IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th September 2022, 08:15 AM   #81
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,551
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
One of the sources listed in the Wiki link was the National Museum of the American Indian. I'd guess they might, just maybe, know more about whether or not "squaw" is offensive to Native Americans than the posters here refusing to recognize such.

Another source given in post 11 was "Indian Country Today", and while they don't claim "squaw" is universally offensive, they do repeatedly point out that it is offensive to many. So offensive, in fact, that they went back and edited the article to say "the s word" instead of "squaw" throughout the article.
Right, but if the primary justification for it being offensive was that others sometimes used it in a derogatory sense in the past, but it is not primarily used in that sense today (or even primarily in the past).... that's an awkward way to define a slur and take offense to its use.

Again "Italian". Someone could say "my hubcaps got stolen. Prob those ******* Italians. That would be a perfectly normal word used in a derogatory way. That's kind of what I'm seeing here. I thought "the s-word" meant an adultish female tribesperson, derived from one of the dialects.

If the word is a slur because the recipient thinks it was meant offensively, but it was not meant offensively, isn't the onus on the recipient to say that they misunderstood? Some other people in the past sometimes using it derogitorily doesn't mean we are now.

Eta: This. Indigenous people would not consider themselves American, nor Indian, right? Those would just be bastardized terms. Word meanings change. "The s-word" surely has?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 30th September 2022 at 08:28 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 08:16 AM   #82
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
However it has been explained to you - via the quotes of those with the power to effect the change of names - that they don't ascribe to your standard.
I think it's okay to be skeptical of people in power, especially when they make spurious arguments.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 08:21 AM   #83
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,577
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Asking whether a term is being used for derogation (intent) is not the same as asking whether people find it offensive (impact).
It's not that far off. The whole façade of pretending one is using an offensive slur without the intent to offend is pretty threadbare by this point.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
On occasion people will take offense where none was intended.

Happy to look at examples of contemporary usage, if you can find them.

ETA: Here is one.
You've been given multiple examples of contemporary usage. You found one yourself that's clearly meant to be derogatory (the whole 'beat out a better white guy but only got the job because minority' theme). One would have to be a fool to believe your claim that you're happy to look at examples, given your demonstrated ignoring of those you already have.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 08:29 AM   #84
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,577
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Right, but if the primary justification for it being offensive was that others sometimes used it in a derogatory sense in the past, but it is not primarily used in that sense today (or even primarily in the past).... that's an awkward way to define a slur and take offense to its use.
I'm seeing the primary justification for it being offensive being that those it is aimed at largely claim it is offensive now, and have done so since at least the 1890's according to the already linked sources.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Again "Italian". Someone could say "my hubcaps got stolen. Prob those ******* Italians. That would be a perfectly normal word used in a derogatory way. That's kind of what I'm seeing here. I thought "the s-word" meant an adultish female tribesperson, derived from one of the dialects.

If the word is a slur because the recipient thinks it was meant offensively, but it was not meant offensively, isn't the onus on the recipient to say that they misunderstood? Some other people in the past sometimes using it derogitorily doesn't mean we are now.
Hey, if you think you can reclaim the word that's been considered offensive for at least 130 years because you're not using it derogatorily, knock yourself out. Just be careful, or the folks you're explaining how not offended they should be by your usage may end up knocking you out first.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Eta: This. Indigenous people would not consider themselves American, nor Indian, right? Those would just be bastardized terms. Word meanings change. "The s-word" surely has?
That's kinda the point. In a long dead language, a long time ago, the "s-word" wasn't offensive. That changed. That changed a long time ago.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 08:32 AM   #85
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,577
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I think it's okay to be skeptical of people in power, especially when they make spurious arguments.
But we're supposed to be swayed by the spurious arguments you put forth?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 08:45 AM   #86
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
The whole façade of pretending one is using an offensive slur without the intent to offend is pretty threadbare by this point.
Perhaps so, in another thread.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You've been given multiple examples of contemporary usage.
Name two.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You found one yourself that's clearly meant to be derogatory (the whole 'beat out a better white guy but only got the job because minority' theme).
That was, I believe, a poster presenting their idea of what a conservative might say against Liz Warren.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
In a long dead language, a long time ago, the "s-word" wasn't offensive. That changed. That changed a long time ago.
Around when did it change?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 30th September 2022 at 08:48 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 09:06 AM   #87
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,363
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I'm just glad that the term "Squaw" has not been cancelled in the bedroom.
I suspect you're confusing "squaw" with "squat."
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 09:28 AM   #88
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,328
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
If the word is a slur because the recipient thinks it was meant offensively, but it was not meant offensively, isn't the onus on the recipient to say that they misunderstood? Some other people in the past sometimes using it derogitorily doesn't mean we are now.
No, I wouldn't say that there's any such obligation. At some point you've missed the boat, and negligence subsumes intent. My grandfather probably didn't mean to offend when he used words like paki or chinky, but I don't think the problem was that his audience was getting it all wrong.

