When I was 16. I lived in the US for an exchange year and one of the cultural differences was how people dealt with profanity. I was baffled at how people tried to avoid bad words, yet still clearly invoking that word in my head. A few examples include: friggin, what the fudge/heck, gosh, darn it...
Whereas I back in Germany it would be socially accepted to say these things as they are.
Used to have friends who regularly used words like "nigger" and "faggot", the latter was heavily part of 90s 2000s culture. South Park didn't help. Most people didn't care. It's very clear when it's used against someone to be nasty as opposed to being a joke or simply being mentioned in an article. We can't make jokes anymore because of the sheer amounts of trolls on the Internet.
That's a curious, almost etymological story of the world. But unfortunately the sociological and political consequences of this erasure are not really explored.
Personally, saying "n-word" instead of "nigger", makes resonate the slur louder in my brain, am I they only one? Isn't creating a taboo getting the opposite effect of what it meant to?
To me, this is follows some trend in North American political thinking that mixes language with reality. Like new Harry Potters*, some people think that language build and modify reality, but it is not like this. Modifying the language, doesn't even start to scratch the underlying problems. It just makes people to "feel" better, as if they are doing something, but they are just playing with language, in quite a hypocritical way. This feeling of relief may in fact hinder dealing with the structural problems underlying racism, that they mostly consist of redistribution of money and opportunities for a better and more inclusive welfare, education, healthcare and jobs.
* https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/harry-potter-magic-libera... "Liberals love Harry Potter because it presents a world they desperately wish was a reality — one where the magic of facts and reason and elite education were enough to vanquish the ills of society."
In the Netherlands in the past two decades the word 'neger' (which corresponds roughly, but not exactly, to the American use of 'negro') has become a taboo word too, although it was already something you wouldn't use on its own for most of the twentieth century. The popular sweet known as chocolate-coated marshmallow treats was called 'negerzoen' in Dutch (negro's kiss) in the recent past, and it was boldly emblazoned on its packaging.
An increase in awareness of racism and the impact of such names has led to it being abolished completely (the sickly sweet product is now known simply as 'kisses'). Nowadays that word is something you would only use to refer to the historic product name, or to explicitly show how you are 'resisting the woke trend'. It is now a word that that one older uncle might use at a family gathering, but otherwise it's pretty much gone and younger generations will marvel at it ever being used. Such is linguistic change.
An aside: oddly enough Dutch language Wikipedia insists on using this outdated racist word for the lemma on this treat, because (in my experience with on a variety of topics) Dutch language Wikipedia editors are rather conservative in such issues and seem to hate certain linguistic shifts. To this Dutchman it comes across as thinly veiled racism under the guise of encyclopaedic integrity.
This change happened alongside awareness of the change surrounding the 'N-word' in America, so recently in opinion pieces and public debate in Dutch people are using 'N-woord' in Dutch as well. But here something odd happened. The N-word refers specifically to 'nigger' in American use, which in Dutch has a rough approximation in the quite rude and outdated 'nikker', but nowadays here the 'N-word' seems to refer almost exclusively to 'neger' (or 'nigger' when used in English lyrics in a Dutch context, for example by Dutch rappers). Is this broadening of the scope something that happens just here, or is 'negro' also slowly falling under the definition of the N-word in the US?
The taboo surrounding the spelling out of that word leads to 'N-word' leading its own semantic life, which is sometimes a bit confusing. It doesn't matter much in the grand scope of things (both words are frankly unnecessary for the most part outside of historic contexts, and are broadly seen as racist), but I find it interesting nonetheless.
> Is this broadening of the scope something that happens just here, or is 'negro' also slowly falling under the definition of the N-word in the US?
