word ‘nigger’ because you’re a racist and you want to be able to insult black people” component of your narrative, so please refer to my previous comments and then move on to a new tactic. It is as ignorant and childish as if I accused you of being a closeted homosexual because of your support for “hate crimes” laws. Sensitive as you are to the insults ostensibly slung at “you liberals” by those mean old conservatives, you of all people should know better.
And as for black people using the word with “impunity,” I’m not sure why this is so obsessively important to you or to other conservatives. Is your vocabulary really so small that you must, really, truly, must, be able to use that word just because other people do?
It is ‘obsessively important’ to me to have equal access to language for reasons that should be obvious to any “civil libertarian” (*wink wink*) like yourself. One “class” of people (be it a race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion) should not be afforded special “rights” (defined properly, or haphazardly using your more casual definition) that are denied to other classes of people. If the word ‘nigger’ is really so offensive that it is deserving of proscription or protest (which is your contention, not mine), it should be the same regardless of who uses the word (and here I thought “equal rights” were really, truly, super-duper important to “you liberals”). Despite another attempt on your part to insult my intelligence or question my moral character, my lacking vocabulary is not the motivation for my opposition to reserving certain pieces of the English language for people of a particular skin color. The reason is the absurd and irrational nature of the argument.
Are you really such a linguistic imperialist that everybody just has to use the same words, in the same ways, across the board?
You want to strike a word from the English vocabulary or reserve it for exclusive use by one particular racial group and I’m the “linguistic imperialist”?
I guess you are really looking for the foundations of some sort of comprehensive language regulation—and I thought I was the dangerous leftist here, not you.
That is indeed what I am looking for. I am looking for you to support your position without deferring to “social conventions” and linguistic nuance. If you actually believe that some language is so offensive that it should be regulated by social pressure if not actual law, then I’d like to at least have a consistent set of rules or principles under which to operate. Otherwise your position amounts to: “don’t say anything that offends me, or offends the groups of people whose interests I care about”. Once again, that position is A) arbitrary and B) reactionary. If your characterization of conservatives is accurate, it seems you may actually be one!
Since I haven’t recommended any suppression of speech and thought, it’s clear that I can’t be recommending it with respect to whatever it is your comment is about.
Let me rephrase the question then, hopefully in terms that a scholar of your expansive vocabulary can understand:
are you (or “we”, collectively or individually) under any obligation to “try to reform” the speech of anybody, for any reason?… I would ask if this lack of obligation is universal in your view, and if not, how the distinction is made between when the obligation to exercise legal or extralegal apparatuses of “reform” exists and when it does not.
You may recognize the quotation – it’s from my first post in this discussion.
I addressed a number of your points; you just didn’t see it. Now as for the “utter and complete illogic” of my position—in the absence of any demonstration that this is so, I assume that your phrase means you really, really didn’t like what I wrote.
You ignored several, including my initial question about the “obligation to reform speech”, which you have still yet to address. Several you just got around to addressing now, after my post was written. The utter and complete illogic of your position is demonstrated most clearly by your own words conveying the convoluted (to say nothing of arbitrary and reactionary) position you take on language that you find offensive. It’s unsurprising that you cannot recognize the convoluted and hypocritical nature of your own logic, otherwise you probably wouldn’t have employed it in the first place. And God knows you are far too arrogant and egotistical to acknowledge a defect in your own argument. As I said, Irony is most often lost on the ironic. QED.
Now I have suggested that there is such a thing as “hate speech.” You overlooked, in one of my earlier posts, the legal concept to which I am assimilating the concept of ‘hate speech’—namely, mens rea, which is a principle both in criminal and civil law.
I didn’t overlook it – I addressed it at some length in my post that never went through. Let me address it again since my previous comment is apparently not going to be posted:
I may be just a conservative bumpkin, utterly ignorant of the law and legal philosophy, but as I understand it, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, mens rea must be accompanied by some activity that is actually illegal. A “guilty mind” without any accompanying illegal activity is still not criminal yet – that’s the essence of what “hate speech” law hopes to accomplish.
You said previously, in non-answer to my aforementioned question:
Why do (some) liberals get upset about words? Very simple. Some words represent actual or possible threats to the safety or even the lives of real people.
That is true. Words like “I’m going to kill you!” or “You better watch your back!” could be construed this way. Without any qualifying actions or language, the word ‘nigger’ does not represent an actual or possible threat to the safety or lives of anyone anymore than ‘cracker’, ‘chink’, ‘kike’ or ‘spic’ does. For that matter, the words ‘murder’, ‘kill’, ‘violence’ and ‘rape’, without any qualifying actions or language, do not represent an actual or possible threat to the safety or lives of anyone either. Proscribing the use of particular words or attaching criminal penalties to the use of particular words on this basis is so mind bogglingly stupid that it borders on, if I may borrow a term, intellectual ineptitude.
When someone says to his drinking buddies, “Let’s go bust up some queer tonight,” he is disclosing his mens rea.
A) Unless he then goes and “busts up some queer”, his ‘mens rea’ is no more illegal than someone saying to his drinking buddies “let’s go get laid at QueersRUs tonight” . B) If he does go and “bust up some queer”, his statement – his mens rea – establishes his intent to commit the crime he actually committed, which will help define the charges he faces in court (premeditation can be the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter, for example). This is already present in current law and is not an example of “hate speech” law. “Hate speech” law would add additional, separate charges with additional, separate penalties to the guy who “busted up some queer” unrelated to the actual act of “busting up some queer”. He would be punished for premeditatedly “busting up some queer” above and beyond the punishment for premeditatedly “busting up” a straight person under identical circumstances. Using the phrase “let’s go bust up that queer” instead of “let’s go bust up that motherf***er” could be the difference between an extra 5 years in jail for the exact same crime. Only in a “progressive fantasyland” does this amount to justice or sound logic.
I gather, however, that what conservatives like you really, really want is simply to be able to vent with no criticism. You want public approval of your views. In short, like toddlers, you want what you want.
That’s the conclusion you started with, so it’s not surprising that’s the conclusion you ended with. Typical “progressive” open mindedness at its best, and a great exhibition in circular logic besides. Here again though, we have you resorting to ad hominem horse excrement in place of any substantive criticism. If you weren’t actually serious, it would be rather comical for the person in this conversation advocating for less free speech and less public debate to accuse those advocating for full access to the English vocabulary regardless of one’s race or sexual orientation of trying to suppress criticism of their views. Sadly, you actually do appear to be serious, and it’s becoming clearer and clearer that you have nothing more than mindless, hysterical accusations of racism to contribute to this discussion. For my part, I’m doing nothing but repeating the same things I said a week ago while you continue to represent them as evidence of latent racism on the part of conservatives. So in summary, I make an argument befitting of the opponent: “No, you!”
I have no interest in continuing to have this caricature of a discussion of you. Until next time…