I would not agree that squaw is not used offensively today, because for the most part it's not used at all, except quotatively, or in (lexically distinct) place names. The author of a western in 1920 would use the word liberally, a modern author would probably hesitate to even put it in the mouth of one of their characters. The whole class of "words for women of races other than white" has largely fallen out of favor, and I don't think it's particularly difficult to see why. We don't hear negress or Jewess much anymore, either, except in heightened or ironic ways.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 09:35 AM   #89
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,577
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Perhaps so, in another thread.
But here it's fresh and new? Hardly.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Name two.
Why? So that you can ignore them as well as the previous ones you got? No thank you.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
That was, I believe, a poster presenting their idea of what a conservative might say against Liz Warren.
Indeed. Which was what made it clearly a derogatory usage. So, again, in addition to the examples you were provided, you found more on your own. So why must anyone give you even more still to convince you that a usage you have discovered already exists, exists?

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Around when did it change?
Long before you were born. Who the hell cares exactly when? What difference would it make?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 10:07 AM   #90
crescent
Philosopher
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,211
It's an oddly circular logic.

1: Claim the word is not racist by claiming that it is not used in a derogatory way.

2: Get presented with someone using in an insult, such as this example from Rush Limbaugh "Elizabeth Warren, Heap Big Squaw Indian Giver!"

3: Claim that because the word is not racist, then it wasn't really derogatory. Why isn't it racist? Go back to #1!

Many cites have been provided quoting many Native Americans as saying that they are offended by the word such that it is approaching common knowledge. Use continues anyway, suggesting that current usage (such as Rush's use) is in fact derogatory. People use that word because they know it annoys or offends Native Americans and people who are supportive of Native Americans. They use it because they see it associated with negative stereotypes of Native Americans. They use it to poke people.

And what do we call the derogatory use of a racial and sexual identifier? Racist and sexist.

The Euphemism Treadmill can be annoying - but the fact remains that words can and often do transition from being acceptable to then being unacceptable (see "retarded", for example). It happens in society, we all know that. And once a word has progressed past a certain point, its continued use really is racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted. Being a contrarian does not change that.

Last edited by crescent; 30th September 2022 at 12:01 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 11:47 AM   #91
Lithrael
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,416
Thanks Crescent, well put.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 11:52 AM   #92
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 105,775
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I think it's okay to be skeptical of people in power, especially when they make spurious arguments.
That doesn’t address the post your quoted.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 12:21 PM   #93
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
1: Claim the word is not racist by claiming that it is not used in a derogatory way.
Who made this claim?

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Use continues anyway, suggesting that current usage (such as Rush's use) is in fact derogatory.
I think it's quite fair to say that Rush's use was indeed derogatory and probably racist as well. To my knowledge, it's the first contemporary example quoted here in the thread, unless you count the other one about Liz Warren.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Many cites have been provided quoting many Native Americans as saying that they are offended by the word such that it is approaching common knowledge.
Those are social activists, not everyday tribal members.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 30th September 2022 at 12:25 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 12:22 PM   #94
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That doesn’t address the post your quoted.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is no doubt as to which standard will prevail at the federal level.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 12:35 PM   #95
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
.....
Those are social activists, not everyday tribal members.
Oh for pete's sake. What does this even mean? The people who describe a problem shouldn't be heard because they're the people describing it? You've seen numerous reports by people who felt insulted and demeaned by this language. It doesn't matter how anybody used it 160 years ago, which, by the way, was a time when white people were murdering Indians and claiming they had a right to do it. Hardly the picture of enlightened egalitarian discourse.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 12:58 PM   #96
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You've seen numerous reports by people who felt insulted and demeaned by this language.
You seem to think this is dispositive in and of itself, regardless of the intent of those who named Squaw Creek or Squaw Valley or what-have-you.