"negro," in American English, is basically equivalent to "oriental," in that it's not so much of an in-your-face offensive slur like the n-word, but it's an outmoded term that only someone like your grandparents or perhaps great-grandparents would be caught using, and then swiftly corrected. definitely still offensive if used in the presence of the contemporary person who was being dubbed as such, though.
for more information on this topic among many others, I would suggest checking out the podcast "Moe Factz with Adam Curry," wherein "American Descendent of Slavery" Moe and famously Dutch-raised white American Adam Curry talk about such issues. every episode they play this Malcolm X clip that summarizes the idea for their show (and shows just how recently "negro" was commonly used—within my parents' lifetime!):
> First the white man and the black man have be able to sit down at the same table. The white man has to feel free to speak his mind without hurting the feelings of that negro. And the so-called negro has to feel free to speak his mind without hurting the feelings of the white man. Then they can bring the issues that are under the rug out on top the table and take an intelligent approach to get the problem solved—that's the only way that they'll ever do it.
I have talked with about every 'neger' I know about the word 'neger' and none of the negers had any objections to word neger in itself. And I talked about it with random negers too.
Just don't use it as a slur. The word is not much different than 'Belg' ( Belgian ).
The only people I know who get their panties in a bunch about the word 'neger' are virtue signalling white dudes and gals ( deugers ).
It's also possible those people you've discussed it with are done with explaining this and don't want to have the conversation with you.
Even if they are completely fine with it, you can't generalise - the fact people around you don't seem to care does not mean it is a word that does not carry offence to some, or even the majority.
All swear words and insults are "just words", but their power to offend comes from context and history.
For example, the "c-word" is almost a term of affection in some groups in England and I barely consider it a swear word when in a pub in London, but is a proper pearl-clutcher in the USA and I'd never use it in front of my parents (one in California, the other in the UK). Context matters.
Well done for being curious, but don't assume your data means you have discovered a universal truth.
For anyone wondering, he’s taking about the word “cunt”. It would have been simpler to spell it correctly, both here and for the word “nigger” in the original post. I assume it’s a form of dumbing down for the benefit of readers who it is assumed can’t grasp the difference between direct and reported speech.
I'm sure that among certain demographics the word is still used, but that is no different from the use of the N-word in the US, where it is used by some black people as an in-group term for their exclusive use (think gang culture and such).
In polite Dutch conversation, print publications, television, radio, et cetera, the word is not bandied about, and addressing a random black person as 'neger' is certainly not recommended and will likely get you in trouble.
> To this Dutchman it comes across as thinly veiled racism under the guise of encyclopaedic integrity.
Why could it not simply be integrity or conservatism? I for one like words like `negerzoen', & I don't really understand why anyone should be offended by them. (And I don't /think/ I'm a racist.)
There is, frankly, a lot of that on the Dutch language Wikipedia (don't get me started). Partly this seems to happen because a lot of educated Dutch simply skip it entirely and just use and contribute to the much larger English language Wikipedia.
There is also a very strong culture of hiding behind [citation needed]. Even if something is factually wrong, as long as you can't present a multitude of reliable¹ sources, the old name stays, even if it is glaringly obvious that it is not in current use.
1: What constitutes 'reliable' is of course defined by the Wikipedians who can simply put in more time than any casual contributor to hold of such changes.
Similarly, growing up in Switzerland that chocolate-marshmallow treat was called "tête de nègre" (nergo's head). Today, that's become taboo and they're now called "tête choco"
In the German speaking part of Switzerland they where called "mohrenkopf". There is a raging debate if the Mohren part stems from Mohren, the dark-skinned people, OR the old German word Môre, which means wild pig.
But since it's en vogue to be woke, large retails are super quick to either change the name (Schokokuss, or chocolate kiss), or get rid of the product altogether.
In the Netherlands, they still sell extra thin "jew cakes" (jodenkoek) at the grocery store. When my kids had to bring in ethnic food from Israel, my wife thought those would be a good idea. I begged her to just bring hummus instead, even though it wouldn't be as popular.
Not sure if "jew cakes" are racist but they sure aren't Israeli!
There is a certain sort of person who will be looking into the meaning of the word to find out what is offensive about it. And then getting confused because the etymology is "black" which is descriptive rather than prejudiced.
