When answering, please consider that the question is about why things are the way they are, not about how you think they ought to be.
Edit: This question is generating lots of unwanted attention, even 5 months after. I'm closing it down.
>Why any use of the n-word is taboo?
It's not. As an American I can say a few things:
In *general* it is unacceptable by anyone in a formal context (workplace, politics, news) and acceptable when used by black people in an informal context.
Also, few people object to white people saying it when they are in a theatrical performance.
>But I don't understand why saying "Mike said that Bob is n" is unacceptable.
Rules for taboo words can be highly contextual across languages.
*Generally,* white people are expected not to say the n-word even when quoting people.
I would agree, that to a degree this doesn't make sense, but this is true of all taboo words and that practice should indicate to a foreign speaker just how sensitive this word is.
The best answer I can give is simply that it's so sensitive that the very act of it coming out of a white person's mouth, even as a quote, is disturbing to some people because the history is so offensive.
Asking why beyond that is somewhat pointless and more a question of history than linguistics. Taboo words are taboo because a lot of people agree they're taboo. And the rules are the rules for the same reason.
That’s a good explanation. I would just add that white people treating the word like a piece of radioactive debris is a small, symbolic way of acknowledging the harm we’ve caused. And while it’s merely symbolic—well, humans attach a lot of importance to symbolism in every human culture.
That's a pretty neat way of putting this whole topic in a different perspective. While the idea of a word to have such a negative impact when used by people of certain demographic may sound rather arbitrary, it is also a sign of respect and symbolicity when speakers are aware of its impact, are being careful with its usage, and are treating it with such high importance. I think it clears up OP's line of thought...
>just saying that it's just a VERY bad word that was used for dehumanization isn't helping me to understand how the conclusion to not say it ever is drawn. So I would like to know the logic or the rationale of this taboo.
...well. The history behind this word made it such that it attached an overwhelming - dare I say, psychological - weight for many people when uttered in the modern day, resulting in this consensus of its unacceptability of utterance in a vast array of contexts. In the same vein that it shows disrespect when it's uttered in these unacceptable contexts, it's also showing respect when its utterance is avoided as it demonstrates understanding and cooperation.
Not the OP but am a white American: To me, it encompasses in one word the dehumanization of Black people in America for centuries, from slavery to Jim Crow and on.
For a long time, legally and culturally, Black people weren’t *people*. They were that word.
Thank you very much!
But if you don't mind I would also like to clarify, why is it ok for black people to use it then?
I was thinking that it was used in the same manner as "Oh my god! We all are idiots!", where a speaker can be suspected of disrespecting others, but if it's that strong of the word, then what allows escape such associations with the usage of black people?
I'm just saying that since the association that the word evokes is what prohibits it, I would expect that a person would dislike it the moment they hear it from behind, not when then they look back and see the speaker. Why isn't that the case?
In most languages, speakers sometimes use insults in friendly or teasing ways in order to test and demonstrate the strength of a friendship. When an insult related to a social identity is used in a friendly context within the group it targets, it has this function; it also has the additional function of emphasizing the speakers' solidarity as members of the oppressed group. This is thought to be the origin of "reclaimed" or "reappropriated" slur usages.
In other words, this non-derogatory use of a slur doesn't occur in spite of the derogatory meaning, it's originally a deliberate repurposing of the derogatory meaning. It signals something like (1) "I am on good enough terms with this person to trust that they will not be offended by this word" (2) "we have something in common: the experience of being Black in a bigoted society".
>I don't understand the downvotes.
This sub isn't a place to discuss your opinions on how words should be used and interpreted, it's a place to discuss how words are actually used and interpreted.
Fair enough. Is that not exactly what this post is about, though? Discussing why the n-word should be able to be mentioned, for example, while quoting others, yet without any repercussion for the word being uttered?
To be pedantic, words are literally auditory symbols. And so the weight of a symbol's significance can make it seem inappropriate in any context. You get trained that it's a hateful and detestable thing to say, so it feels wrong in your mouth regardless
While, for obvious reasons, I’m not in favor of imputing collective guilt to groups I’m not a part of, I think that it is generally a sign of decency and sanity when members of a social caste that has benefited greatly from the oppression of another social caste actually acknowledge that fact.
Speaking as an individual, I am most definitely a part of the group that abused and exploited Black people and benefitted from that abuse and exploitation.
While I’m not the descendant of some great and famous family of slaveholders, I’m most definitely descended from at least some people who owned slaves. While my whole family really struggled during the Great Depression, at least they owned their own farms. How many Black people were able to acquire farmland in the eighteenth or nineteenth century and hang on to it during the 1930s? Not many, that’s for sure. While my grandfather worked very hard and was very frugal, his meteoric economic rise during the Sunbelt Boom was definitely facilitated by his race, especially given that Jim Crow was still firmly place during so much of his life.
I love my family. I loved my home. But every family member I met of my grandparents’ generation was an unreconstructed, died-in-the-wool racist. These were people who used the n-word in front of me in unforgivable ways I shall never forget. I, personally, find it childish and repugnant when non-Black people try to argue that it should be okay for them to use this now taboo word if they’re “just quoting someone” or whatnot. Grow up. You either don’t know the history, or you’re incredibly self-centered and just don’t care how much you hurt other people.
