What I objected to was your assertion that I suggested: “there is no one out there who harbors an unjust and unloving attitude toward immigrants - no one who needs to reminded that we should look for merciful solutions.”
It’s not the word itself but how you use it. Just sayn.
For the last 150 years the Church in America has tried through education, sermons, activities, etc. to assimilate immigrants into the American culture. It is no more a political issue now than it was back then.
It is really not that hard. Jesus said a lot of things that offended people. He even called himself ‘I am’. That, and no doubt other things he said, got him crucified. I’d say obviously that doesn’t mean we go around unnecessarily trying to offend people. But maybe that isn’t so obvious when some claim that applying the word ‘illegal’ to illegal immigrants is offensive.
That is beyond the pale. There is no greater profanity against our new imposed morality then using this word, if you are not Black. To say you assume he uses it is most uncharitable. That is like assuming he is a philanderer in times gone by before the same new morality made that a virtue.
That went right past you, I see. If, as you wrote earlier, “it is about controlling others language and actions through an incoherent manufactured morality of offence taking,” why would you have a problem with the n-word? Isn’t that simply another example of others trying to “control your language and actions”? What makes the cultural prohibition against its usage any more coherent than a prohibition against a word like “illegal” being used to describe human beings?
Why is it uncharitable given what abucs professed (see above)?
No,it’s the word as well.It is vile
It is uncharitable because you presume he uses the word. You presume the worst about him. It is uncharitable to believe such and worse to publicly make such a presumption.
It would only be uncharitable if he/she indeed finds the n-word abhorrent. And there’s no reason to think that he or she does, given what he or she has said about politically correct language. At the very least, given what he or she has said about politically correct language, there’s no reason why he or she should see the n-word as problematic.
You are advocating moral relativity to get out of the comment being uncharitable? Can we now discount all your claims about morality because it is only true for you? Can we call a Black African who doesn’t speak English the ‘n word’ because they don’t understand English? Since they won’t be offended is it acceptable?
Would you call an unabridged dictionary vile because it uses it?
This whole topic seems overdrawn to me. Comparison to the “N” word isn’t entirely apt, but it has some illustrative elements. Blacks use it constantly. Remember, e.g., Jessee Jackson saying he would cut Obama’s “N” “Ns” off? But blacks object to whites using the word because (I’ve been told by blacks) that whites mean something different by the word than they do.
There are a lot of words in the dictionary that I would choose not to be part of my vocabulary.There is not a situation that I can think of that makes using this word and other vile words,that describe other ethnic groups,acceptable.
I am not trying to control you and my claim is not false. Jesus did in fact tell us to treat others the way we want to be treated. He also said that calling someone insulting names can land you in hell.
No, I’m arguing **against **relativity. I don’t need “to get out” of any comments I’ve made. Abucs claims that “illegal” isn’t offensive when used as a noun and his/her reasoning is that there is some version of language police making unsound determinations about which words should be considered offensive. He/she dismisses the idea that those who are offended should determine which words are offensive. Why, then, should the n-word be seen as offensive? There’s no relativity in my statements – I’m asking for consistency from others. When people wholesale dismiss political correctness, they do so at the risk of sanctioning things like the n-word. Better to be more evenhanded in one’s approach.
Without meaning the slightest offense to you, I sometimes think in our efforts not to seem bigoted, we overdo it and become offended by the use of some word when the person to whom it is applied is not.
This reminds me of how ‘Hoosier’ is a term of pride in Indiana but in nearby (relatively speaking at least) Missouri is equivalent to ‘white trash.’
Another thoughtful and well-reasoned post.
We can’t make the Golden Rule so simple we actually turn it into a terror. When we are asked to do unto others we are asked to imagine ourselves in the place of another person. But in so doing we are to imagine ourselves in their position acting morally. For example, we don’t imagine ourselves as the criminal wanting to escape all justice. In this situation we should imagine ourselves as the other person. But if the other person is being demanding, trivial, or unreasonably offended we have no obligation to act as that person would. And I absolutely think anyone who is offended by ‘illegal’ is being demanding, trivial and unreasonable.
You were using relativity to justify you being uncharitable.
There is some subtlety in all this. I do sympathize with the position that groups can use a word that when said by outsiders is offensive. However in this case the ‘n word’ is supposedly so offensive it shouldn’t be used by anyone. It certainly shouldn’t be found liberally used in popular music.
Depends on where you are in Missouri. I have heard St. Louisans use that as a derogatory term meaning just what you say. But in southern Missouri where I live, it just means somebody from Indiana. I remember, long ago when I first went to college, some St. Louisan called me a “Hoosier” because of my accent, and I was just baffled until somebody explained it to me.
I guess it’s more of a St. Louis thing.Depends on where you are in Missouri. I have heard St. Louisans use that as a derogatory term meaning just what you say. But in southern Missouri where I live, it just means somebody from Indiana. I remember, long ago when I first went to college, some St. Louisan called me a “Hoosier” because of my accent, and I was just baffled until somebody explained it to me.
I then explained to the guy who applied it to me that there is a big difference between a Hoosier and a “Hillbilly”, and that I was the latter, not the former. I explained that the origin of the term “hillbilly” came from our cultural practice of sneaking over the hills at night to cut the throats of sleeping city people foolish enough to offend us. I told him it was a real art, to be able to do it without being seen or heard, and being able to pick any lock. He was momentarily taken aback until I told him I was joking. But he never said Hoosier to me again.
Reminded me of another thing. I recall having a difficult time explaining to a couple of guys from New York that there really is such a place as the Ozarks. They genuinely thought it was just a made-up cartoon thing. But I think people from there think everything west of Jersey City is the “great American desert”, populated entirely by cowboys, ruffians and wild Indians.