The actual point, and the reason for the strange tip-toeing, is to do with some very rational effects around how groups signal. Any minority is always at risk from a majority. It helps to have a signal that can only be explained as a gesture of respect and which can therefore be interpreted as a sign that the majority isn't going to go genocidal (or even just dangerously exclusionary) at the drop of a hat.
In the grand scheme of things, it is pretty reasonable to ban almost exactly one word as a gesture of respect, simply to show that an important part social contract is still holding. In amongst all the PC silliness of the world I'm glad there is a part that I can rationalise and support. It makes a lot of sense from a lot of angles.
I'm not so convinced of this professor's article though, it reads a bit like someone who enjoys writing and likes words but hasn't thought enough about how social groups work to pull out the pattern.
The taboo also signals the majority group's inability to confront the real conflict at the heart of the racial relation. You're exactly right that the taboo is a form of white supremacist signaling. I'm not surprised that that makes you feel better about the taboo.
The interesting part is how this notion of the word being a slur expands. A Kenya-born person living in Estonia is likely to consider the word “neeger” a slur despite it never having had this connotation before the Internet arrived. And it is increasingly used as one, too. Which is why people are increasingly avoiding the word - no reason to be deliberately offensive. Curious how global culture can indirectly influence language.
The article has some interesting data points, where the author reports his own experience, but it doesn't really answer the question in the title, and where the author goes beyond his own experience he makes some claims that need further exploration, I think.
1. The etymology of “aethiops” is uncertain. It was believed in ancient times that the word meant “burnt-face” but that may be just folk etymology. See the Oxford English Dictionary or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Etymology
2. The connection he makes with Robert Burns and Winnie-the-Pooh seems like a wild bit of unsubstantiated speculation. OED confirms that Robert Burns wrote: "How graceless Ham leugh at his Dad, Which made Canaan a niger [rhyme vigour, rigour, tiger]." But what's the connection between an 18th-century Scottish poet, A. A. Milne, and an American children's rhyme?
Just that "tigger" actually is how the word tiger was once pronounced, and there's a character in Pooh named Tigger.
The connection to the children's rhyme is that we now say "catch a tiger by the tail," and in view of the above pronunciation of tiger as "tigger," you should be able to infer how the rhyme originally went (replace tail with toe so it actually rhymes with moe).
I'm not saying it's untrue, because I certainly don't know for sure, but what evidence is there that "tiger" was pronounced like "tigger" in America at a time that overlaps with the appearance of the children's rhyme?
The article presents evidence that "tiger" rhymed with "vigour" in Scottish, but perhaps they both rhymed with "eager", not with "bigger". In Scotland. In the 18th century.
It's an opinion piece, it doesn't need to present evidence for everything it says. Take the thirty seconds to look it up on Wikipedia if you want to see all the details.
Not American but recently listened to the Audible edition of John Grisham's 'A Time to Kill' and the word is used dozens if not hundreds of times. Grating to hear but added to the story about race in a way that an alternative could not.
I think it's just a test to see how far out western media reaches. Hopefully far enough towards all experiencing inequality so they can pick out a word they can also ban. Just be left with one indiscriminatory word - money. lmao America the controller of world speech
It’s not just that word. You’re not allowed to say anything negative about blacks as a group. You’re putting yourself in hot water saying something deservedly negative about an individual.
Some pointers for those desperate to torch their career: Mention the fact that they commit at least 56% of the murders (FBI stats 2019). Mention that crime and murder are way up thanks to last years racial reckoning. Mention that the perpetrators of hate crimes, anti-asian and otherwise, are overwhelmingly black. Mention intellectual, academic performance. Mention IQ. Best thing is you don’t even have to mean anything by that, intent has become irrelevant.
It will surprise you to hear that that’s not true, but you’re forgiven for thinking so, given the state of american media. Admittedly, blacks tend to produce more wounded rather than kills.
It will also surprise you to hear that long guns (i.e. AR-15) are involved only in a small percentage of crimes (including mass shootings) involving firearms. The vast majority of such crimes is committed with handguns, many unlicenced.