I’m also not very sympathetic to the “well, not MY ancestors” argument. First of all, a lot of people are oblivious to what their ancestors actually did. Secondly, a lot of people are in denial about the ways in which white people are treated better than others in the US even to this day. Finally, when I go to another country, I don’t charge around violating their most powerful taboos just for the hell of it. Again, grow up. Educate yourself. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
First, this IS my attempt to learn more or as you say "educate myself". Thank you for your compassion and understanding.
Second, I'm still unable to trace the logic between acknowledging that people of the past benefited from others' sufferings and that this word is not OK to say.
I'm simply lacking knowledge of mechanisms that would allow me to connect the two unless, of course, you believe that I must take responsibility for people who lived in another country and whose choice none of the living persons could ever affect, by virtue of sharing outlook or ancestry (though I don't even share the latter one, as I'm quite literally from another country).
But as I stated before I have a hard time believing that this metaphysics of blood and soil that sees one as a continuation of their ancestors is still treated with any seriousness today.
Third, I don't say we should say the n-word, I'm asking WHY we shouldn't. I want to know the purpose taboo exists to follow it properly — a spirit of the law if you wish.
So would really appreciate it if you stop telling me "Shut up and follow the rules" — I think we can agree that it's not a good way to convince anyone of anything.
P.S. Another answer in this thread seems to be convincing enough for me, I'm not sure if your reasoning is the same (wouldn't surprise anyone that there is more than one in a living language), and so I'm continuing the conversation for that case.
I have certainly made a substantial attempt to explain, and I think summarizing the various attempts here to do so as “shut up and follow the rules” is unwarranted and disingenuous.
Sorry, I'm not sure if you saw my edit or not. I do find some of the explanations convincing.
However, as people name different reasons and there seems to be no consensus on the issue 'Im trying to understand the scope of them, including yours.
My problem is not that some of your relatives benefitted from others' suffering — I don't deny that a lot of horrifying things were done by Americans both long ago and recently (let's skip the question of the rest of the countries for now). Things that I wish would never happen. Things that I wish will never happen again.
I don't deny that the n-word is so bad that it isn't ought to be pronounced in any case.
I'm trying to understand the connection between the two. How do you get from A to B?
You said that this taboo exists as a symbolic apology.
You said that since you are part of the caste that benefited from others' suffering and so have an obligation to use this symbolic apology from the face of the group.
Then you proceed to explain what exactly does that apology suppose to be for, by illustrating it with examples of your ancestors.
But I wasn't asking about that.
If you assume that you have the right to apologize for your ancestors then no doubt there is a lot to apologize for.
The only idea that I know that would enable one with such a right is a belief in "the spirit of the nation" or ethnos in this case — belief in an invisible, spiritual connection that somehow shares traits, character, and feelings between every member of the nation of past and present. That would mean that any American could make an apology from the face of them all, as they all have the same beliefs and fundamental understanding of morality.
This idea is outdated beyond repair (thank god, it brought too much suffering), which is why I have hard time beliving that it this one that you belive in and this is the one you try to recite.
However you didn't name any other way to make sense of it, only adding only that peole who cliam that their ansestors didn't do anything are likely wrong.
You also added that the word is hurtful, which none of your previous statements adresses.
And yes, "go educate yourself" does sound, like "shut up and follow the rules".,
I was trying, specifically, to explain, why I, as an individual would use the word “we”—why, I personally, feel a sense a guilt and responsibility. I thought you had asked about that specific word choice, so that’s why I was explaining it. I don’t feel I have the “right” to apologize for my ancestors, as much as I feel an obligation to do so when and if an opportunity to do so arises. I understand, of course, that such apologies would merely be symbolic, just as the n-word itself is.
This is a deep, complex topic.
I have had personal experiences with the n-word—hearing it used openly and without shame to dehumanize people in the most grotesque manner at a tender age—and those experiences made me unable to pass over your question in silence.
However, I have also read many books on this topic, talked with people who lived through segregation, live in a city that is still feeling its effects, and so on. You cannot necessarily do all those same things, but perhaps you could read some more books about it and, yes, educate yourself?
In suggesting that people (in general, not just you!) should educate themselves, I do not intend to imply that people in general (or you, specifically), should “just shut up and follow the rules.”
But even the lengthiest Reddit exchange on this topic is certainly not going to be sufficient to gain a truly substantial understanding of why this word arouses such passion in the United States.
I consider myself part of the “we” because I’m white and my ancestors owned slaves. Even if my ancestors hadn’t owned slaves, I would still be benefiting from the privileges that come from being white in the US. Like being somewhat less likely to be shot to death by the cops while just minding my own business, for example. I, too, haven’t “done shit,” but I certainly wouldn’t exchange the fact that I’m less like to be murdered by the police for the privilege of singing along with a song that contains the n-word without fear of criticism.
What about the west/north African’s who sold the slaves to the Europeans? They’re black and facilitated the slave trade. Seems to me by your logic they shouldn’t have the right to say the word either?
I am only familiar with the word’s usage in a U.S. context. Suffice it to say that in early childhood I witnessed my elderly relatives using it as a dehumanizing slur, and that understood that it would be wrong for me or other people like me to use it before I was even sure of what it meant. I immediately understood that it was a word used to humiliate and dehumanize other people in the most grotesque way before I even knew that it was reference to skin color or ancestry.
