If your goal is to make yourself and your partner feel better than I think that makes sense. The other poster is talking about how to effect change in people like those in this picture though, which requires a different approach.
That’s sort of what I was getting at. Obviously we shouldn’t be using those words in public if they’re going to hurt people, but it almost seems like we’ve regressed and given slurs more power by not saying them as jokes like I do at home occasionally. Specifically the word in the photo is a huge no no and for good reason but it’s power isn’t decaying is the point.
So the question I’m poking at is: how do you get rid of the power of slurs without offending people? It seems impossible because I almost think that as a community we should all be able to share in reclaiming language to some extent. Otherwise it can divide us.
Last thing, the word here in this photo is something that is often fine for black people to say but not others. Again I get why. But doesn’t that inherently enforce a divide? Like sorry I actually cannot share in your reclamation culture because I am racially barred from doing so. From my perspective (which could be wrong) I’d rather let people and friends outside my community use those words with me in a casual and inoffensive manner than dividing us by enforcing language rules against them. Just a thought.
I’d rather let people and friends outside my community use those words with me in a casual and inoffensive manner than dividing us by enforcing language rules against them
If that’s what you want, tell them. If you came to me and asked me to use certain slurs with you in a joking way, I’d try my best to do so, but only in private and only with you. It would probably take me some time to get over my barrier to using them, but it’s something I’m willing to do if a friend asks.
But that’s not going to really help the next person. Slurs only have power because we give them power. The solution here isn’t to normalize using particular words, the solution is to educate people about the people who those slurs target. I live in a very conservative area and have very conservative parents, and my neighbors and parents have both softened their anti-homosexual stance due to actually meeting and interacting with LGBT people. In fact, there’s a trans woman at my library, and she seems to be very accepted. This works because people are exposed to real people and understand that using those slurs hurts real people.
Normalizing the terms won’t do anything, bigots will just come up with new slurs. The real solution is greater exposure so people can get past the discomfort and arrive at understanding. That’s what’s likely missing for the boys in this picture, and it’s what we desperately need if we want more acceptance.
I wasn’t saying that I’m going to go around personally asking people to refer to me that way, I more meant that I would prefer if that was just an open and accepted thing that allies could joke about slurs with their friends in said community instead of gatekeeping the words or taking exclusive ownership of them. I was expressing that as a personal preference though because I understand that not everyone feels that way.
And I do agree that more education and acceptance is more likely to reduce the use of those words negatively through just proximity to the affected parties. That’s totally fair. I still don’t think it will go away entirely because edgey people online see it as a vector of attacking people.
So the part I disagree with it the “people will just make new slurs” part. The way slurs are created and used kind of relies on large groups of people to use and agree on them. They’re a form of meme. And I’m sure people would attempt to recreate them but your average Joe isn’t going to search that out. Those new slurs would become much more niche I’d imagine.
Sure, and your average Joe isn’t throwing around slurs by accident, or at least they’re not doing it intentionally.
But intolerant groups will create new terms, or co-opt existing terms. Look at “black pill” (from “red pill” from The Matrix), the “ok” hand signal (co-opted by white nationalists), or “woke” (pretty old, but “anti-woke” became a rallying call for the right). It can and does happen, and that’s not including all of the terms used behind the scenes that are likely going to come out to the public over the next 10 years or whatever.
The way I see it, there are a few types of people here:
use it intentionally to hurt others for whatever reason - this group will come up with new terms
people who use it on accident - this is your average joe, the quiet majority, who probably doesn’t know what the term means/implies
people who actively avoid it/are hurt by it
Taking offense to terms benefits group 1, normalizing them benefits group 3, and in either case, group 2 is left largely confused. IMO, that doesn’t particularly help anyone, and the goal should instead be to get groups 2 and 3 to interact so it’s clear that group 2 isn’t intending to cause harm. That way it doesn’t particularly matter what group 1 does, group 3 will hopefully be able to distinguish honest mistakes from actual intended harm (i.e. distinguish between someone in groups 1 and 2).
In the case of this article, it would help for those in group 3 to understand that these kids have likely never met a black person. It would also help for those in group 2 to actually meet black people and understand the struggles they go through so they can appreciate why these terms are so hurtful. Unfortunately, a lot of people online and in person seem to jump to the conclusion that a given slur was used intentionally as hate speech, and that’s a failing IMO on both sides of that equation. Groups 2 and 3 both agree that group 1 sucks, yet groups 2 and 3 are frequently at odds with each other. That’s not particularly helpful.