> Between 1982 and April 2021, 66 out of the 123 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was African American in 21 mass shootings, and Latino in 10. When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 53 percent, 17 percent and eight percent respectively.
I would hate for you to be a victim of definitional retreat if you are able to create a well-reasoned argument and back it up with reliable and objective data.
Not the guy you've been talking to but I looked into the Statista data because that surprised me. Turns out Mother Jones used a very specific set of criteria (possibly to spur page views like my own?) that isn't supported by the AP, nor the FBI or criminologists.
It’s not like saying “white people bad” carries any kind of risk, anywhere at this point. It’s not like there’s much meaningful difference between mainstream and left/lib alt-media. Twitter has collapsed the boundaries. What do those numbers tell you?
Not to detract from the main point of the article, but the general linguistic Puritanism of Americans it describes is very startling to British (and, I am sure, Australian) ears - here, even an old person would never be so coy as to utter "gosh darn it", and the first time I encountered the term 'restroom' (as a tourist in an American airport) I actually laughed out loud, suspecting a joke.
> But today, for Tom to even mention the word at all would be considered beyond the pale — so to speak.
Hmmm, maybe a bit too cutesy covering the etymology of a racist slur and then using a different racist slur in a light hearted manner)
Beyond the pale being historical phrase to refer something savagery(Dublin being the Pale, rest of Ireland being outside it), which was anti-Irish racism by the Brits at it's finest.
Still in current usage and almost entirely disconnected from historical context.
And while we are being so critical of evil Brits I’m sure the phrase has never been uttered by native Dubliners giving their own view of the largely rural regions of their own country?
Edit: BTW are you actually suggesting the Irish of the time were a race apart from other indigenous people of the British Isles?
Well if the Brits are making racist comments about the Irish it rather suggests they are a different race or prone to putting themselves down. Ah, hold on a moment …
randompwd described "beyond the pale" as a racist slur and an example of anti-Irish racism. Sounds like they're calling Irish people a race to me.
Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race). I've seen a couple of instances of people using "racist" when race wasn't a factor; they meant "bigot" or "prejudiced" and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words.
> Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race).
Those people are just using a current legal definition found in many countries that includes nationality as well as race to define racism.
> and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words
Maybe crack open a dictionary?
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:
> 2.
> a. : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
> b. : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
> The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (linguistics) (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (religion) (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups (ethnic group) with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.).
The earlier examples of using "racist" along these lines was long before 2010.
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution
"Common history" is very broad. Do "proper cunts" share a common history? (apparently HN Replies is speedier than one's edits).
Regardless of how broadly "race" is defined by a given law or its use documented in a dictionary, I still think "racist" in reference to a person or act is over-utilized and "bigot" in its various forms not used enough.
Like many linguistic relics better left buried, the phrase is usually only disconnected from historical context for those who may not fully appreciate the complex circumstances surrounding its origin. Around those who do, to use it like in the specific example you gave would be a faux pas to say the least.
We can't all be either Funk or Wagnalls. This is the first I've ever seen an origin explained.
This [0] explanation describes a couple of definitions of "pale," a fence or a sort of political boundary with the Pale of Dublin as an example. It says "to be 'beyond the pale' was to be outside the area accepted as 'home' (outside the paling fence around one's home) and the first printed use was clearly using this sense.
I don't question whether anyone ever used "beyond the pale" in a negative way towards people in parts of Ireland but it clearly wasn't, and isn't, the exclusive meaning of the phrase.
Let's not discard something just because someone, somewhere used it in a bad way (he wrote with '88' in his username). To verb a noun, let's not swastika the phrase "beyond the pale."
I replied to someone else, with evidence, that the origin of the phrase is not prejudiced. I recalled I had access to the OED online and it also supports this. Furthermore, it says about the phrase "The theory that the origin of the phrase relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale or the Pale of Settlement in Russia, is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization."
I wish the problem was isolated to just a few words that I could learn and avoid. But not so much.