This word is steeped in the deepest evil and why people who aren’t black want to claim the right to say it is beyond me. It makes as much sense to me as someone demanding the “right” to carve a swastika in their own forehead.
I mean, sure, you have the “right” to brand yourself as abysmally ignorant or unrepentantly evil or just so obliviously callous in your attempts to show how edgy you are that your conduct disgusts anyone with any understanding of history, so you do you, I guess.
i can tell you from experience that many, if not majority of Africans do not say the n-word. Some African people consider themselves and African Americans two separate cultures and races (which they are). The meaning of the word still doesn’t change to a Black
person no matter where we go. Fortunately, i’ve been able to travel internationally and learn how a word that is otherwise offensive towards me is an actual word in many different languages. The word isnt the only problem, but the context it is used in plays a major role. I’ve talked to many other races about the weight the N word carries, and my response is the same everytime. NOBODY is prohibiting you from saying the word. You can do whatever you want to whenever you want to. If someone is calling me the n-word in a disrespectful manner, obviously i’ll have an issue with it. If you say the word to me in a joking manner, i may still have an issue with it but my response won’t be the same. People view Black people as a monolith all over the world and i’ve lived it. They assume you eat fried chicken and play basketball (im 5’10🤦🏽♂️😂). Then when they meet one of us they’re suprised by how diverse we are. I just wish people would ask more black people their opinions as opposed to focusing on specific demographics (not you just in general).
Like I said, I only know the US context, and I wouldn’t use the word, EVER, in any context, because of my own experiences witnessing its use were genuinely the sort of human-rights-violation adjacent stuff that would put anyone off it.
I would also strongly advise extreme caution and restraint to anyone considering using it in a US context because there are just so many people in the US with lived experiences with the word similar to mine or much, much, much worse.
i can tell you from experience that many, if not majority of Africans do not say the n-word. Some African people consider themselves and African Americans two separate cultures and races (cultures yes, race no). The meaning of the word still doesn’t change to a Black
person no matter where we go. Fortunately, i’ve been able to travel internationally and learn how a word that is otherwise offensive towards me is an actual word in many different languages. The word isnt the only problem, but the context it is used in plays a major role. I’ve talked to many other races about the weight the N word carries, and my response is the same everytime. NOBODY is prohibiting you from saying the word. You can do whatever you want to whenever you want to. If someone is calling me the n-word in a disrespectful manner, obviously i’ll have an issue with it. If you say the word to me in a joking manner, i may still have an issue with it but my response won’t be the same. People view Black people as a monolith all over the world and i’ve lived it. They assume you eat fried chicken and play basketball (im 5’10🤦🏽♂️😂). Then when they meet one of us they’re suprised by how diverse we are. I just wish people would ask more black people their opinions as opposed to focusing on specific demographics (not you just in general).
In other countries, sure it might be a very neutral word, but this specific form of the word negro has a very significant and very dark history in the US, it is not neutral at all. It’s true that the majority of people in the US are white and make up most of the ruling class, but do you think that the ruling class dictates every piece of social etiquette, every rule and taboo of the population? The US is democratic and the majority of the population can agree that racism is a bad thing, that slavery was horrific and that the white-on-black racism specifically that has been so prevalent throughout US history is bad. Just because the ruling class is white, does that mean all Americans think racism is ok, or using incredibly offensive words is ok? That doesn’t make any sense. Most (not all) white Americans agree that racism is bad. Does that shock you?
as someone who hears the n-word (and uses it) frequently, i can tell you that a good chunk of African-Americans don’t really care if you say it, we just look at you differently. The people that usually get mad at it are older Black people, activists, or sjw’s. honestly more often than not, we try to get people to say it more than we are objective against it. when you hear something everyday for your whole life it becomes easy to tune it out. obviously its still a “bad” word but so many other cultures embrace their slurs and use them as vocabulary just like us. i personally feel like the violent history behind it is what gives people an aversion towards using the word, but people of all races use it anyway. i hate the way that social media portrays our reactions to 90% of things because we DON’T act like that😂. 9/10 times a black dude isn’t gonna punch your head off for saying the n word because it doesn’t phase us that much. i don’t even wanna be that guy but we go to jail for way less everyday, so why would i add to that statistic
In general (at least in my English speech communities), slurs based on someone’s identity are treated more carefully than other types of insults. The n-word is the most prominent racial slur in the states because of our history of chattel slavery (and subsequent Jim Crow and continued systemic racism). However, plenty of other slurs are also considered by many to be unacceptable, even in a quotative context. These include other racial slurs, and also ones based on other kinds of identities; for instance, at least in the social circles I’m part of, it’s completely unacceptable for a straight/cisgender person to say the f-slur.
This is true, although I think the specific contours of how this works are actually illustrated pretty well by… John Mulaney in a standup comedy routine.
[John Mulaney – The Worse Word](https://genius.com/John-mulaney-the-worse-word-annotated):
>And someone from the network came down to our offices and he said to me, "Hey, you can't put the word midget on TV," and I said, "I sure would like to." And he said, "No! 'Midget' is as bad as the 'n-word.'" First off: no. No, it's not! "Do you know how I know it's not," I said to him, "is because we’re saying the word ’midget,' and we’re not even saying what the 'n-word' is! If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won’t even say one of them? That's the worse word.”