There is a website called "TERF is a slur" and the activists who put the website together make it quite clear that they find the term both insulting and demeaning. Do we stop using "TERF" just because it upsets them? I doubt it. There has to be something more at stake.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:08 PM   #97
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You seem to think this is dispositive in and of itself, regardless of the intent of those who named Squaw Creek or Squaw Valley or what-have-you.
.....
Once again, it doesn't matter what the intent was 150 years ago. It's a slur now, and that's why the names have been changed now.

And a lot of places in the U.S. have names that are now considered offensive. In the 1960s, many sites were renamed Negro something-or-other to replace the previous infamous word, and Negro is now considered antiquated at best, if not offensive.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/11/us/ra...rnd/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46531169

Language and usage change over time.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:13 PM   #98
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,215
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post

There is a website called "TERF is a slur" and the activists who put the website together make it quite clear that they find the term both insulting and demeaning. Do we stop using "TERF" just because it upsets them? I doubt it. There has to be something more at stake.
As already pointed out, you can do whatever you want. If someone tells me that they find a term offensive, and I continue using that term, I shouldn't be surprised that they then find me offensive.

I'm not sure why this has become such a difficult concept to understand. Do whatever you want; but be aware that people might judge you accordingly. You're basically arguing that if someone is offended by a term, you can whip out some statistics that show that not every member of their group is offended, therefore they should be just fine and stop being a snowflake.

Then you keep wondering why it doesn't work.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:18 PM   #99
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Once again, it doesn't matter what the intent was 150 years ago. It's a slur now, and that's why the names have been changed now.
There is basically zero chance that it became more of a slur even as it faded out of common usage. About the only time you see the term used nowadays is in discussions like this one.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In the 1960s, many sites were renamed Negro something-or-other to replace the previous infamous word...
I'm familiar with the 1960s change, it was mentioned in the order letter for the current change:
Quote:
In 1962, Secretary Udall identified a pejorative term for “African-Americans” as derogatory, and directed that the BGN develop a policy to eliminate its use.
Quote:
The time has come to recognize that the term “squaw” is no less derogatory than others which have been identified and should also be erased from the National landscape and forever replaced.
If you think "squaw" is "no less derogatory" than "******" then we should perhaps petition to update the autocensor accordingly.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:24 PM   #100
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
Do whatever you want; but be aware that people might judge you accordingly.
This thread isn't about etiquette, really. It's not as if the s-word was in popular usage here until this thread came up.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:27 PM   #101
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 105,775
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This thread isn't about etiquette, really. It's not as if the s-word was in popular usage here until this thread came up.
Is it your view that these names shouldn’t have been changed?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:28 PM   #102
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,577
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
There is basically zero chance that it became more of a slur even as it faded out of common usage. About the only time you see the term used nowadays is in discussions like this one.
And in the previous discussion that you linked to which simply used it because the right uses it as a slur.

And in the Rush Limbaugh example you also got.

You should really start writing yourself notes so you don't forget these things so much.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If you think "squaw" is "no less derogatory" than "******" then we should perhaps petition to update the autocensor accordingly.
We've previously petitioned to add several ethnic slurs to the autocensor. Short answer: unless the uncommunicative owner gives explicit orders to do so, it won't happen. So, you're free to use whichever offensive slur you wish while pretending it hasn't been proven to your arbitrary, capricious, and oh so forgetful standards to be offensive.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 01:54 PM   #103
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And in the previous discussion that you linked to which simply used it because the right uses it as a slur.
That's one example of contemporary usage as a slur.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And in the Rush Limbaugh example you also got.
That's two!

Such an overwhelming surfeit of evidence, I'm going to need a bigger notepad.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 02:15 PM   #104
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Is it your view that these names shouldn’t have been changed?
I don't think it does much good, or harm, either way.

I do find the arguments in favor of the name change to be sorely lacking, though. It was basically this: Some activist groups took offense, we'll do what they want because it makes us look progressive and virtuous. It doesn't matter whether the term is used as a neutral descriptor more often than it is used as a racial slur, all that matters is that these activists are here now and their lived experience cannot be denied (except Andrea Smith, she may be safely ignored).
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 03:44 PM   #105
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 105,775
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't think it does much good, or harm, either way.



I do find the arguments in favor of the name change to be sorely lacking, though. It was basically this: Some activist groups took offense, we'll do what they want because it makes us look progressive and virtuous. It doesn't matter whether the term is used as a neutral descriptor more often than it is used as a racial slur, all that matters is that these activists are here now and their lived experience cannot be denied (except Andrea Smith, she may be safely ignored).
You forgot to answer the question I asked and you quoted.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 04:12 PM   #106
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,697
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't think it does much good, or harm, either way.

