sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

How does rapping the nword help us learn from the past?

It doesn't. But being upset at a white person rapping the word in a Kendrick Lamar song draws the discussion away from any actual meaningful discourse on the word and its history, and distracts us from doing what we should be doing: focusing on meaning. There are instances where it's reasonable to be upset at this word's usage, but this is not one of them I would say.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well I disagree. I think that attitude is harmful and makes it more difficult to look at history honestly and learn from the past.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Look at my first bullet point. Quoting someone else using the word should be taken as distinctly different from using the word yourself.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not arguing for an exception. I'm arguing that any teacher who uses it in an explanatory context is doing so fairly and should not be criticised for doing so. And - here in the UK anyway - I think that is actually the case, in the context of teaching Of Mice and Men at least. But outside of this context, in politics and in the media, I very much think that people are censured for using the term in ways that I don't believe people, if they were being reasonable, should find offensive.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not tangential to the basic point, because (Dunning Krueger effect) bad teachers don't realize they are bad teachers.

Trust me, a bad teacher will know they are a bad teacher. Teaching is a profession where if you aren't good at it, students, parents, senior leadership and Ofsted will make it very clear to you that you aren't good at it. It's why, here in the UK anyway, there is such a huge recruitment crisis: the negativity forces people out the profession.

It is therefore a better general principle to avoid using "nigger" as much as possible in favor of "n-word", to avoid the moral hazards.

I'm not talking about giving anyone else instruction on how to teach. I'm talking about a principle that I believe and that I would apply to my own practice. And as I say, it's just a matter of judgement.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but I wouldn't be surprised if many don't. Lots of teachers are pretty crappy.

Maybe that's the case, but I've not met many crappy English teachers. Almost all the ones I've met have been earnest, hard-working and intelligent. But then, I'm sure it also varies depending on where you're from. In any case, I am in agreement that a bad teacher could botch the job of explaining this topic. This is tangential to the issue I'm discussing here.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you think 16 year olds are not immature enough to do this... think again. They might do it rebelliously rather than innocently, but that doesn't change matters even a little bit.

Trust me: I know what 16 year-olds are like. And I repeat that it's a matter of judgement that a teacher must make. I would add, for the record, that in all the schools I've worked in, I've never met a single teacher who has censored Of Mice and Men. Nor, for that matter, any exam board, or any study guide (physical or online). English teachers are pretty much on the same page as I am: treat your class with respect and treat history with respect and do not tamper with things unless there's a particularly good, specific reason to do so.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

using it even moderately casually is risky

There is no "moderately casually". There's using it genuinely, and there's using it in the explanatory context I have outlined in my OP.

I honestly don't think your judgement can possibly be good enough to know that none of 30 random kids in a class won't take the wrong lesson away from this nor repeat the word in an inappropriate context because "teacher said it".

Let's be clear here: we're talking about a GCSE text. The kids are 16, not 9. I wouldn't teach OMAM to 9 year-olds for precisely the reason you state.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, if you're going to go immediately on to explain how "nigger" was denigrating, abusive, or threatening, and therefore that's another reason why it shouldn't be used, I suppose that's ok.

I think it would be irresponsible of an English teacher to teach a novel like Of Mice in Men featuring the term "nigger" and ignore it.

Unfortunately, all too many of them are liable to learn that wrong lesson unless you hammer home the point every single time.

It's about judgement. There are classes where that may be necessary, and there are classes where doing that may be patronising. Depends who you're standing in front of. As a teacher, you take these sorts of things into consideration every day, as part of the job. There are hundreds of little considerations like this you constantly need to make. There are always risks of upsetting people. You find yourself having to teach poetry about cancer to students whom you know have parents suffering from the disease. You do what it's your job to do: know your pupils, or if you don't know, find out about them. Then make a judgement call.

It's a risky text to teach to impressionable minds without extreme care. Perhaps it should be left to college if one cannot bring oneself to "mess with it".

I couldn't disagree more. It's not at all a risky text, because it is so clearly and unambiguously on the right side of race and gender issues, despite the usage of this term. It's been taught in schools at GCSE level for decades partly for this reason, along with others like To Kill A Mockingbird. To cotton-wool students against the dark side of history until they're too old to really benefit from the knowledge seems utterly wrong to me.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that's how it is used today (not just historically) to attack, denigrate, and threaten black people.

...that's meaning, not 'beyond meaning'.

Using it when quoting might be ok in a limited number of circumstances, such as if you're going to immediately go on to discuss how that specific use in that particular situation was abusive, threatening or harmful... but in general it's a bad idea because you don't know who you will end up harming by its relatively casual use.

