Los Angeles City Council Bans N-Word

[Nova]

I suppose that's why they called it "symbolic."

It would be unconstitutional if they tried to enforce it.

A lot of people find the J-word offensive and blasphemous and dont hang out with people who use it, but would movies and books that use it be banned if the city council banned it?

They probably do call it "symbolic," but really mean it's a p.r. stunt.

I'm not sure what the J-word is (jap? jew? Jennifer Aniston?) which may be a problem with all our euphemisms.

 

[southcitymom]

I suppose that's why they called it "symbolic."

It would be unconstitutional if they tried to enforce it.

A lot of people find the J-word offensive and blasphemous and dont hang out with people who use it, but would movies and books that use it be banned if the city council banned it?

It really can't be anything other than "symbolic", IMHO.

What is the J word??????

 

[Seven]

Not from where I'm sitting.

An ad hominem argument only attacks the person making the argument and does not go one to address the substance of the argument. Nova addressed the substance of your argument very well by putting forth a number of examples where the same word may have different meanings.

Additionally, Nova never called you simplistic and silly. In fact, he asked for respect for you before calling your position simplistic and silly.

ETA: I still don't understand the hypocrit argument - even with the definition right there in front of me!

ad hominem usually takes the form of name calling, such as "simplistic" and "silly.

it's an attempt to discredit the argument without really doing so. IOW, calling an argument "simplistic" or "silly" is not one of the ways to discredit it or prove it wrong.

obviously the same word can have different meanings. that's not my argument.

my argument is about CONDEMNING another person for doing the exact same thing YOU DO.

that's hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

it's about the CONDEMNATION,
not about the use or meaning.

 

[southcitymom]

ad hominem usually takes the form of name calling, such as "simplistic" and "silly"

it's an attempt to discredit the argument without really doing so.

obviously the same word can have different meanings. that's not my argument.

my argument is about CONDEMNING another person for doing the exact same thing YOU DO.

that's hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

it's about the CONDEMNATION,
not about the use or meaning.

I don't find it hypocritcal if black people use the N word themselves but find it not okay for non-blacks to use it.

 

[Seven]

It really can't be anything other than "symbolic", IMHO.

What is the J word??????

a violation of the Commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain.

 

[Seven]

I don't find it hypocritcal if black people use the N word themselves but find it not okay for non-blacks to use it.

That's okay.

No one is obligated to use words in the way the dictionary defines them.

Most people would call a minister of any religion that condemns adultery a "hypocrite" if he/she had sex with a partner who was not his/her spouse.

 

[Seven]

Seven, I said that argument was simplistic. I didn't say you, or even your other remarks.

As for the rest of the post in which you define hypocrisy, constitutional, etc., however, you're stringing together a number of concepts and using the most superficial definition of each. Understanding that words change meaning according to context has nothing to do with the constitutional concept of "separate-but-equal."

You are absolutely correct, Nova, and I appreciate your pointing that out ..... But by the same token, saying the argument is silly or simplistic does not defeat it in any way. I just mean it's not one of the recognized ways of invalidating an argument.

Separate but equal/Equal protection under the law:
The law would be unconstitutional on the basis of overbroad and a violation of free speech . . .

. . . but it would also be unconstitutional on the basis of enforcing against only citizens of one race. (I understand the LA City Council law bans all races from saying the word, but it's the same concept intellectually.)

 

[southcitymom]

a violation of the Commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain.

Jesus?

 

[Seven]

Jesus?

precisely, SCM!

(that is, unless you think that the Ten Commandments apply only to the descendents of Moses and his kinsmen)

using the j-word as an exclamation or as a curse is using it "in vain."

 

[bnhall]

In large part, words take their meaning from context.

The word "f*ck" is very different if I yell it when stubbing my toe and if I yell "f*ck you!" at another person. It's different still when used as a verb to describe a sex act.

The word "God" is quite different when followed by "bless" or "damn."

The "n-word" is different when screamed by a group of frat brothers at passing black co-eds (true case) and when used in private by African-Americans. Its use in rap music is yet another context.

The word "" from a straight person to a gay person is a term of hatred. And it can be the same among gay people in private. But used from one gay person to another, it can be a term of respect, meaning "you are brave enough to be who you are, despite what the world may think."

And have you ever heard of irony? It means using a word to indicate the opposite of its usual meaning. "Fine" can mean good or bad depending on the context and tone of voice.

I couldn't say it any better myself, so I will just leave it at "What Nova said."

Edit: Ok, I do have something to add. I'm not sure that anyone can really understand the context of a word until it is used against you in hatred. I believe that is why it is a different situation for, say, women to call each other b!tches than for a man to call a woman one. I have a male friend who does not seem to understand social conventions and nuances. He jokingly called me a b!tch once. I wanted to punch him in the face. However, my best friend and I call each other b!tches every day. The difference in an understanding of the power of the word itself because of the years and years of context associated with it. Things are not always so cut and dry as to be able to apply across the board.

