Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:If there are no hard rules that govern its use, then shouldn't it be okay for the boss the use it to define the customers?

No. "Context" doesn't mean the user gets to make up whatever definition after the fact. It means that we as humans have the ability to determine the meaning based on the situation surrounding the use of the word.

For instance, a person asks you if you'd like coffee.
If you're at a coffee house and a waitress is asking, it means she asking if you'd like a free cup of coffee.
If you're at their house watching a movie it means they're offering you a free cup of coffee.
If a friend is giving away all the junk in their house before they move to another country, it means they're about to give you their pot of coffee for you to use at home.
If you're on a date with a young lady, and you've about to drop her off at her house, it means you're about to have some fun.

I don't understand why you're being deliberately dense about this. I really don't. It's very basic thing.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I was making the point that it is only "acceptable" if a black person calls another black person that word while it is "unacceptable" for a white person to call a black person that word. While in truth it is unacceptable for anyone to call anybody that word.

Bill Cosby agrees with you, so that's good company, but I don't agree. I see it as a sensitive word which carries a great deal of baggage, but I don't think there are hard rules that govern its acceptable use.

I just don't use the term. It is derogatory in many situations, and acceptable in very few.

Words are very powerful tools, and they can be used in a lot of different ways. If anything, acknowledging the complicated history of such a term, is a substantial place to start. You could likely fill an entire section of a library, with nothing besides information regarding the term in question. You're also likely to find a lot of different opinions, many of which are simply not based in logic; instead entrenched within specific philosophies regarding race relations. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does bring a certain tone to the discussion.

At any rate, I wouldn't want to be around someone who flippantly regarded customers as "insert term in question". It is unprofessional, and stupid; which would make me uncomfortable as an employee. Just to be clear, again, that having income is a very important thing.

I hope you can get all of this sorted, FITZZ.

Sebster, I'm not saying that all words have no context, I am simply saying that this word has no difference in context.

In a way of greeting each other, some people jokingly put the other down and that is what the "black person saying it to another black person" scenario alludes to.

The word is still derogatory even though the context has changed, its just that it is an accepted greeting. The same way the "sally" example would be used. He is insulting you but you are okay with it because you are friends. Although, you cannot define "Sally" it is typically a name given to girls and he is therefor calling you a girl which for most men is an insult. Due to your relationship you accept this as an acceptable greeting. It is still an insult you just react to it differently.

It is different though. The existence of alternate reactions indicates the presence of difference.

Relationships exist as linguistic modifiers, at least if you listen to Chomsky.

There may be a presence of difference only due to a difference in tolerance of the person.

The difference has not affected the meaning of the word itself, only its acceptance.

halonachos wrote:There may be a presence of difference only due to a difference in tolerance of the person.

Person A doesn't like person B? Could you clarify, I am not entirely clear what you mean by that.

The difference has not affected the meaning of the word itself, only its acceptance.

Isn't this what has been discussed for pages now? The definition of the term (unless you mean something different by 'meaning') is not as clear as you are making it out to be. I recall you referencing it's origins as the Spanish term for 'black', modified for use as a derogatory label. Going back to the 'actual' term, without looking at the history in between... is rather poor analysis, to say the least.

Words are societal constructs, their acceptance, or general treatment is central to their meaning.

There's an article I wanted to site, but it has the word in the link sooo...

article wrote:But for non-blacks using the word “[see forum posting rules],” one can expect a certain level of backlash regardless of the contexts. Ironically though, elements of our popular culture are bombarded with the word “[see forum posting rules]” everyday and there is no doubt that the word has not escaped the vocabulary of blacks, young and old, from the inner cities to the ivory towers, among the underclass and elite. In what context do blacks use this word today, and do their justifications of the use of the word create a double standard where non-blacks are vilified when the word “slips” from their mouths? How and why has the word become socially acceptable among blacks? Brandi Polk, undergraduate at California State University, Los Angeles said, “blacks should be the only ones that can say that word,” and this view, extremely popular among blacks, has created for others a double standard. If the word is highly distasteful and unpleasant, some believe (mostly non-blacks); the word should not be used by anyone, especially in public settings. Let’s examine the popular uses of the word “” among blacks today.