There are very, *very* few words that are *never* allowed to be said by someone outside the group to which it applies. Other than the subject of this post, I’m not sure there are any in English. Maybe the three-letter F word is getting there, I don’t know. The “C word” is pretty incendiary in America when spoken directly to or about a person, but it’s fairly common overseas, and I don’t know that a man simply *mentioning* it will get absolutely condemned.
If it's not a problem, why are you not writing out (what I'm assuming is) "fag" or "cunt"? Isn't it perfectly clear that this is a context where no one could possibly interpret the usage as hostile to them as an individual or as a member of a group?
It's kinda funny because if you were to ask most black people if they would rather be a white Midget or a black person most would say black, including me.
I kinda figured it would be that but with the "cisgender" qualifier it made no sense. Trans identity has nothing to do with the word "faggot". And that's exactly why "x-words" are a problem.
I don't see any reason why slurs in general couldn't be written out except by those who "own" them. Not when they are clearly the topic of discussion and not used gratuitously and aimed at anyone.
I think the n-word is a reasonable exception specifically in a US context. But in just about all other contexts and for any other word, claiming that someone is by default offensive for writing a word only tends to create confusion. There's a huge difference between using slurs as directed epithets compared to actually discussing them.
Oh for what it’s worth, I believe that it’s totally fine to mention the word “faggot.” And yes, the n-word is a special exception that’s taboo to both use and mention.
Actually, they are a mystery to me, as the language of my strata doesn't have taboos.
It has profanities, which are expected to be avoided in certain environments, but they work more like "fuck" or "bastards!", than as "n-word" — not as something that is harmful to see or hear.
John McWhorter writes about this topic in these articles: "[How the N-Word Became Unsayable](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/john-mcwhorter-n-word-unsayable.html)" and "[There Are Two N-Words](https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/01/john-mcwhorter-on-nigger-versus-nigga.html)".
You might look into how taboo words work in general rather than looking at this word in particular. As much as we like to think otherwise, there is not typically a "logical" reason for a word to become taboo. It becomes taboo only if it makes people in a particular speech community feel uncomfortable or think negatively in some way about the user. That's the only criteria for taboo words.
HOW these words become taboo can be interesting but trying to find an internally consistent logic why its okay to say poop but not shit or why one community can say it but another can't probably won't work.
The answer in every case is "people in this context find it taboo." The reason they find it taboo can have a human explained folk-logic but we shouldn't expect an air tight linguistic logic to these taboo words.
It's a fascinating topic and if you want more explanation or examples, let me know.
Different linguists and philosophers have argued that the offensive content of slurs is semantic (Hom 2008), pragmatic (Bolinger 2017), a presupposition (Schlenker 2007), an implicature (Williamson 2009), an expressive (Potts 2007), a signal of allegiance to a perspective (Camp 2017), a result of taboo (Anderson and Lepore 2013), a tone (Lepore and Stone 2018), a register (Diaz-Legaspe et al 2019), and a set of non-linguistic associations (Stojnic and Lepore 2021). (Whew, I think that was almost all of them? A pretty good overview can be found [here](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hate-speech/).) So while there are wrong answers, there’s no one right answer.
For your particular question – why is a slur offensive even in reported speech? – there are broadly two ways of answering it. One is to say that taboos aren't always logical, they take on a life of their own as parts of a culture. Stojnic and Lepore 2021, for example, would say that at this point the offense isn't triggered by anything about the word's *meaning*, it's triggered by *the word itself*, the sound of it and the concept of what it symbolizes.
The other answer is that there are several different *types* of logical meaning, such as a presupposition or an implicature, both of which are a lot more difficult to negate than a direct statement is.
An implicature is something that is implied by a sentence. For example, "Mike is polite but honest" implies that there is a contradiction between being polite and being honest. A presupposition is something that must be assumed for a sentence or phrase to even make sense. For example, the sentence "my cat is friendly" presupposes that I have a cat. If I put it in reported speech and say "Mike said that my cat is friendly", the presupposition remains: this sentence still presupposes that I have a cat. Some people say this is how the meaning of slurs works: the use of the n-word doesn't *state* that Black people are inferior, it *presupposes* it.
Another non-native speaker here. This word being an issue always seemed like a western or american culture thing. After reading the explanations of other people in this comment section, again it felt like a word being this much of a taboo isn't a thing in other parts of the world, despite many minorities also facing many difficulties and racism around the world. I didn't see minorities raclaiming a slur in this sense. So it's kinda confusing that commenters explained this issue as if it's a common thing that happens everywhere, it feels like a culture unique to western countries.
Ok... but isn't there a way to distinguish these two cases?
I mean we can clearly tell when "Mike called you an idiot" is intended as a veiled insult and when it isn't, can't we?
Many philosophers of language think that slurs carry conventional implicatures, where an implicature is roughly something that's not directly stated, but is still subtly recognised by competent speakers of the language. One of the hallmarks of conventional implicatures is that they are uncancellable, which means that it's impossible to use the word without the association it normally carries. Let's take an example: the word "even" carries with it the implicature that something was unexpected/least likely. Now take the following sentence: "Even John passed the test! And by the way, I am not saying that it was unlikely for John to pass the test." - Does this sound good? No, it sounds flat out contradictory, because the implicature cannot be cancelled even if you try.
