Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 17, 2023, 08:47:51 AM
-
I'd like to see the video. If nigger is not be used as a racial slur, i.e. it's usage is being discussed then I don't see anything wrong in saying it, or indeed writing it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65612271
-
FTA
Ms Walton's video captured him saying the slur, as students asked him to stop.
"I'm not calling anyone a [slur]," the teacher can be heard saying. "I can say the word."
It's an important point that discussing a word is not using the word, but from the above, it sounds like the teacher was deliberately trolling the students in this case.
-
FTA
It's an important point that discussing a word is not using the word, but from the above, it sounds like the teacher was deliberately trolling the students in this case.
That's a lot to read into that from the description. It's one of the reasons that I would like to see the video. I think it could easily be said and read as validly challenging preconceptions of the students, and I think objecting to using a word when it is what you are discussing means you are using a lot of preconceptions.
-
That's a lot to read into that from the description. It's one of the reasons that I would like to see the video. I think it could easily be said and read as validly challenging preconceptions of the students, and I think objecting to using a word when it is what you are discussing means you are using a lot of preconceptions.
Small clip
https://youtu.be/VLF3RTsVv3k
-
That's a lot to read into that from the description.
Not really.
It's one of the reasons that I would like to see the word. I think it could easily be said and read as validly challenging preconceptions of the students, and I think objecting to using a word when it is what you are discussing means you are using a lot of preconceptions.
When you examine it, the whole thing is irrational. If hearing or reading the word is so bad, then surely hearing or reading "the N-word" is equally as bad. Even, things like "racial slur" or "I'm not calling anyone a [slur]" invokes the word "nigger" in people's heads so they should be just as injurious.
-
Small clip
https://youtu.be/VLF3RTsVv3k
I think too small to get much of an impression but thanks.
-
Small clip
https://youtu.be/VLF3RTsVv3k
OK, having listened to it, I am going to retract my claim that he was deliberately trolling.
-
Small clip
https://youtu.be/VLF3RTsVv3k
But, of-course, if she hadn't recorded it ...
The question really is "Should the student have been suspended for recording the teacher without permission?" Whether using a word when discussing whether or not a word should be used because it can be offensive is not really the point.
(Though, imo, he shouldn't have unless the discussion concluded that it was acceptable)
-
But, of-course, if she hadn't recorded it ...
The question really is "should the student have been suspended for recording the teacher without permission"? Whether using a word when discussing whether or not a word should be used because it can be offensive is not really the point.
(Though, imo, he shouldn't have unless the discussion concluded that it was acceptable)
So you think that if a majority of people in a group objected to someone saying a woman is an adult human female then they shouldn't say it?
-
So you think that if a majority of people in a group objected to someone saying a woman is an adult human female then they shouldn't say it?
No. But I would try to avoid asserting it during a discussion of whether it was acceptable to say that or not.
-
No. But I would try to avoid asserting it during a discussion of whether it was acceptable to say that or not.
So what happens if the discussion ends with a majority saying it is unacceptable?
-
So what happens if the discussion ends with a majority saying it is unacceptable?
A discussion is not a law making democracy ... and not binding on anyones behaviour. Just confiscate their phones before sounding off.
-
A discussion is not a law making democracy ... and not binding on anyones behaviour. Just confiscate their phones before sounding off.
So if it's not meant to be in any sense affecting what is said, what's the point in avoiding the word nigger in the discussion, or the point of the discussion?
-
I personally think that in the context of an educational discussion, it was ok to use the slur. I also think it is acceptable that the consequence for a student filming it and publicising it on the internet, is suspension, given the number of idiots out there who could be incited to violence by a brief clip. If students want to risk violence and a suspension by filming, that's their call.
The idea that a word should not even be uttered is bonkers to me. Whether "nigger" or "paki" or "spic" etc are used in a educational discussion doesn't suddenly make the Atlantic slave trade / brutally exploiting people through slavery and colonisation ok. And if the words are used to highlight that these words are intended to demean and "other" people when they were used, which was part of the process of making it morally acceptable to dehumanise and mistreat them, then I think in the context of that discussion it should be ok to use them. Maybe students just need to learn to be more resilient and cope, and that's the message that should be reinforced by schools.
