Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by samch 3973 days ago
I'll just have to admit to a difference of opinion with you on this. I believe there is something inherently wrong with the n-word. I took the time to seek out its etymological roots via the Oxford English Dictionary, and the earliest evidence of its use is entirely negative and demeaning to those being described as such.

You don't need any additional context when the word itself was contrived as a convenient brush to disparage a people. It is, to its very roots, a bad word.

I also think you missed the point of the r-word campaign. They are not trying to get people to say "r-word" instead of the r-word. They want people to be more thoughtful and stop using the term altogether. Most people in polite society have stopped using the n-word, and they didn't substitute the literal phrase "n-word" for it as you suggest might be done. I would like to see these same people do this for the r-word. For example, I've heard a few of my coworkers use the r-word on numerous occasions when I know they would never dare use the n-word. The r-word campaign is simply asking for the same type of consideration.

1 comments

> It is, to its very roots, a bad word.

Even if every single human being using it was meant to be insulting, it still wouldn't make it a bad word.

Because there are no bad words. Just like there are no bad numbers or bad colors or bad images. Information can't be good or bad. It has no such property.

A message becomes offensive only when its sender said it with the intention to be offensive. And the same message could be offensive in one case and not be offensive in others. Context matters.

> They are not trying to get people to say "r-word" instead of the r-word. They want people to be more thoughtful and stop using the term altogether.

It doesn't work like that. There will always be a word for mentally ill people. And there always will be some asshole who will try to use it against anybody who he doesn't like. Then it becomes derogatory. And it starts all over again.

They ("r-word campaign") will just change one word with another word (and burn a bunch of books containing the old word in the process). They will never change how people think.

Well, actually... you can remove all negative words from the language like it was suggested by George Orwell in 1984 novel [1]. Then "bad people" will have no words to express what they're thinking. But I really hope you aren't intending to go that way.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

> Well, actually... you can remove all negative words from the language like it was suggested by George Orwell in 1984 novel [1]. Then "bad people" will have no words to express what they're thinking.

The idea that that works seems to depend on linguistic determinism, which is far from established.

Wow, I'm hoping you misspoke here, but I'm a bit concerned by the way you confused people who are "mentally ill" with those who have intellectual disabilities.

Also, this line is dangerously incorrect: "A message becomes offensive only when its sender said it with the intention to be offensive."

If you've ever taken respectful workplace training in the US, you've likely learned the difference between intent and impact. What matters, in the US at least, is the impact of the message, not the intent of the person speaking [1].

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=sexual+harrassment+law+inent...

Any thoughts on why this was down voted? Just curious about what violated the HN policy.