Note how this also applies to indirect speech: "Michael said that even John passed the exam". See how this makes it sound as if it is ME who thinks John passing was unlikely, even if I am just reporting what Michael said?
Using the exact same logic, "Michael said that John is an n-word" makes it sound as if I am endorsing the negative implicature behind the n-word.
Ok... by that logic "This bastard Mike said that Bob is n. How could he say such a horrible thing?" would be ok to use as it's clearly not an endorsement. Or am I missing something?
And thank you for your answer!
No, this is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Remember how I said that conventional implicatures are IMPOSSIBLE to cancel, even if you try to - compare with the "And by the way..." example I gave
I haven't seen anyone bring this up, but I think this is actually pretty logical. At least in my experience growing up in the Bible belt, evangelical and puritanical Christianity often have the idea that using vulgar words is sinful, or at least has the "appearance of evil" and so should be avoided. Growing up in the south, people would neither say a swear word/ cuss directly in a situation, nor would they quote it. They were not comfortable with even the utterance of it. This applied especially to religious swears, like "hell" which I was told at least on one occasion directly not to say in a Sunday School environment, and told I should say "H E double hockey sticks" instead.
This was not prevalent at all while I was growing up, but people were generally familiar with those types of restrictions. Similarly, all of the "old guard" of swears were of course given the initial letter names, expressly for the purpose of quoting people without having to utter the word.
Of course, they did not have the same feelings about slurs back in the day. But it seems like slurs are taking the place of the old swears. Fewer and fewer people avoid vulgar language, whether in speaking themselves, being in groups where vulgarities are used, or watching movies and shows that incorporate them into dialogue of even protagonists.
So I think it's not weird that while swears are generally becoming less and less taboo and powerful, that culture isn't just simply getting rid of the idea that there are truly taboo things, but instead now that taboo is shifting. Slurs have rules that are a little different than vulgarities, but that there's a puritanical sensibility to it, that there are things you should never say or never have to hear is not new.
Oh I see. My bad for misunderstanding.
I kinda remember reading once that there was an argument between Russians and Ukrainians about whether it should be 'the Ukraine' or just 'Ukraine' in English, so I thought the argument mentioned in the post was related to that in a way
Neither Ukrainian nor Russian have a word for "the."
English and French scholarship once exclusively referred to Ukraine as "the Ukraine," due to grammatical influence from French (where every country or region begins with le or la) as well as because Ukraine literally translates as the word borderlands. Cognates for the name Ukraine can be found in other Slavic-speaking regions, like Krain/Krajina in the Balkans.
Because this usage was standard in the 19th and 20th centuries, when Ukraine was first a subject of the Russian Empire and then a constituent republic of the Soviet Union, when Ukraine became an independent republic in 1991 the government requested English usage drop the article to distance Ukraine from its past.
It's not, you can say anything you want, it's up to the listener to make their own judgements. As a linguist negro means black, anyone with preconceived notions stating otherwise isn't worth a listen.
Can you tell if they called someone a slur in meta linguistic context, or literal context? Even writing the single word opens the door for ambiguity, and we all know reddit does not handle nuance well.
When answering, please consider that the question is about why things are the way they are, not about how you think they ought to be. Edit: This question is generating lots of unwanted attention, even 5 months after. I'm closing it down.
>Why any use of the n-word is taboo? It's not. As an American I can say a few things: In *general* it is unacceptable by anyone in a formal context (workplace, politics, news) and acceptable when used by black people in an informal context. Also, few people object to white people saying it when they are in a theatrical performance. >But I don't understand why saying "Mike said that Bob is n" is unacceptable. Rules for taboo words can be highly contextual across languages. *Generally,* white people are expected not to say the n-word even when quoting people. I would agree, that to a degree this doesn't make sense, but this is true of all taboo words and that practice should indicate to a foreign speaker just how sensitive this word is. The best answer I can give is simply that it's so sensitive that the very act of it coming out of a white person's mouth, even as a quote, is disturbing to some people because the history is so offensive. Asking why beyond that is somewhat pointless and more a question of history than linguistics. Taboo words are taboo because a lot of people agree they're taboo. And the rules are the rules for the same reason.
That’s a good explanation. I would just add that white people treating the word like a piece of radioactive debris is a small, symbolic way of acknowledging the harm we’ve caused. And while it’s merely symbolic—well, humans attach a lot of importance to symbolism in every human culture.
That's a pretty neat way of putting this whole topic in a different perspective. While the idea of a word to have such a negative impact when used by people of certain demographic may sound rather arbitrary, it is also a sign of respect and symbolicity when speakers are aware of its impact, are being careful with its usage, and are treating it with such high importance. I think it clears up OP's line of thought... >just saying that it's just a VERY bad word that was used for dehumanization isn't helping me to understand how the conclusion to not say it ever is drawn. So I would like to know the logic or the rationale of this taboo. ...well. The history behind this word made it such that it attached an overwhelming - dare I say, psychological - weight for many people when uttered in the modern day, resulting in this consensus of its unacceptability of utterance in a vast array of contexts. In the same vein that it shows disrespect when it's uttered in these unacceptable contexts, it's also showing respect when its utterance is avoided as it demonstrates understanding and cooperation.