-
You have to use the word to explain to students its etymology and why it should not be used. You can't just wink at them and say....'you know that word....don't use it'
-
I personally think that in the context of an educational discussion, it was ok to use the slur. I also think it is acceptable that the consequence for a student filming it and publicising it on the internet, is suspension, given the number of idiots out there who could be incited to violence by a brief clip. If students want to risk violence and a suspension by filming, that's their call.
And, of course, we have had problems with a teacher needing police protection in this country.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teacher-who-showed-pupils-muhammad-23798719
-
You have to use the word to explain to students its etymology and why it should not be used. You can't just wink at them and say....'you know that word....don't use it'
Except in this case it's the students saying it should not be said, and it would appear no matter what the circumstance.
-
So if it's not meant to be in any sense affecting what is said, what's the point in avoiding the word nigger in the discussion, or the point of the discussion?
As actually using the word adds no value and is likely to be interpreted as indicating that the person using it is fine with the demeaning and exploitation of black people. That is apart from any reaction use of the word might invoke in students - unlikely to help keep discussion on an impersonal, objective basis.
-
As actually using the word adds no value and is likely to be interpreted as indicating that the person using it is fine with the demeaning and exploitation of black people. That is apart from any reaction use of the word might invoke in students - unlikely to help keep discussion on an impersonal, objective basis.
If the word isn't said because of the possible objections, the discussions are not on an impersonal objective basis.
-
And, of course, we have had problems with a teacher needing police protection in this country.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teacher-who-showed-pupils-muhammad-23798719
Yes - no need for rent-a-mobs outside schools. Discussion about how words and cartoons can perpetuate offensive tropes and stereotypes is important in a multi-cultural society. I personally think it would not be as effective if you don't show the cartoon and take it apart and identify the components that are offensive and misleading tropes or stereotypes. I think it loses a lot of its power to offend when dissected and can be part of a useful discussion. Its effectiveness to provoke useful discussion does depend on whether the audience is inclined to respond emotionally i.e. by making lazy generalisations in the place of rational analysis.
Being able to express and understand different points of views and where people are coming from is the way forward and often that requires people to control their emotions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56590417
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57261147
-
Yes - no need for rent-a-mobs outside schools. Discussion about how words and cartoons can perpetuate offensive tropes and stereotypes is important in a multi-cultural society. I personally think it would not be as effective if you don't show the cartoon and take it apart and identify the components that are offensive and misleading tropes or stereotypes. I think it loses a lot of its power to offend when dissected and can be part of a useful discussion. Its effectiveness to provoke useful discussion does depend on whether the audience is inclined to respond emotionally i.e. by making lazy generalisations in the place of rational analysis.
Being able to express and understand different points of views and where people are coming from is the way forward and often that requires people to control their emotions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56590417
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57261147
Yeah, maybe you are right ... but what are you going to show the white kids?
hmm.. maybe that is why they don't understand different points of view and where people are coming from? And think that humiliation and bullying is fine as long it's for the "others" or, maybe, women?
-
Yes - no need for rent-a-mobs outside schools. Discussion about how words and cartoons can perpetuate offensive tropes and stereotypes is important in a multi-cultural society. I personally think it would not be as effective if you don't show the cartoon and take it apart and identify the components that are offensive and misleading tropes or stereotypes. I think it loses a lot of its power to offend when dissected and can be part of a useful discussion. Its effectiveness to provoke useful discussion does depend on whether the audience is inclined to respond emotionally i.e. by making lazy generalisations in the place of rational analysis.
Being able to express and understand different points of views and where people are coming from is the way forward and often that requires people to control their emotions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56590417
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57261147
I think if you are discussing if something is acceptable and can't show/say it then you are saying it is not acceptable
-
I think if you are discussing if something is acceptable and can't show/say it then you are saying it is not acceptable
"Acceptable" is hardly a fixed binary state. It depends on the audience and the tone of the discussion. All black teacher and class - doubt using it would cause a stir. In a mixed class though?
Also, I doubt they were discussing the use of the word as an academic exercise given it was a geometry class.
-
Yeah, maybe you are right ... but what are you going to show the white kids?
How do you mean? Do you mean what would you show white kids that would upset them, similar to showing the cartoons to Muslim kids or discussing racial slurs that upsets black kids?
hmm.. maybe that is why they don't understand different points of view and where people are coming from? And think that humiliation and bullying is fine as long it's for the "others" or, maybe, women?
Bullying can be a coping mechanism for managing emotions e.g. feeling annoyed/ out of control / powerless.
Or bullying and humiliation is a way to try to establish dominance.