I couple of years ago I went to a small hardware store to buy a shovel. I couldn't find what I needed so asked the clerk, who looked at me strangely and got prickly and hostile, like I was weirdo asking for something weird. They didn't have what I wanted and I left.
About a week later it dawned on me. The clerk was a black man, the only one in the village. I had asked for spade, the kind of shovel with a pointy end for breaking ground. Apparently he had taken it as a slur, and that I had been playing some kind of game with him.
Sorry about that. I suppose I should have asked for a shovel with a pointy end.
69 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 161 ms ] threadWhereas I back in Germany it would be socially accepted to say these things as they are.
Because it’s the word itself which is the problem. If you substitute a different word, then you’re saying a different word.
> Whereas I back in Germany it would be socially accepted to say these things as they are.
German doesn’t have euphemisms?
You are right but that’s exactly the point the video is making. By trying to avoid saying the bad thing you still invoke the bad thing.
> German doesn’t have euphemisms?
Maybe but generally it’s not common.
Personally, saying "n-word" instead of "nigger", makes resonate the slur louder in my brain, am I they only one? Isn't creating a taboo getting the opposite effect of what it meant to?
To me, this is follows some trend in North American political thinking that mixes language with reality. Like new Harry Potters*, some people think that language build and modify reality, but it is not like this. Modifying the language, doesn't even start to scratch the underlying problems. It just makes people to "feel" better, as if they are doing something, but they are just playing with language, in quite a hypocritical way. This feeling of relief may in fact hinder dealing with the structural problems underlying racism, that they mostly consist of redistribution of money and opportunities for a better and more inclusive welfare, education, healthcare and jobs.
* https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/harry-potter-magic-libera... "Liberals love Harry Potter because it presents a world they desperately wish was a reality — one where the magic of facts and reason and elite education were enough to vanquish the ills of society."
An increase in awareness of racism and the impact of such names has led to it being abolished completely (the sickly sweet product is now known simply as 'kisses'). Nowadays that word is something you would only use to refer to the historic product name, or to explicitly show how you are 'resisting the woke trend'. It is now a word that that one older uncle might use at a family gathering, but otherwise it's pretty much gone and younger generations will marvel at it ever being used. Such is linguistic change.
An aside: oddly enough Dutch language Wikipedia insists on using this outdated racist word for the lemma on this treat, because (in my experience with on a variety of topics) Dutch language Wikipedia editors are rather conservative in such issues and seem to hate certain linguistic shifts. To this Dutchman it comes across as thinly veiled racism under the guise of encyclopaedic integrity.
This change happened alongside awareness of the change surrounding the 'N-word' in America, so recently in opinion pieces and public debate in Dutch people are using 'N-woord' in Dutch as well. But here something odd happened. The N-word refers specifically to 'nigger' in American use, which in Dutch has a rough approximation in the quite rude and outdated 'nikker', but nowadays here the 'N-word' seems to refer almost exclusively to 'neger' (or 'nigger' when used in English lyrics in a Dutch context, for example by Dutch rappers). Is this broadening of the scope something that happens just here, or is 'negro' also slowly falling under the definition of the N-word in the US?
The taboo surrounding the spelling out of that word leads to 'N-word' leading its own semantic life, which is sometimes a bit confusing. It doesn't matter much in the grand scope of things (both words are frankly unnecessary for the most part outside of historic contexts, and are broadly seen as racist), but I find it interesting nonetheless.
"negro," in American English, is basically equivalent to "oriental," in that it's not so much of an in-your-face offensive slur like the n-word, but it's an outmoded term that only someone like your grandparents or perhaps great-grandparents would be caught using, and then swiftly corrected. definitely still offensive if used in the presence of the contemporary person who was being dubbed as such, though.
for more information on this topic among many others, I would suggest checking out the podcast "Moe Factz with Adam Curry," wherein "American Descendent of Slavery" Moe and famously Dutch-raised white American Adam Curry talk about such issues. every episode they play this Malcolm X clip that summarizes the idea for their show (and shows just how recently "negro" was commonly used—within my parents' lifetime!):
> First the white man and the black man have be able to sit down at the same table. The white man has to feel free to speak his mind without hurting the feelings of that negro. And the so-called negro has to feel free to speak his mind without hurting the feelings of the white man. Then they can bring the issues that are under the rug out on top the table and take an intelligent approach to get the problem solved—that's the only way that they'll ever do it.