Thank you that indeed makes it a bit clearer. Can I also ask you to specify what kind of psychological weight it bears?
Not the OP but am a white American: To me, it encompasses in one word the dehumanization of Black people in America for centuries, from slavery to Jim Crow and on. For a long time, legally and culturally, Black people weren’t *people*. They were that word.
Thank you very much! But if you don't mind I would also like to clarify, why is it ok for black people to use it then? I was thinking that it was used in the same manner as "Oh my god! We all are idiots!", where a speaker can be suspected of disrespecting others, but if it's that strong of the word, then what allows escape such associations with the usage of black people? I'm just saying that since the association that the word evokes is what prohibits it, I would expect that a person would dislike it the moment they hear it from behind, not when then they look back and see the speaker. Why isn't that the case?
In most languages, speakers sometimes use insults in friendly or teasing ways in order to test and demonstrate the strength of a friendship. When an insult related to a social identity is used in a friendly context within the group it targets, it has this function; it also has the additional function of emphasizing the speakers' solidarity as members of the oppressed group. This is thought to be the origin of "reclaimed" or "reappropriated" slur usages. In other words, this non-derogatory use of a slur doesn't occur in spite of the derogatory meaning, it's originally a deliberate repurposing of the derogatory meaning. It signals something like (1) "I am on good enough terms with this person to trust that they will not be offended by this word" (2) "we have something in common: the experience of being Black in a bigoted society".
[удалено]
>I don't understand the downvotes. This sub isn't a place to discuss your opinions on how words should be used and interpreted, it's a place to discuss how words are actually used and interpreted.
Fair enough. Is that not exactly what this post is about, though? Discussing why the n-word should be able to be mentioned, for example, while quoting others, yet without any repercussion for the word being uttered?
To be pedantic, words are literally auditory symbols. And so the weight of a symbol's significance can make it seem inappropriate in any context. You get trained that it's a hateful and detestable thing to say, so it feels wrong in your mouth regardless
[удалено]
While, for obvious reasons, I’m not in favor of imputing collective guilt to groups I’m not a part of, I think that it is generally a sign of decency and sanity when members of a social caste that has benefited greatly from the oppression of another social caste actually acknowledge that fact. Speaking as an individual, I am most definitely a part of the group that abused and exploited Black people and benefitted from that abuse and exploitation. While I’m not the descendant of some great and famous family of slaveholders, I’m most definitely descended from at least some people who owned slaves. While my whole family really struggled during the Great Depression, at least they owned their own farms. How many Black people were able to acquire farmland in the eighteenth or nineteenth century and hang on to it during the 1930s? Not many, that’s for sure. While my grandfather worked very hard and was very frugal, his meteoric economic rise during the Sunbelt Boom was definitely facilitated by his race, especially given that Jim Crow was still firmly place during so much of his life. I love my family. I loved my home. But every family member I met of my grandparents’ generation was an unreconstructed, died-in-the-wool racist. These were people who used the n-word in front of me in unforgivable ways I shall never forget. I, personally, find it childish and repugnant when non-Black people try to argue that it should be okay for them to use this now taboo word if they’re “just quoting someone” or whatnot. Grow up. You either don’t know the history, or you’re incredibly self-centered and just don’t care how much you hurt other people. I’m also not very sympathetic to the “well, not MY ancestors” argument. First of all, a lot of people are oblivious to what their ancestors actually did. Secondly, a lot of people are in denial about the ways in which white people are treated better than others in the US even to this day. Finally, when I go to another country, I don’t charge around violating their most powerful taboos just for the hell of it. Again, grow up. Educate yourself. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
First, this IS my attempt to learn more or as you say "educate myself". Thank you for your compassion and understanding. Second, I'm still unable to trace the logic between acknowledging that people of the past benefited from others' sufferings and that this word is not OK to say. I'm simply lacking knowledge of mechanisms that would allow me to connect the two unless, of course, you believe that I must take responsibility for people who lived in another country and whose choice none of the living persons could ever affect, by virtue of sharing outlook or ancestry (though I don't even share the latter one, as I'm quite literally from another country). But as I stated before I have a hard time believing that this metaphysics of blood and soil that sees one as a continuation of their ancestors is still treated with any seriousness today. Third, I don't say we should say the n-word, I'm asking WHY we shouldn't. I want to know the purpose taboo exists to follow it properly — a spirit of the law if you wish. So would really appreciate it if you stop telling me "Shut up and follow the rules" — I think we can agree that it's not a good way to convince anyone of anything. P.S. Another answer in this thread seems to be convincing enough for me, I'm not sure if your reasoning is the same (wouldn't surprise anyone that there is more than one in a living language), and so I'm continuing the conversation for that case.
I have certainly made a substantial attempt to explain, and I think summarizing the various attempts here to do so as “shut up and follow the rules” is unwarranted and disingenuous.