I do find the arguments in favor of the name change to be sorely lacking, though. It was basically this: Some activist groups took offense, we'll do what they want because it makes us look progressive and virtuous. It doesn't matter whether the term is used as a neutral descriptor more often than it is used as a racial slur, all that matters is that these activists are here now and their lived experience cannot be denied (except Andrea Smith, she may be safely ignored).

Good grief. Is your SOP to convince yourself that "activist groups" - presumably (in your head) with nefarious yet spurious motives - decided to kick up a fuss (for a reason you, in your head, disagree with), and we're now being essentially asked to pander to the whim of those wicked activists? And that because you, personally, don't think the word is an insult, that seems to be good enough for you?

Talk about reactionary, self-centred and closed-minded "reasoning"

As others have said: if you want to keep using a word for which there's actually plenty of evidence to show it's considered a colonialist insult to most Native American groups, there's nothing to stop you being a dick and doing just that. But most of us understand that 1) in situations where one group has been colonised/oppressed/victimised by another group, there are very often words that have been used by the second group towards the first group which carry weight well beyond any original literal or implied meaning; and 2) as the second group becomes (slowly) more enlightened and progressive, it gradually accepts (1) and agrees not to employ those words in general usage.

And if you want to understand this, maybe take some time to think about the history of the n-word: for centuries, of course, that word was freely used by the white oppressive majority to apply to the oppressed black minority. And it came to carry demeaning connotations of dominion/oppression when used in that way. In 2022, nobody would dream of trying to argue that white society has somehow been hoodwinked by "activists" to stop using the n-word. And the fact that certain black people/groups use the word to refer to each other is of no relevance when considering the connotations behind its usage by white people towards black people. To most, if not all, black people, usage of the n-word by white people carries far more connotation than its simple synonym of "black person". Once you digest that, you might be able to look at the example in this thread with a little more enlightenment.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 04:26 PM   #107
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And that because you, personally, don't think the word is an insult, that seems to be good enough for you?
It's not just me, personally. Look at the OED listing for the word in question:

Quote:
A North American Indian woman or wife.
Quote:
(a) Used by people who are not North American Indian as a relatively neutral term, with no specifically disparaging implication.
Quote:
(b) Used by people who are not North American Indian as a depreciative or disparaging term of abuse or contempt.
Both (a) and (b) are on the table here, but you seem to insist that we have to choose the latter rather than the former. Why is that?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Talk about reactionary, self-centred and closed-minded "reasoning"
When in doubt, go to the man instead of the argument.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
As others have said: if you want to keep using a word for which there's actually plenty of evidence to show it's considered a colonialist insult to most Native American groups, there's nothing to stop you being a dick and doing just that.
I don't believe I've ever used the word outside of this very thread; your attempts at insulting personalization are transparently irrational and do nothing but distract from the arguments here.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 30th September 2022 at 04:31 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 04:27 PM   #108
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You forgot to answer the question I asked and you quoted.
To be clear, I am ambivalent on the changes themselves. Certainly I'm not persuaded that they will make life better, but probably they will not engender anything worse than temporary confusion.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 06:01 PM   #109
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,381
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
When in doubt, go to the man instead of the argument.
Your goalposts are irrelevant and/or met, your reasoning is circular, self contradictory, and ******* stupid, and it isn't an attack on your person to observe these things.

People deciding that a well supported slur shouldn't be used isn't rationally argued against by pretending others are doing it just to look good. That actually is an ad-hom, 'you're wrong because you're virtue signaling'. Your rejection of the testimony (and examples!) of it being a slur making you look bad is likewise not a reason to reject the evidence. Your 'no true Indian' is just sad, and the attempted Continuum Fallacy just falls flat.

Whatever reason you have to pretend that progressive social change is a scourge, it isn't logical or rational no matter how you cloak your arguments in the pelt of reasoned discourse.

You're Warp12 with prettier writing.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 06:30 PM   #110
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
People deciding that a well supported slur shouldn't be used isn't rationally argued against by pretending others are doing it just to look good.
LOL.

Two contemporary examples quoted so far; many more examples of the term as a neutral descriptor. But yeah, let's conclude that any use must be a slur and rename locations accordingly. Much evidence; so skeptic.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 30th September 2022 at 06:36 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2022, 08:17 PM   #111
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It's not just me, personally. Look at the OED listing for the word in question:
........

Both (a) and (b) are on the table here, but you seem to insist that we have to choose the latter rather than the former. Why is that?
.....