 

[Seven]

One common saying is: "Practice what you preach."

It's a well-known, common character flaw of fallen human beings to condemn others for doing the exact same things they, themselves, do.

For example, an unfaithful husband who condemns his wife for also being unfaithful. It happens all the time. In human cultures all over the world. Some even go so far as to kill adulterous women and leave adulterous men alive.

People frequently hold others to higher standards than they, themselves, are willing to obey. And when they do that, they are being hypocrites, plain and simple.

Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
~~ New American Standard Bible

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye. Then you will see clearly to remove the piece of sawdust from another believer's eye.

 

[csds703]

OK I'm confused.
Are you saying that banning the n word reduces hypocrisy?

 

[Seven]

OK I'm confused.
Are you saying that banning the n word reduces hypocrisy?

Not really.

I dont know what could actually reduce hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is one of the character flaws we humans must resist in order to be credible. If we dont care about being credible, then being a hypocrite won't bother us.

 

[csds703]

Not really.

I dont know what could actually reduce hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is one of the character flaws we humans must resist in order to be credible. If we dont care about being credible, then being a hypocrite won't bother us.

What do you think the ban will accomplish?
ETA
I get what both SCM and Nova were saying. You can't get caught up in words. Watch the actions of people, that shows their true character. Now that being said, I censor myself. There are certain words or expressions that I find offensive, so I don't use them. We can't legislate away stupidity, so just use it as a learning and teaching experience in your own life.

 

[Seven]

What do you think the ban will accomplish?
ETA
I get what both SCM and Nova were saying. You can't get caught up in words. Watch the actions of people, that shows their true character. Now that being said, I censor myself. There are certain words or expressions that I find offensive, so I don't use them. We can't legislate away stupidity, so just use it as a learning and teaching experience in your own life.

Well, you have now hit on a sore spot with me.
I believe that legislatures paid by the citizens should not waste the citizens money with "symbolic laws."

That said, it may raise some people's consciousness by encouraging discussion.

Including consciousness of hypocrisy:
It's what's referred to as "doublethink" in George Orwell's book 1984, a process whereby people who practice it train their brains to enforce different laws and/or mores depending on the ruling party's pronouncements or what part of town they're in, no matter if those laws/mores are 180 degrees the opposite of the laws/mores they were espousing and enforcing just the day before or whether they're with "party members" or "proles."

 

[capps]

Actually,it's not a big deal.It's a "symbolic" banning,not something that's being enforced by law.It's basically a reminder,that using the word in the wrong context is ugly,and hurts people,and that's not a bad thing.

It would be ridiculous to legally ban the word,because it wouldn't change anything.Closed minded people who use the word,would just find another way to act out their hate.Can't change peoples' feelings,unfortunately there will always be uncivilized,simple thinkng people.

How do we end it? I don't know if here is an answer for that.

 

[bnhall]

Actually, I would feel like a hypocrite if I used words like f-ggot, n-, etc and got upset when a male called me a b!tch.

 

[justche]

The thought police are at it again...they don't think society can adequately root out and shun people using offensive language? Geesh! Very scary!

I'll put together a list and send it their way of other words they need to include....

It's symbolic...they can't even keep the mayor to keep his pants on, and they think they will stop people from using the "n" word? Please!
It frightens me that people don't get what is happening with our civil liberties

 

[southcitymom]

SCM, you are "comfortable singing along to a song that uses it"--My God, how disgusting, how can you or any other white person sing along with such an ugly word??

LOL, Peter!

As I mentioned in another thread, my ex (white) boyfriend had a good black friend and he would sometimes call him N affectionately. My ex wasn't racist at all and both he and his friend were comfortable with that word between them.

As I've said - I am more a context person when it comes to any word. There is no word I find offensive just because it exists, but there are many words I find offensive in a variety of contexts!

 

[Seven]

Actually,it's not a big deal.It's a "symbolic" banning,not something that's being enforced by law.It's basically a reminder,that using the word in the wrong context is ugly,and hurts people,and that's not a bad thing.

It would be ridiculous to legally ban the word,because it wouldn't change anything.Closed minded people who use the word,would just find another way to act out their hate.Can't change peoples' feelings,unfortunately there will always be uncivilized,simple thinkng people.

How do we end it? I don't know if here is an answer for that.

The only difference is that, in the case of the LA City Council, the resolution they approved on Friday, "symbolically bans the n-word in Los Angeles, in the latest effort to stop people from using the epithet in any context," and that's the only way it makes any sense at all to me.

I agree with you that people often reveal their true character in the words they choose to use, which is why people often choose not to hang with those who speak in a manner that offends them.

Either the word is "burning" and "hurtful" or it isn't.
Either it's "hate speech" or it isn't.
For example:

If X were somewhere that X heard an unknown and unseen person in the next room say the n-word, either that word would "burn and hurt" X or it would not.

But if X has to wait to see the skin color of the person in the next room before becoming "burned and hurt," then it's X's own hate that makes the difference, not the n-word, itself.