I have talked with about every 'neger' I know about the word 'neger' and none of the negers had any objections to word neger in itself. And I talked about it with random negers too.
Just don't use it as a slur. The word is not much different than 'Belg' ( Belgian ).
The only people I know who get their panties in a bunch about the word 'neger' are virtue signalling white dudes and gals ( deugers ).
Even if they are completely fine with it, you can't generalise - the fact people around you don't seem to care does not mean it is a word that does not carry offence to some, or even the majority.
All swear words and insults are "just words", but their power to offend comes from context and history.
For example, the "c-word" is almost a term of affection in some groups in England and I barely consider it a swear word when in a pub in London, but is a proper pearl-clutcher in the USA and I'd never use it in front of my parents (one in California, the other in the UK). Context matters.
Well done for being curious, but don't assume your data means you have discovered a universal truth.
I haven't claimed anything like that in the slightest.
In polite Dutch conversation, print publications, television, radio, et cetera, the word is not bandied about, and addressing a random black person as 'neger' is certainly not recommended and will likely get you in trouble.
Why could it not simply be integrity or conservatism? I for one like words like `negerzoen', & I don't really understand why anyone should be offended by them. (And I don't /think/ I'm a racist.)
Ugh, yeah, the discussion[0] on this is rather pigheaded. They almost seem to go out of their way to keep it racist.
[0] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Negerzoen
There is also a very strong culture of hiding behind [citation needed]. Even if something is factually wrong, as long as you can't present a multitude of reliable¹ sources, the old name stays, even if it is glaringly obvious that it is not in current use.
1: What constitutes 'reliable' is of course defined by the Wikipedians who can simply put in more time than any casual contributor to hold of such changes.
In the German speaking part of Switzerland they where called "mohrenkopf". There is a raging debate if the Mohren part stems from Mohren, the dark-skinned people, OR the old German word Môre, which means wild pig.
But since it's en vogue to be woke, large retails are super quick to either change the name (Schokokuss, or chocolate kiss), or get rid of the product altogether.
Not sure if "jew cakes" are racist but they sure aren't Israeli!
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/jew-cookies-a-dutch-dessert-s...
It is not really offensive, mostly, but also not a good match for the present day. Manufacturers probably won't hold on to the name for much longer.
The actual point, and the reason for the strange tip-toeing, is to do with some very rational effects around how groups signal. Any minority is always at risk from a majority. It helps to have a signal that can only be explained as a gesture of respect and which can therefore be interpreted as a sign that the majority isn't going to go genocidal (or even just dangerously exclusionary) at the drop of a hat.
In the grand scheme of things, it is pretty reasonable to ban almost exactly one word as a gesture of respect, simply to show that an important part social contract is still holding. In amongst all the PC silliness of the world I'm glad there is a part that I can rationalise and support. It makes a lot of sense from a lot of angles.
I'm not so convinced of this professor's article though, it reads a bit like someone who enjoys writing and likes words but hasn't thought enough about how social groups work to pull out the pattern.
1. The etymology of “aethiops” is uncertain. It was believed in ancient times that the word meant “burnt-face” but that may be just folk etymology. See the Oxford English Dictionary or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Etymology
2. The connection he makes with Robert Burns and Winnie-the-Pooh seems like a wild bit of unsubstantiated speculation. OED confirms that Robert Burns wrote: "How graceless Ham leugh at his Dad, Which made Canaan a niger [rhyme vigour, rigour, tiger]." But what's the connection between an 18th-century Scottish poet, A. A. Milne, and an American children's rhyme?