You chose not to quote some of the rest of the OED definition:
Quote:
(b) Used by people who are not North American Indian as a depreciative or disparaging term of abuse or contempt.
Quote:
b. In representations of North American Indian speech: a woman or wife. Now generally considered offensive.
c. slang. In non-North American Indian contexts: a woman or wife.
2. depreciative. In extended use: an effeminate or weak man. Now rare.

C1. attributive, designating a North American Indian woman, as squaw mistress, squaw wife, etc. Now generally considered offensive.
https://www-oed-com.dclibrary.idm.oc...From=squaw#eid
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 05:28 AM   #112
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You chose not to quote some of the rest of the OED definition
I agree that the term is generally considered offensive, but that could well be a modern gloss on how it was actually used. Since you've pulled up the entry, can you tell us whether we see more usage examples of the word as a "depreciative or disparaging term of abuse" or as a "relatively neutral term" in the OED?

I'll ask the question again, though. You apparently insist that we must interpret the word in question as disparaging and abusive rather than relatively neutral. Why is that?

(I'm guessing the answer has nothing to do with how those locations were named in the first place.)
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 1st October 2022 at 06:05 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 06:55 AM   #113
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 105,775
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
To be clear, I am ambivalent on the changes themselves. Certainly I'm not persuaded that they will make life better, but probably they will not engender anything worse than temporary confusion.
Again you've not answered the question I asked.

"Is it your view that these names shouldn’t have been changed?"
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 08:00 AM   #114
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
.....
I'll ask the question again, though. You apparently insist that we must interpret the word in question as disparaging and abusive rather than relatively neutral. Why is that?

(I'm guessing the answer has nothing to do with how those locations were named in the first place.)
Because policy decisions aren't based on a dictionary sub-definition. Numerous sources say the word is offensive, and numerous people say it has been used in a hurtful, demeaning way. Why do you insist on claiming otherwise? And once again, it doesn't matter what the original intent was. What matters is what it means today.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 08:06 AM   #115
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,383
My favorite was Spook Hill in Mesa. Now we'd all agree that "spook" can have racial connotations (for non-Americans, it was a synonym for Black), but it can also have non-racial connotations. Spook Hill was supposedly so named because cowboys noted that their horses seemed to get "spooked" around the area. The mayor of Mesa at the time supposedly expressed doubt about the story, claiming that cowboys and horses were not common in Arizona back in the day, failing to not that they were a lot more common than Blacks.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 08:24 AM   #116
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,417
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
My favorite was Spook Hill in Mesa. Now we'd all agree that "spook" can have racial connotations (for non-Americans, it was a synonym for Black), but it can also have non-racial connotations. Spook Hill was supposedly so named because cowboys noted that their horses seemed to get "spooked" around the area. The mayor of Mesa at the time supposedly expressed doubt about the story, claiming that cowboys and horses were not common in Arizona back in the day, failing to not that they were a lot more common than Blacks.: D
What gets me is that the local lore has always been the spooked horse story. But no:

"Forget what you people have been telling each other for generations. What you really meant all along was something else entirely! I know because reasons!"
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 09:07 AM   #117
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Numerous sources say the word is offensive, and numerous people say it has been used in a hurtful, demeaning way.
Do those sources persuade you that this is the only way it may be used?

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Why do you insist on claiming otherwise?
Because—much like Spook Hill—I think there is plenty of room for doubt as to whether any given Squaw Creek or Squaw Valley was named with derogatory intent.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And once again, it doesn't matter what the original intent was.
And once again, we simply disagree about this. I think original authorial intent should be controlling when interpreting statutes, literature, billboards, vanity license plates, bumper stickers, ancient graffitos, modern graffiti, and any geographical designations.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 09:40 AM   #118
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,551
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I think original authorial intent should be controlling when interpreting statutes, literature, billboards, vanity license plates, bumper stickers, ancient graffitos, modern graffiti, and any geographical designations.
Why?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 10:01 AM   #119
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
.....
And once again, we simply disagree about this. I think original authorial intent should be controlling when interpreting statutes, literature, billboards, vanity license plates, bumper stickers, ancient graffitos, modern graffiti, and any geographical designations.
Fortunately for most of us, neither federal law nor social custom work the way you seem to think they should.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2022, 10:08 AM   #120
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,009
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Fortunately for most of us, neither federal law nor social custom work the way you seem to think they should.
Let's not pretend any lawmaking was involved here, since that implies a deliberative process.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 1st October 2022 at 10:13 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.