I felt it only fair to give a bit of an update concerning the situation.

My co-worker and I had decided to attempt to talk to our boss in the hopes resolving the issue,or at least voicing our displeasure concerning his "choice" of words.

As of yet,he has been "unavailable to speak with us".

It is our oppinion that he is aware of what we heard,and is...

A) Hoping we will just drop the whole subject.

B) Attempting to figure out how to "justify" his comments.

C) Trying to figure out how to fire both of us without reprocussion.

... I guess I'll have to wait and see.

halonachos wrote:There may be a presence of difference only due to a difference in tolerance of the person.

The difference has not affected the meaning of the word itself, only its acceptance.

The meaning behind the word has changed. There is no magic to words, no underlying true meaning. Just what is intended and what is understood by their use.

@ Wrex, I said that "negro" comes from spanish. The n word comes from latin "niger". Africans were often considered an inferior race. In fact, I do believe that it was the arabs to first tell the eurpoeans of the african inferiority and to justufy their slavery. So, the word "niger" influenced the naming of these "inferior" peoples as most european nations had languages based off of the latin language. As they thought that africans were inferior the word began to resemble that meaning, when it became english the spelling most likely changed to include two g's instead of just one.

@ Sebster, I still argue that the meaning does not change. Both know it is an insult, however they are comfortable enough to accept the insult. I will point out a previous example;

When I meet my friend I will usually call him gay(actually the slang for a homosexual, but that gets edited to "cigarette"), the word is still an insult but because I am good friends with my friend he responds by calling me a fat arse. I am comfortable by this because even though he just insulted me, I know that he meant nothing by it.

Also, if you have seen "Gran Torino" there is a scene where Clint Eastwood explains this to the asian kid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@fitzz

I really do hope that you talk to him about this and all ends well. If he is hostile when you confront him, then take further action, if he apologizes just remember this incident.

If he fires you, look into your state's employment laws because some states allow companies to fire employees without reason. I think its classified as a "Right to Work" state if that's the case.

Forgive, but don't forget.

I say forgive and forget. you can never forgive if you cant forget. If you remeber then you remember the anger then you cannot foggive

My advice is to work on your resume and get a new job.

halonachos wrote:@ Sebster, I still argue that the meaning does not change. Both know it is an insult, however they are comfortable enough to accept the insult. I will point out a previous example;

When I meet my friend I will usually call him gay(actually the slang for a homosexual, but that gets edited to "cigarette"), the word is still an insult but because I am good friends with my friend he responds by calling me a fat arse. I am comfortable by this because even though he just insulted me, I know that he meant nothing by it.

Thing is, when you say something and it isn't meant to be insulting and isn't taken as an insult, I think 'not an insult' is a good descriptor. Your argument that 'it is an insult but no-one considered it as such but it is still an insult' isn't all that useful.






Oh, and Fitzz, if your boss is avoiding talking you about its unlikely the discussion will achieve much. It requires goodwill on both sides.

I'd still advise against taking any formal action - just start polishing up the resume.

No, it's still considered an insult, but one made in good humor. A roast is another good example of this. They're insults used to great one another.

halonachos wrote:No, it's still considered an insult, but one made in good humor. A roast is another good example of this. They're insults used to great one another.

So you'd agree that despite being the same word, the understood meaning is very different?

No, the meaning is still exactly the same. The harshness of the meaning itself has lowered though. I still take it as an insult, but am able to cope with it if it comes from a friend.

So the meaning isn't the same, as a quality that pertains to it (harshness) has been altered.

Not necessarily. The meaning is still the same as the harshness is still the same. It would be up to the receiver of this insult to determine if it is just a friend greeting them as they allow their friend to greet them in such a manner. So it the harshness may not be altered, but the receiver may only allow certain people to call them such a word.

Person A: What up "insult"?
Person B: Nothing much my "insult #2"

compared to

Person A: What up "insult"?
Person C: WTF dude?

compared to

Person B: What up"insult #2"?
Person C: Not much, but that Person A guy ticked me off today.

