Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#21

Post by foldr »

lldbg wrote: post #9
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #2

> On Friday, Bill Maher said the N-word on live television. And that's all the context we get. Not the full sentence, not whether it was part of a joke, I don't even know if the guy who said it was black (though I suppose not, given what follows). How am I supposed to evaluate an apology if I don't know what is being apologized for? And without that evaluation, this example adds nothing to the article. It fails as an…

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

Can't you sort of feel that it doesn't have the same psychological impact? I immediately bristle if I actually hear someone say the n-word (as opposed to 'the n-word').

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#22

Post by roenxi »

lldbg wrote: post #9
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #2

> On Friday, Bill Maher said the N-word on live television. And that's all the context we get. Not the full sentence, not whether it was part of a joke, I don't even know if the guy who said it was black (though I suppose not, given what follows). How am I supposed to evaluate an apology if I don't know what is being apologized for? And without that evaluation, this example adds nothing to the article. It fails as an…

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

It is similar to the difference between "you" and "sir"/"madame". It signals that the people being referred to are important enough that the speaker will modify their behaviour.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#23

Post by thinkharderdev »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #5
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #2

> On Friday, Bill Maher said the N-word on live television. And that's all the context we get. Not the full sentence, not whether it was part of a joke, I don't even know if the guy who said it was black (though I suppose not, given what follows). How am I supposed to evaluate an apology if I don't know what is being apologized for? And without that evaluation, this example adds nothing to the article. It fails as an…

The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. Some on the left just want to get their "social justice fix" by pressuring to get people fired or shame them for absurd reasons like "cultural appropriation". And then they are surprised why far-right grows in reaction to this. Or maybe not, maybe that was the point of both sides to have an enemy you can fight with for eternity. Horsesh…

I always hear this sentiment that the far right is a reaction to "SJWs" but I don't think it makes any sort of sense. Is the idea that there wasn't a "far right" before SJWs were a thing. More to the point, there were waves of racial terror periodically throughout US history in response to efforts to guarantee basic civil rights. But I hope we can look back and see those phenomena for what they were. Why are we so sure that this time is different?

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#24

Post by enriquto »

foldr wrote: post #16
enriquto wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m very sorry to hear that. No need to be sorry, you didn't do anything wrong. If anything, I'm much more hurt by the prospect of a world where taboo words cannot even be discussed about, than a world where random weirdos insult me on the street. If you want to be sorry about something useful, please make efforts so that taboo words can be used safely, at least when talking about them! Millions of people are learn…

>How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them? Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word? We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to s…

> We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us.

I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please?

> The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".

It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#25

Post by lldbg »

kenjackson wrote: post #18
lldbg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.

Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar.

I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#26

Post by bill_mon »

kenjackson wrote: post #18
lldbg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.

> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish.

How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true.

You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#27

Post by bryanrasmussen »

kenjackson wrote: post #18
lldbg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.

I could have sworn I saw a comedy one time in which a uptight racist lady said about some other character something like "I don't want to say anything but they are just a real n-word if you know what I mean" with the pursed lips and nodding that one would assume such a character would do - late 80s early 90s movie.

So obviously one can imagine a scenario where the word is used to inflame or diminish while at the same time trying to make the speaker seem (in their own minds at least) better than they actually are.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#28

Post by lldbg »

foldr wrote: post #21
lldbg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

Can't you sort of feel that it doesn't have the same psychological impact? I immediately bristle if I actually hear someone say the n-word (as opposed to 'the n-word').

I don't think that "sort of feel" is a bar high enough, when the consequences for an individual can and have been so severe.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#29

Post by foldr »

enriquto wrote: post #24
foldr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them? Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word? We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to s…

> We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? > The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say…

>I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please?

I’m sure if you genuinely don’t know what the n-word refers to then an English speaker will be happy to explain it to you – although given your existing command of English it seems odd that you couldn’t find out the answer using Google.

> It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".

As a standard of acceptable behavior (rather than a legal standard) this seems obviously too lenient. For example, it means I could roam the streets shouting the n-word at the top of my lungs as long as I wasn’t directing it at anyone in particular.

Given the existence of a universally understood euphemism (’n-word’) it is generally difficult to use the n-word without showing a certain level of disregard for black people (and indeed anyone who’s offended by racist language).

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#30

Post by foldr »

lldbg wrote: post #28
foldr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you sort of feel that it doesn't have the same psychological impact? I immediately bristle if I actually hear someone say the n-word (as opposed to 'the n-word').

I don't think that "sort of feel" is a bar high enough, when the consequences for an individual can and have been so severe.

Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? If we need a higher bar than that then I suppose we can all just go around insulting each other and expecting nothing to happen as a consequence. Good luck with that.

If you want something more objective, why don't you just ask a sample of people whether they react the same to 'n-word' as they do to the n-word?

Post reply on HN