Ah I think I see my issue with what you’re saying. I don’t think group 1 is homogeneous. I agree on the rest of that but you have to consider a sub group of group 1, let’s call it 1a, fit the description of “use those words hatefully but will not be easily educated and do not seek out hateful groups to form collectives”.
Whereas group 1b would be the actual people going to rallies and forming hate groups. And so I think that your statement is correct for group 1b but I actually think they’re in the far minority of this group. Their hateful messages may resonate with group 1a but they do not have easy communication and I almost view that messaging as in a critical stage of dying in modern culture.
Like obviously the hate groups have gone somewhat underground. Our politicians may give subtle nods to them or may invent stuff like the phrase “DEI” as a substitute, but that messaging is still lost on the average Joe that has racist sentiments.
If you were to somehow remove the words that group 1a uses and give them no power, they’d still hold their position but not have any way to update their language since it has been pushed to the fringes of society.
I view that group as much larger and more problematic in some ways since they’re more likely to spread a more casual form of hate or distaste than group 1b is. And they’re also more subtle about it.
Makes sense. I honestly don’t know the difference in sizes between groups 1 and 2 are, I’m just assuming 2 is a massive majority vs the other two. But maybe 1a is bigger than I thought.
It will largely depend on the area you’re in but if I can also point out that group 1a are the people that become group 2 or are parents to group 2 when exposed to a slight amount of education or meet someone that fits the group but don’t ultimately take the undertones of what they’re saying all that seriously. These people usually view group 3 as oversensitive.
So in fact I think that group 2 is rising which is somewhat a good thing but it’s also dangerous to be too critical of them because we’ve seen it push people back the other way. You get too hard with “word policing” and people will rebel against it and that’s much worse imo. Police language too much and you reconvert some portion of group 2 not back into 1a but into the more dangerous 1b.
I’m not saying we accept the language when it hurts people but we shouldn’t be going after people insanely hard for mostly harmless jokes.
Yeah, it sounds like we’re largely saying the same thing then, or at least something very similar.
I certainly hope we can get to a point where the vast majority are tolerant, and I think we’re on that trajectory. I’m so sorry if that’s not your experience though, but even in my super conservative corner of the world, it does seem to be getting better.
If your goal is to make yourself and your partner feel better than I think that makes sense. The other poster is talking about how to effect change in people like those in this picture though, which requires a different approach.
That’s sort of what I was getting at. Obviously we shouldn’t be using those words in public if they’re going to hurt people, but it almost seems like we’ve regressed and given slurs more power by not saying them as jokes like I do at home occasionally. Specifically the word in the photo is a huge no no and for good reason but it’s power isn’t decaying is the point.
So the question I’m poking at is: how do you get rid of the power of slurs without offending people? It seems impossible because I almost think that as a community we should all be able to share in reclaiming language to some extent. Otherwise it can divide us.
Last thing, the word here in this photo is something that is often fine for black people to say but not others. Again I get why. But doesn’t that inherently enforce a divide? Like sorry I actually cannot share in your reclamation culture because I am racially barred from doing so. From my perspective (which could be wrong) I’d rather let people and friends outside my community use those words with me in a casual and inoffensive manner than dividing us by enforcing language rules against them. Just a thought.
If that’s what you want, tell them. If you came to me and asked me to use certain slurs with you in a joking way, I’d try my best to do so, but only in private and only with you. It would probably take me some time to get over my barrier to using them, but it’s something I’m willing to do if a friend asks.
But that’s not going to really help the next person. Slurs only have power because we give them power. The solution here isn’t to normalize using particular words, the solution is to educate people about the people who those slurs target. I live in a very conservative area and have very conservative parents, and my neighbors and parents have both softened their anti-homosexual stance due to actually meeting and interacting with LGBT people. In fact, there’s a trans woman at my library, and she seems to be very accepted. This works because people are exposed to real people and understand that using those slurs hurts real people.
Normalizing the terms won’t do anything, bigots will just come up with new slurs. The real solution is greater exposure so people can get past the discomfort and arrive at understanding. That’s what’s likely missing for the boys in this picture, and it’s what we desperately need if we want more acceptance.
