[temp10298385]

You mean that he asserted that his use of the n-word only had behavioural and socioeconomic implications and not racial?

He might honestly intend it that way but I feel like he is very misguided. He could use the n-word to target someone with a PhD and see if his assertion holds. Would the targeted person respond with confusion as he does not fit the bill? Or would he interpret the slur for what it is, a word most often used to denigrate someone for their skin tone.

I assume you are using this anecdote as a counterargument against my claim that redneck is more classist than racial. My response would be to point out that white people frequently call other white people rednecks. Surely it would be absurd to think that white people do this to disparage whiteness. There is, in my mind, a racial qualifier when using redneck but the racial qualifier is not the insult.

[gedy]

> I assume you are using this anecdote as a counterargument against my claim that redneck is more classist than racial

No, I'm saying that similar to as you describe redneck usage, his n usage was contingent upon class & behavior, and not just the race.

[temp10298385]

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Were you convinced with that defence? In any case, he must understand that his usage of the word is inflammatory and will be perceived as mainly racially contingent. As long as he is aware that people will assume racist intent when he uses the n word his claim is entirely invalidated.

I mean, if I called a disabled person retarded and claimed that I am simply referring to his declining state of acceleration I doubt anyone will let that pass. Two people are involved in an insult, the insulter and the insulted. The insulter can't define the meaning as if words exist in a vacuum. The insulted is free to take offence at perceived intent if this perception falls within the realm of reasonable possibility.