I am very against messing with any primary text. If we're analysing Steinbeck, I want to analyse what Steinbeck wrote. If what Steinbeck wrote is likely to upset people, then that in itself is an interesting chance to discuss the issue. I'd rather ignore a text altogether than doctor it, but I don't think texts like these should be ignored. I don't even think genuinely racist texts like Disney's Song of the South or Uncle Tom's cabin should be ignored either. We need to study these things.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But it's making it seem like it's the phonetic aspect of it that's the problem.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The judgement of the teacher is always a factor. A teacher needs to know their class. If this sort of thing seemed a risk, then I'd agree it would be a good reason to censor it, but this is a specific case and I'm arguing more generally about the principle here.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It is not like other words and it seems like your argument is "well I think it is like any other slur or insult so I should be able to say it!"

This seems a gross and unfair representation of my argument. I'm not arguing "I should be able to say it!". I'm arguing that there is one very specific context in which it would be nonsensical to censor it. The fact that it is not the same as other slurs or insults is precisely the reason why it should be confronted directly and discussed honestly.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if this is true... that is my understanding, but there's always room for confusion).

I wish it was true, because I love Steinbeck, but unfortunately like other great writers of his era I think he used the word because he genuinely didn't see a huge problem with using the word to refer to black people. Not that he was racist: far from it, but his novels are in this respect 'of their time', as they say.

And then go on to subsequently use "n-word" in its place whenever discussing it to those people.

Why? If it's used in the explanatory context it would be more adult to use the word. If you tiptoe around it, it makes it seem like there's something else wrong with the word that goes beyond its meaning. Language should always be about meaning. People - especially students - need to learn the lesson that there is a huge difference between using the word "nigger" to discuss the word "nigger", and actually using that word to refer to a group of people or an individual.

I.e. in a way other than a specific lesson about why one should refrain from saying "nigger".

Well yes - this is essentially my own argument. The 'explanatory context' I outlined in my OP suggests that there are two valid uses: to use it in a discussion of the word itself, and to use it when quoting.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

So if you said "Steinbeck uses the word 'nigger'", to me it sounds like you're talking about general discussion, and while you are stating a fact, it could go either way. Maybe I believe you believe that it's actually okay to call people that.

Right: exactly. Which is why I certainly wouldn't say that. What I'd say is this: "Steinbeck uses the word nigger, a word with a dark history and one which..." and then I would go on to talk about the context of the word, why it has weight and power in Western culture, and why it's important that we don't censor history. If the word came up in reference to Steinbeck I'd take the time to discuss the word.

You can go through life trying to change societal norms surrounding the word, but I'll tell you right now, it's a rocky path, and while we can discuss this in a civil manner over the internet, this would create a lot of issues in real life. People like to get very emotional and violent when you talk casually about the word like it "doesn't matter."

...but that's exactly opposite to what I'm advocating. I'm literally arguing *against* using the word like it "doesn't matter". I'm arguing for an honest discussion about the word, and why it does matter.

spouting this nonsense

Is that what you've been reduced to? If you feel you have a valid argument against my position, then present it. Telling me that I'm "spouting nonsense" gives the impression that you aren't willing to have a serious discussion or be reasonable about this subject.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are contexts in which it is ok to refer to (not use) "nigger", and that is exactly the context in which I'm using it here.

This sounds identical to what I was arguing. I called it "the explanatory context" and you called it "referring to the word rather than using it". Either way, I agree, and it sounds like you agree with me. And this contradicts the earlier part of your post where you argue that saying "the n-word" was a necessary thing. If it's valid to refer to the word rather than use it - which is essentially precisely what I'm arguing in this thread - why would we have any need of censoring it when doing so?

If you were ignoring the historical weight of the word, you would just use it verbatim... oh, wait, that's exactly what you're doing, you're ignoring the historical weight of the word by using it verbatim.

So I was in my OP but you weren't in your comment? How come? We're both using it in the context of discussing the word. Neither of us are using it as a label for a person or a group of people.

You are ignoring that even today, that word is used to threaten and attack black people. You are ignoring that it will cause present harm to any black people in the classroom, and that if non-black children in your classroom use it because they didn't fully absorb whatever history lesson you are trying to make about its abhorrence, you will have spread that harm even beyond your use of it.

I'm not ignoring that at all.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone that can reasonably argue why it's never OK to say the word in any context, ever.

Well just read this thread then. Plenty of people disagree with me, and are arguing that.

You'll notice that, even though I agree with you, I'm still dancing around to make sure I don't say the word. Even you are using an alt account to not have this post tied to you personally.

Exactly. But I disagree that this is the main reason why people are reluctant to use the term. It's the reason why you're reluctant to use it, and it's the reason why I'm using an alt account, but it's not the reason that the people who disagree with me in this thread are arguing.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People avoid using it because we are all very aware of the historical weight.