The meaning is still the same as the word retains it's harshness, but the "verbal security clearance" of the person may be high enough to allow a person to call another person any insult. Also, the tone used can also be the same as I doubt Fitzz's boss yelled the n-word but it still retained its harshness.

Dogma, I don't know what qualities you put into a word to define it's meaning, but I can probably find a way to counter each one.

The n-word is a bad word and will always be negative and derogatory no matter who uses it.

If you say it in a soft voice or yell it aloud.
Whether you say it alone or in a crowd.
To a friend or to a stranger.
In a joke or in anger.
No matter the color of skin.
Either sober or drunk off gin.
Never let the n-word leave your mouth.
Especially if you're from the south.

halonachos wrote:Not necessarily. The meaning is still the same as the harshness is still the same. It would be up to the receiver of this insult to determine if it is just a friend greeting them as they allow their friend to greet them in such a manner. So it the harshness may not be altered, but the receiver may only allow certain people to call them such a word.

Didn't you just say that the harshness was reduced by the context? The word itself cannot have emotive properties, those only exist in the people who use or hear the word. Pejorative status is not a semantic quality.

halonachos wrote:
The meaning is still the same as the word retains it's harshness, but the "verbal security clearance" of the person may be high enough to allow a person to call another person any insult. Also, the tone used can also be the same as I doubt Fitzz's boss yelled the n-word but it still retained its harshness.

I think you're confusing meaning with definition. The meaning of a word varies contextually, and includes things like tone and intent. The definition (which can also be thought of as objectified, or abstracted meaning) of a word can also vary contextually, but does not contain things like tone or intent.

This is actually fairly advanced linguistics that we're getting in to at this point.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma, I don't know what qualities you put into a word to define it's meaning, but I can probably find a way to counter each one.

I don't know about that. I've had formal education in linguistics, philosophy of language, and logic; which combine to make me pretty knowledgeable in this area. As I said earlier, it seems your getting caught up on the distinction between meaning as it relates to words in use (pragmatics) and meaning as it relates to the relationships between words and the objects to which they refer (semantics).

The n-word is a bad word and will always be negative and derogatory no matter who uses it.

As I said before, the tone doesn't change how the n-word is used. No matter which tone it is said in, it will be negative, just sound negative in different noise levels.

Also, the intent is to insult the other person or the persons you are talking about. Again, some people greet others with insults. So, if you are complaining about customers you insult them with this word, if you greet a friend you insult them with this word.

Now, if the other person has agreed that the insult is okay to use as a greeting then they have reached a mutual belief that it is okay to insult the other person with this insult in order to greet them. The word still retains its original meaning, but the common belief allows its use. I do not believe that they think that it is no longer an insult, but they think that it is okay to use said insult.

Also, if you say that the word cannot be emotional itself, but relies only on the emotional response of the individuals either speaking or listening, then wouldn't that suggest that the context may change, but the meaning of the word itself would not. Even though the word still retains its meaning, harshness, derogatory status, tone, etc, the context itself changes allowing it to only seem that the meaning and/or use of the word has changed while in fact it has not.

Even when two friends use the word to greet each other it is being used to greet by way of being used to insult the other. The root of the word's use is to insult so any use beyond that will inherently be tainted by its use as an insult.

The n-word has a limited definition, usually being defined as a derogatory word for a black person. Even in its use among friends, you will hardly ever see a black person call a white person the n-word so even in a friendly context the word is still most likely going to retain its original definition of referring to a black person.

Now, I have argued that the tone doesn't do too much to change the word's meaning and I have argued with the "intent" of the word.

My argument has been that it is the intent of the word to insult the other. However, if it is intended to greet a familiar it is first and foremost intended to offend said familiar.

When the familiar hears the insult it is up to him to either allow or deny the use of the insult as a greeting. Some good friends greet one another by insulting them in which case they are still greeting another by way of insulting them.

In terms of the word's harshness, I do not believe that context changes the word's harshness, merely the response of the listener is changed.

I don't really know what the deal is, even though what your boss said is one of the most offensive things possible. I mean, I was walking to the subway station on the way to a Bruins game, and two African-American men were talking to each other. They multiple times called themselves *******s super-calmly. Anywho....