The connection to the children's rhyme is that we now say "catch a tiger by the tail," and in view of the above pronunciation of tiger as "tigger," you should be able to infer how the rhyme originally went (replace tail with toe so it actually rhymes with moe).
The article presents evidence that "tiger" rhymed with "vigour" in Scottish, but perhaps they both rhymed with "eager", not with "bigger". In Scotland. In the 18th century.
Some pointers for those desperate to torch their career: Mention the fact that they commit at least 56% of the murders (FBI stats 2019). Mention that crime and murder are way up thanks to last years racial reckoning. Mention that the perpetrators of hate crimes, anti-asian and otherwise, are overwhelmingly black. Mention intellectual, academic performance. Mention IQ. Best thing is you don’t even have to mean anything by that, intent has become irrelevant.
Land of the free, home of the brave.
It will also surprise you to hear that long guns (i.e. AR-15) are involved only in a small percentage of crimes (including mass shootings) involving firearms. The vast majority of such crimes is committed with handguns, many unlicenced.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in...
The definition of "mass shooting" varies, but let's start with this list, and please let me know how it is incorrect in its scope so I can understand your exact point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
I would hate for you to be a victim of definitional retreat if you are able to create a well-reasoned argument and back it up with reliable and objective data.
https://reason.com/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-mo...
- The amount of black men raping white women
- The amount of white men raping black women
Since we're allowed to talk absolute numbers and race without any race qualifiers at all.
I jokingly call this verbal nitroglycerin the #BiggerDiggerTrigger just to laugh at our collective silliness.
Will Arnold Schwarzenegger be forced to change his name to appeas the Woke godz?
To hell with this mess, say I.
Hmmm, maybe a bit too cutesy covering the etymology of a racist slur and then using a different racist slur in a light hearted manner)
Beyond the pale being historical phrase to refer something savagery(Dublin being the Pale, rest of Ireland being outside it), which was anti-Irish racism by the Brits at it's finest.
And while we are being so critical of evil Brits I’m sure the phrase has never been uttered by native Dubliners giving their own view of the largely rural regions of their own country?
Edit: BTW are you actually suggesting the Irish of the time were a race apart from other indigenous people of the British Isles?
Where did you get that from?
Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race). I've seen a couple of instances of people using "racist" when race wasn't a factor; they meant "bigot" or "prejudiced" and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words.
Those people are just using a current legal definition found in many countries that includes nationality as well as race to define racism.
UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9
> and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words
Maybe crack open a dictionary?
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:
> 2.
> a. : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
> b. : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
> The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (linguistics) (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (religion) (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups (ethnic group) with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.).
The earlier examples of using "racist" along these lines was long before 2010.
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution
"Common history" is very broad. Do "proper cunts" share a common history? (apparently HN Replies is speedier than one's edits).
Regardless of how broadly "race" is defined by a given law or its use documented in a dictionary, I still think "racist" in reference to a person or act is over-utilized and "bigot" in its various forms not used enough.
This [0] explanation describes a couple of definitions of "pale," a fence or a sort of political boundary with the Pale of Dublin as an example. It says "to be 'beyond the pale' was to be outside the area accepted as 'home' (outside the paling fence around one's home) and the first printed use was clearly using this sense.
I don't question whether anyone ever used "beyond the pale" in a negative way towards people in parts of Ireland but it clearly wasn't, and isn't, the exclusive meaning of the phrase.
Let's not discard something just because someone, somewhere used it in a bad way (he wrote with '88' in his username). To verb a noun, let's not swastika the phrase "beyond the pale."
[0] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beyond-the-pale.html
I couple of years ago I went to a small hardware store to buy a shovel. I couldn't find what I needed so asked the clerk, who looked at me strangely and got prickly and hostile, like I was weirdo asking for something weird. They didn't have what I wanted and I left.
About a week later it dawned on me. The clerk was a black man, the only one in the village. I had asked for spade, the kind of shovel with a pointy end for breaking ground. Apparently he had taken it as a slur, and that I had been playing some kind of game with him.
Sorry about that. I suppose I should have asked for a shovel with a pointy end.