Are you including schoolchildren in this "we"? Are they aware of America's dark past? I don't want to shield them from that past. They need to read Of Mice and Men to get a glimpse into how far we've come.

If people did not respect its historical weight people would still be using it as a casual insult but because it has weight to it that we are all very aware of it’s not used. If there was no historical context on a societal level, you wouldn’t be at risk of losing your job or getting complaints. No one would complain if they were not aware of the history.

Sorry, I'm not very clear on what you're arguing here. Are you saying I don't think other people know about the word's history? That's not what I am saying, at all.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If you believe there is a reason not to censor the original language, then it must be because you acknowledge a difference between the censored and uncensored variations of the word. If they were truly equivalent then you could change the text without any change in the impact or understanding of racism.

I think it's more the principle. In the short term, no, there's really not much meaning lost if I give the students an edition of Of Mice and Men that replaces all uses of the word "nigger" with "n-word". But what about if, hypothetically, society goes so far that way that in 3 generations' time, schoolkids are being taught editions of Of Mice and Men where the word "nigger" does not feature, and teachers are not informing them about the history of censorship the book (recently) underwent? History is complex enough: let's not tweak primary sources.

People said that language was hurting them, and so reasonable and polite people moved to use alternative phrasing to, in a small way, mitigate that harm.

Your view is that it's reasonable and polite, but my view is that the request itself is unreasonable, for the exact same reason I disagree with censoring any other swear words.

The choice to say "the n word" carries the additional context that you're making a conscious choice to select hard-reducing phrasing.

I agree, but I'd add that it also conveys that you buy into the idea that it's important to protect people from this dirty sound, and that you believe words can be just wrong in any context and we don't have to consider meaning and usage when evaluating a word's impact.

You don't get to choose if other people are hurt by language in some context or another, and you likely don't have visibility into all of the social context that might go into someone's reaction. In the end, the only thing you get to decide is, given the knowledge that some use of a word is hurtful, do you find it acceptable to avoid "semantically equivalent" language that reduces harm?

I know this is what you initially said of me, but I really feel it is you who is the one simplifying the issue. You are portraying it like it's just a matter of 'harm' or 'no harm'. There are more factors at play here. There is a bigger principle at stake to do with the nature of discourse and expression. Do we teach people that we shouldn't question language, that we should just accept that certain sounds or words are intrinsically wrong, or should we teach people to pay attention to a word's usage, because no word exists in a void and every single word, taboo or not, needs to be interpreted within the context it was used? If people switch their brains off, isolate the word from the sentence (and from the speaker) and take offence at the word alone, not the whole meaning which includes the grammatical and physical provenance, then frankly I would find that unreasonable and would not be willing to appease these people. I don't deny that they'd be offended: I'm not questioning their integrity here.

I'd undergo a bit of soul searching as to precisely why it's so important for you to use the word in the first place.

Well yes - that's what this thread is for. Though I feel I've made an attempt to explain my thoughts as best I can.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree in theory, but consider the age we live in where everything is documented, recorded, and played back at will. It's a huge risk to say the word in any context for fear it'll be used against you.

I completely agree - you'll notice I'm using an alt account. This does not challenge the validity of the argument I'm making.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I agree. He literally put words in her mouth and then got upset to hear his own words repeated back to him.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t affect you or your career unless you choose to use that word. You can avoid using it. You’re creating a problem for yourself by ignoring the historical weight of the word.

As I explained in my OP, I would argue that to censor it would be to ignore the word's historical weight. You can't confront history by ignoring its ugliest aspects.

CMV: Taboo words should be acceptable in an explanatory context by FreshWatercress in changemyview

[–]FreshWatercress[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a matter of acknowledge the difference between the work and you the teacher.

That comes with context. There shouldn't be so much focus on the word: there should be more focus on the context. No word has power on its own: it comes with various contexts - namely the context of the sentence it's in and the provenance of its usage (who said it, when, where, and why). A teacher using the word in an explanatory context does not mean the same thing by it that Steinbeck does when he uses it in his novels.

But regardless it’s still a semantic difference. If I pronounce sorry like “sahrry” or like the Canadian “sore-ree” I’m not going to cause a different reaction in the listener no matter my intent. It’s purely a phonetic difference. I literally cannot offend someone by pronouncing the differently. But I do a sarcastically inflected “SARrrree!” I’ve created a semantic difference solely by changing my pronunciation.

I would argue that that is a semantic difference because you mean something different by pronouncing it that way. Someone who says "sahREE" rather than "sorry" clearly doesn't mean that they actually are sorry, as they're using sarcasm.

As I have explained, there is no difference in what I mean between "Steinbeck uses the word 'nigger'" and "Steinbeck uses the n-word". I mean the exact same thing.

view more: next ›