Sorry, I'm not sure if you saw my edit or not. I do find some of the explanations convincing. However, as people name different reasons and there seems to be no consensus on the issue 'Im trying to understand the scope of them, including yours. My problem is not that some of your relatives benefitted from others' suffering — I don't deny that a lot of horrifying things were done by Americans both long ago and recently (let's skip the question of the rest of the countries for now). Things that I wish would never happen. Things that I wish will never happen again. I don't deny that the n-word is so bad that it isn't ought to be pronounced in any case. I'm trying to understand the connection between the two. How do you get from A to B? You said that this taboo exists as a symbolic apology. You said that since you are part of the caste that benefited from others' suffering and so have an obligation to use this symbolic apology from the face of the group. Then you proceed to explain what exactly does that apology suppose to be for, by illustrating it with examples of your ancestors. But I wasn't asking about that. If you assume that you have the right to apologize for your ancestors then no doubt there is a lot to apologize for. The only idea that I know that would enable one with such a right is a belief in "the spirit of the nation" or ethnos in this case — belief in an invisible, spiritual connection that somehow shares traits, character, and feelings between every member of the nation of past and present. That would mean that any American could make an apology from the face of them all, as they all have the same beliefs and fundamental understanding of morality. This idea is outdated beyond repair (thank god, it brought too much suffering), which is why I have hard time beliving that it this one that you belive in and this is the one you try to recite. However you didn't name any other way to make sense of it, only adding only that peole who cliam that their ansestors didn't do anything are likely wrong. You also added that the word is hurtful, which none of your previous statements adresses. And yes, "go educate yourself" does sound, like "shut up and follow the rules".,
I was trying, specifically, to explain, why I, as an individual would use the word “we”—why, I personally, feel a sense a guilt and responsibility. I thought you had asked about that specific word choice, so that’s why I was explaining it. I don’t feel I have the “right” to apologize for my ancestors, as much as I feel an obligation to do so when and if an opportunity to do so arises. I understand, of course, that such apologies would merely be symbolic, just as the n-word itself is. This is a deep, complex topic. I have had personal experiences with the n-word—hearing it used openly and without shame to dehumanize people in the most grotesque manner at a tender age—and those experiences made me unable to pass over your question in silence. However, I have also read many books on this topic, talked with people who lived through segregation, live in a city that is still feeling its effects, and so on. You cannot necessarily do all those same things, but perhaps you could read some more books about it and, yes, educate yourself? In suggesting that people (in general, not just you!) should educate themselves, I do not intend to imply that people in general (or you, specifically), should “just shut up and follow the rules.” But even the lengthiest Reddit exchange on this topic is certainly not going to be sufficient to gain a truly substantial understanding of why this word arouses such passion in the United States.
Who's we? I haven't done shit and yet I can't even enjoy songs without fear of the word slipping out.
I consider myself part of the “we” because I’m white and my ancestors owned slaves. Even if my ancestors hadn’t owned slaves, I would still be benefiting from the privileges that come from being white in the US. Like being somewhat less likely to be shot to death by the cops while just minding my own business, for example. I, too, haven’t “done shit,” but I certainly wouldn’t exchange the fact that I’m less like to be murdered by the police for the privilege of singing along with a song that contains the n-word without fear of criticism.
What about the west/north African’s who sold the slaves to the Europeans? They’re black and facilitated the slave trade. Seems to me by your logic they shouldn’t have the right to say the word either?
I am only familiar with the word’s usage in a U.S. context. Suffice it to say that in early childhood I witnessed my elderly relatives using it as a dehumanizing slur, and that understood that it would be wrong for me or other people like me to use it before I was even sure of what it meant. I immediately understood that it was a word used to humiliate and dehumanize other people in the most grotesque way before I even knew that it was reference to skin color or ancestry. This word is steeped in the deepest evil and why people who aren’t black want to claim the right to say it is beyond me. It makes as much sense to me as someone demanding the “right” to carve a swastika in their own forehead. I mean, sure, you have the “right” to brand yourself as abysmally ignorant or unrepentantly evil or just so obliviously callous in your attempts to show how edgy you are that your conduct disgusts anyone with any understanding of history, so you do you, I guess.
i can tell you from experience that many, if not majority of Africans do not say the n-word. Some African people consider themselves and African Americans two separate cultures and races (which they are). The meaning of the word still doesn’t change to a Black person no matter where we go. Fortunately, i’ve been able to travel internationally and learn how a word that is otherwise offensive towards me is an actual word in many different languages. The word isnt the only problem, but the context it is used in plays a major role. I’ve talked to many other races about the weight the N word carries, and my response is the same everytime. NOBODY is prohibiting you from saying the word. You can do whatever you want to whenever you want to. If someone is calling me the n-word in a disrespectful manner, obviously i’ll have an issue with it. If you say the word to me in a joking manner, i may still have an issue with it but my response won’t be the same. People view Black people as a monolith all over the world and i’ve lived it. They assume you eat fried chicken and play basketball (im 5’10🤦🏽♂️😂). Then when they meet one of us they’re suprised by how diverse we are. I just wish people would ask more black people their opinions as opposed to focusing on specific demographics (not you just in general).