I wasn’t saying that I’m going to go around personally asking people to refer to me that way, I more meant that I would prefer if that was just an open and accepted thing that allies could joke about slurs with their friends in said community instead of gatekeeping the words or taking exclusive ownership of them. I was expressing that as a personal preference though because I understand that not everyone feels that way.
And I do agree that more education and acceptance is more likely to reduce the use of those words negatively through just proximity to the affected parties. That’s totally fair. I still don’t think it will go away entirely because edgey people online see it as a vector of attacking people.
So the part I disagree with it the “people will just make new slurs” part. The way slurs are created and used kind of relies on large groups of people to use and agree on them. They’re a form of meme. And I’m sure people would attempt to recreate them but your average Joe isn’t going to search that out. Those new slurs would become much more niche I’d imagine.
Sure, and your average Joe isn’t throwing around slurs by accident, or at least they’re not doing it intentionally.
But intolerant groups will create new terms, or co-opt existing terms. Look at “black pill” (from “red pill” from The Matrix), the “ok” hand signal (co-opted by white nationalists), or “woke” (pretty old, but “anti-woke” became a rallying call for the right). It can and does happen, and that’s not including all of the terms used behind the scenes that are likely going to come out to the public over the next 10 years or whatever.
The way I see it, there are a few types of people here:
Taking offense to terms benefits group 1, normalizing them benefits group 3, and in either case, group 2 is left largely confused. IMO, that doesn’t particularly help anyone, and the goal should instead be to get groups 2 and 3 to interact so it’s clear that group 2 isn’t intending to cause harm. That way it doesn’t particularly matter what group 1 does, group 3 will hopefully be able to distinguish honest mistakes from actual intended harm (i.e. distinguish between someone in groups 1 and 2).
In the case of this article, it would help for those in group 3 to understand that these kids have likely never met a black person. It would also help for those in group 2 to actually meet black people and understand the struggles they go through so they can appreciate why these terms are so hurtful. Unfortunately, a lot of people online and in person seem to jump to the conclusion that a given slur was used intentionally as hate speech, and that’s a failing IMO on both sides of that equation. Groups 2 and 3 both agree that group 1 sucks, yet groups 2 and 3 are frequently at odds with each other. That’s not particularly helpful.
Ah I think I see my issue with what you’re saying. I don’t think group 1 is homogeneous. I agree on the rest of that but you have to consider a sub group of group 1, let’s call it 1a, fit the description of “use those words hatefully but will not be easily educated and do not seek out hateful groups to form collectives”.
Whereas group 1b would be the actual people going to rallies and forming hate groups. And so I think that your statement is correct for group 1b but I actually think they’re in the far minority of this group. Their hateful messages may resonate with group 1a but they do not have easy communication and I almost view that messaging as in a critical stage of dying in modern culture.
Like obviously the hate groups have gone somewhat underground. Our politicians may give subtle nods to them or may invent stuff like the phrase “DEI” as a substitute, but that messaging is still lost on the average Joe that has racist sentiments.
If you were to somehow remove the words that group 1a uses and give them no power, they’d still hold their position but not have any way to update their language since it has been pushed to the fringes of society.
I view that group as much larger and more problematic in some ways since they’re more likely to spread a more casual form of hate or distaste than group 1b is. And they’re also more subtle about it.
Makes sense. I honestly don’t know the difference in sizes between groups 1 and 2 are, I’m just assuming 2 is a massive majority vs the other two. But maybe 1a is bigger than I thought.
It will largely depend on the area you’re in but if I can also point out that group 1a are the people that become group 2 or are parents to group 2 when exposed to a slight amount of education or meet someone that fits the group but don’t ultimately take the undertones of what they’re saying all that seriously. These people usually view group 3 as oversensitive.
So in fact I think that group 2 is rising which is somewhat a good thing but it’s also dangerous to be too critical of them because we’ve seen it push people back the other way. You get too hard with “word policing” and people will rebel against it and that’s much worse imo. Police language too much and you reconvert some portion of group 2 not back into 1a but into the more dangerous 1b.
I’m not saying we accept the language when it hurts people but we shouldn’t be going after people insanely hard for mostly harmless jokes.
Yeah, it sounds like we’re largely saying the same thing then, or at least something very similar.
I certainly hope we can get to a point where the vast majority are tolerant, and I think we’re on that trajectory. I’m so sorry if that’s not your experience though, but even in my super conservative corner of the world, it does seem to be getting better.