Racial slurs!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I give it an hour max.  

My question to the OP is, It's not can you post-racial slurs but why do you need to post racial slurs

There are legitimate reasons, as there are also illegitimate ones.  I got hammered a few years back for using a slur humorously.  And talking about how slurs are used can be cumbersome when they must be avoided.  It's a complex topic, made none the easier by Tibbs and company's prior rulings on the matter.

FWIW, I’m not a huge fan of banning slurs totally (rulz is rulz). The rule as it stands makes impossible to post certain music videos, or to quote particular passages from great works of literature.

But I don’t see anyway around it. If the rule were relaxed, or even amended, waterheads like Pavlov would abuse it and fill their posts with racial, ethnic, and gender slurs just for the hell of it. Even the well-meaning posting of these words would engender almost constant Staff discussions and hurt feelings (‘So-and-so said it, why can’t I?’).

On balance, even though the blanket ban isn’t perfect, it’s probably the best solution.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

There are legitimate reasons, as there are also illegitimate ones.  I got hammered a few years back for using a slur humorously.  And talking about how slurs are used can be cumbersome when they must be avoided.  It's a complex topic, made none the easier by Tibbs and company's prior rulings on the matter.

FWIW, I’m not a huge fan of banning slurs totally (rulz is rulz). The rule as it stands makes impossible to post certain music videos, or to quote particular passages from great works of literature.

But I don’t see anyway around it. If the rule were relaxed, or even amended, waterheads like Pavlov would abuse it and fill their posts with racial, ethnic, and gender slurs just for the hell of it. Even the well-meaning posting of these words would engender almost constant Staff discussions and hurt feelings (‘So-and-so said it, why can’t I?’).

On balance, even though the blanket ban isn’t perfect, it’s probably the best solution.

Boru

There's a certain word that was, and still is, used in Australia to refer to gay people.

It starts with "p".

When I was growing up it was used frequently, not necessarily in an offensive manner, it was just part of the vernacular.

I've had to, on several occasions here, think twice about posting it.

Not that I thought people would be offended by it, I know our gay members would laugh with me, but because if a new person came on and saw someone else using it, especially a member of staff, they might get pissed if there are repercussions on them.

Easier for me not yo use it.

[Fireball]

^ Is there a flower by that name?

[Angrboda]

There are legitimate reasons, as there are also illegitimate ones.  I got hammered a few years back for using a slur humorously.  And talking about how slurs are used can be cumbersome when they must be avoided.  It's a complex topic, made none the easier by Tibbs and company's prior rulings on the matter.

FWIW, I’m not a huge fan of banning slurs totally (rulz is rulz). The rule as it stands makes impossible to post certain music videos, or to quote particular passages from great works of literature.

But I don’t see anyway around it. If the rule were relaxed, or even amended, waterheads like Pavlov would abuse it and fill their posts with racial, ethnic, and gender slurs just for the hell of it. Even the well-meaning posting of these words would engender almost constant Staff discussions and hurt feelings (‘So-and-so said it, why can’t I?’).

On balance, even though the blanket ban isn’t perfect, it’s probably the best solution.

Boru

It gets a bit tricky when you're discussing a social media use of a slur, and it's not clear from context whether the original slur was spelled out or bowdlerized.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

FWIW, I’m not a huge fan of banning slurs totally (rulz is rulz). The rule as it stands makes impossible to post certain music videos, or to quote particular passages from great works of literature.

But I don’t see anyway around it. If the rule were relaxed, or even amended, waterheads like Pavlov would abuse it and fill their posts with racial, ethnic, and gender slurs just for the hell of it. Even the well-meaning posting of these words would engender almost constant Staff discussions and hurt feelings (‘So-and-so said it, why can’t I?’).

On balance, even though the blanket ban isn’t perfect, it’s probably the best solution.

Boru

It gets a bit tricky when you're discussing a social media use of a slur, and it's not clear from context whether the original slur was spelled out or bowdlerized.

Fair point.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

I give it an hour max.  

My question to the OP is, It's not can you post-racial slurs but why do you need to post racial slurs

There are legitimate reasons, as there are also illegitimate ones.  I got hammered a few years back for using a slur humorously.  And talking about how slurs are used can be cumbersome when they must be avoided.  It's a complex topic, made none the easier by Tibbs and company's prior rulings on the matter.

I've mentioned before that I think in the context of discussing the sociological aspect of a slur, typing it out ought not be offensive. I prefer plain language when dealing with hard topics. I understand that not only the staff here but others don't agree with me, and so out of respect I just don't.

Avoiding slurs doesn't put me out. It may weaken the visceral impact of a point I might be making. In discussing the social context of these words, I use them even with my own multiracial family and they understand it. But I can sure see why online, lacking the benefit of nonverbal cues and wider context, such verbiage could be troubling.

I myself hate the idea of any magic words of power that are a-bombs or f-bombs or n-bombs or what-have-you. But when I'm a guest, I abide by house rules even if I know that I'm not violating the spirit of them. I can do letter-of-the-law and how much does that cost me? Right, nothing.

So when someone asks, "Yo, where's the limits, bro?", I'm pretty sure they're looking to edgelord them.

[Nay_Sayer]

I give it an hour max.  

My question to the OP is, It's not can you post-racial slurs but why do you need to post racial slurs

There are legitimate reasons, as there are also illegitimate ones.  I got hammered a few years back for using a slur humorously.  And talking about how slurs are used can be cumbersome when they must be avoided.  It's a complex topic, made none the easier by Tibbs and company's prior rulings on the matter.

If you need racial slurs to make your humor work, Get better jokes.

[pocaracas]

There's a magical word.... It has an n, an i, two g's and r and an e... And its been used to shame people for ages

---

Because only a ginger can call another ginger ginger

---

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I like to think that there's a difference between using racist language and simply saying words with a racist connotation. Consider the following hypothetical post:

'Mark Twain's classic Huckleberry Finn contains 219 uses of [the n-word], which means Twain was a filthy, degenerate [n-word] lover.'

The first clause is a simple statement of a literary fact and is clearly not using the word as a slur. I don't think it can be argued that the second clause is so innocuous.

This is the chief source of my issue with the rule as it stands, but I don't see any way round it.

Boru

[Silver]

My takeaway, it's okay to use it as a historical reference.