Dominant people tend to be less sensitive or caring but may be authoritative and willing to take on leadership roles. So maybe that is why society still allows these traits to exist and sometimes seems to reward them - because there is a perception that they can be of some benefit to society if managed better.
-
"Acceptable" is hardly a fixed binary state. It depends on the audience and the tone of the discussion. All black teacher and class - doubt using it would cause a stir. In a mixed class though?
Also, I doubt they were discussing the use of the word as an academic exercise given it was a geometry class.
A geometry class seems the wrong setting for this type of discussion. Depending on which version of the story is accurate, the kids were already having some kind of discussion about the slur when the teacher got involved and said they did not like the use of the slur and they thought the word was derogatory when used by black people to each other. In which case I don't see why the teacher needed to use the slur if they were trying to make the point that they don't like the use of the word.
Apparently the school policy does not allow pupils to even record crimes such as acts of violence - so think the school policy needs to be looked at.
One argument is that the kid is videoing to have a record of events in case they are not believed by the authorities if they follow the complaints procedure after the event. But distributing it so it ends up on YouTube violates the privacy of other children at the school.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/missouri-student-racial-slur.html
-
You have to use the word to explain to students its etymology and why it should not be used. You can't just wink at them and say....'you know that word....don't use it'
Yes you can actually. You could say "don't use the N word". Personally, I don't think that's any better than saying "nigger" because we all, in our heads, know exactly what word is being referred to. The BBC article doesn't even use "n-word", it says "racial slur" but we all know exactly what they mean.
-
Yes you can actually. You could say "don't use the N word". Personally, I don't think that's any better than saying "nigger" because we all, in our heads, know exactly what word is being referred to. The BBC article doesn't even use "n-word", it says "racial slur" but we all know exactly what they mean.
Second paragraph
'Mary Walton, 15, filmed her teacher saying the n-word repeatedly on 9 May at Glendale High School in Springfield, Missouri.'
-
Yes you can actually. You could say "don't use the N word". Personally, I don't think that's any better than saying "nigger" because we all, in our heads, know exactly what word is being referred to. The BBC article doesn't even use "n-word", it says "racial slur" but we all know exactly what they mean.
It is (obviously?) different - even though you know the word that is being referred to, the reason people object to it is because of the emotional impact it imparts. The difference between, say, shouting "you nigger" and "you n-word" at someone.
-
It is (obviously?) different - even though you know the word that is being referred to, the reason people object to it is because of the emotional impact it imparts. The difference between, say, shouting "you nigger" and "you n-word" at someone.
Yes, but why? The intent is the same in both those cases, and we all know in the second, what word is being thought of. If it's so toxic to even mention the N-word in a discussion about its use, then replacing it with "N-word" should not make any difference.
Unless it's all performative nonsense.
-
Yes, but why? The intent is the same in both those cases, and we all know in the second, what word is being thought of. If it's so toxic to even mention the N-word in a discussion about its use, then replacing it with "N-word" should not make any difference.
Unless it's all performative nonsense.
I'll try again: The intent is not the same nor the effect. When you use the word directly you are intentionally bring up all the associations with slavery, brutality and showing your indifference and disrespect for the people you are addressing. When you say "n-word" you are explicitly, by using an indirect reference, disassociating yourself, the audience and the discussion from any support of those aspects.
-
I'll try again: The intent is not the same nor the effect. When you use the word directly you are intentionally bring up all the associations with slavery, brutality and showing your indifference and disrespect for the people you are addressing. When you say "n-word" you are explicitly, by using an indirect reference, disassociating yourself, the audience and the discussion from any support of those aspects.
Nonsense. "The N-word" is a direct substitution for the word "nigger". It means the same thing and therefore brings up all he associations with slavery and brutality. If it didn't mean the same thing, it wouldn't be doing its job.
As I said, it's performative nonsense.
-
I'll try again: The intent is not the same nor the effect. When you use the word directly you are intentionally bring up all the associations with slavery, brutality and showing your indifference and disrespect for the people you are addressing. When you say "n-word" you are explicitly, by using an indirect reference, disassociating yourself, the audience and the discussion from any support of those aspects.
And while I'm at it, just discussing the word should not require you to explicitly to disavow any support of slavery and other discrimination against black people. Claiming that using the word in the context of a discussion about when you can or cannot use the word means you support slavery is just childish fuckwittery. Are there any adults left in this debate?