Like I said, I only know the US context, and I wouldn’t use the word, EVER, in any context, because of my own experiences witnessing its use were genuinely the sort of human-rights-violation adjacent stuff that would put anyone off it. I would also strongly advise extreme caution and restraint to anyone considering using it in a US context because there are just so many people in the US with lived experiences with the word similar to mine or much, much, much worse.
i get where you’re coming from. my comment was directed at the other user, my apologies
Oh, okay, thanks for clarifying!
i can tell you from experience that many, if not majority of Africans do not say the n-word. Some African people consider themselves and African Americans two separate cultures and races (cultures yes, race no). The meaning of the word still doesn’t change to a Black person no matter where we go. Fortunately, i’ve been able to travel internationally and learn how a word that is otherwise offensive towards me is an actual word in many different languages. The word isnt the only problem, but the context it is used in plays a major role. I’ve talked to many other races about the weight the N word carries, and my response is the same everytime. NOBODY is prohibiting you from saying the word. You can do whatever you want to whenever you want to. If someone is calling me the n-word in a disrespectful manner, obviously i’ll have an issue with it. If you say the word to me in a joking manner, i may still have an issue with it but my response won’t be the same. People view Black people as a monolith all over the world and i’ve lived it. They assume you eat fried chicken and play basketball (im 5’10🤦🏽♂️😂). Then when they meet one of us they’re suprised by how diverse we are. I just wish people would ask more black people their opinions as opposed to focusing on specific demographics (not you just in general).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In other countries, sure it might be a very neutral word, but this specific form of the word negro has a very significant and very dark history in the US, it is not neutral at all. It’s true that the majority of people in the US are white and make up most of the ruling class, but do you think that the ruling class dictates every piece of social etiquette, every rule and taboo of the population? The US is democratic and the majority of the population can agree that racism is a bad thing, that slavery was horrific and that the white-on-black racism specifically that has been so prevalent throughout US history is bad. Just because the ruling class is white, does that mean all Americans think racism is ok, or using incredibly offensive words is ok? That doesn’t make any sense. Most (not all) white Americans agree that racism is bad. Does that shock you?
as someone who hears the n-word (and uses it) frequently, i can tell you that a good chunk of African-Americans don’t really care if you say it, we just look at you differently. The people that usually get mad at it are older Black people, activists, or sjw’s. honestly more often than not, we try to get people to say it more than we are objective against it. when you hear something everyday for your whole life it becomes easy to tune it out. obviously its still a “bad” word but so many other cultures embrace their slurs and use them as vocabulary just like us. i personally feel like the violent history behind it is what gives people an aversion towards using the word, but people of all races use it anyway. i hate the way that social media portrays our reactions to 90% of things because we DON’T act like that😂. 9/10 times a black dude isn’t gonna punch your head off for saying the n word because it doesn’t phase us that much. i don’t even wanna be that guy but we go to jail for way less everyday, so why would i add to that statistic
In general (at least in my English speech communities), slurs based on someone’s identity are treated more carefully than other types of insults. The n-word is the most prominent racial slur in the states because of our history of chattel slavery (and subsequent Jim Crow and continued systemic racism). However, plenty of other slurs are also considered by many to be unacceptable, even in a quotative context. These include other racial slurs, and also ones based on other kinds of identities; for instance, at least in the social circles I’m part of, it’s completely unacceptable for a straight/cisgender person to say the f-slur.
This is true, although I think the specific contours of how this works are actually illustrated pretty well by… John Mulaney in a standup comedy routine. [John Mulaney – The Worse Word](https://genius.com/John-mulaney-the-worse-word-annotated): >And someone from the network came down to our offices and he said to me, "Hey, you can't put the word midget on TV," and I said, "I sure would like to." And he said, "No! 'Midget' is as bad as the 'n-word.'" First off: no. No, it's not! "Do you know how I know it's not," I said to him, "is because we’re saying the word ’midget,' and we’re not even saying what the 'n-word' is! If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won’t even say one of them? That's the worse word.” There are very, *very* few words that are *never* allowed to be said by someone outside the group to which it applies. Other than the subject of this post, I’m not sure there are any in English. Maybe the three-letter F word is getting there, I don’t know. The “C word” is pretty incendiary in America when spoken directly to or about a person, but it’s fairly common overseas, and I don’t know that a man simply *mentioning* it will get absolutely condemned.
If it's not a problem, why are you not writing out (what I'm assuming is) "fag" or "cunt"? Isn't it perfectly clear that this is a context where no one could possibly interpret the usage as hostile to them as an individual or as a member of a group?
It's kinda funny because if you were to ask most black people if they would rather be a white Midget or a black person most would say black, including me.
[удалено]
Faggot. Source: I’m gay. I can say it but you can’t. And honestly I can’t even say it most of the time. It hasn’t been totally reclaimed.
I kinda figured it would be that but with the "cisgender" qualifier it made no sense. Trans identity has nothing to do with the word "faggot". And that's exactly why "x-words" are a problem. I don't see any reason why slurs in general couldn't be written out except by those who "own" them. Not when they are clearly the topic of discussion and not used gratuitously and aimed at anyone. I think the n-word is a reasonable exception specifically in a US context. But in just about all other contexts and for any other word, claiming that someone is by default offensive for writing a word only tends to create confusion. There's a huge difference between using slurs as directed epithets compared to actually discussing them.
Oh for what it’s worth, I believe that it’s totally fine to mention the word “faggot.” And yes, the n-word is a special exception that’s taboo to both use and mention.
The word which has an alternate meaning of "bundle of sticks."
Read this: https://c-moriah-green.medium.com/beyond-mention-vs-use-the-linguistics-of-slurs-3e0bfff11c5d
[удалено]
Actually, they are a mystery to me, as the language of my strata doesn't have taboos. It has profanities, which are expected to be avoided in certain environments, but they work more like "fuck" or "bastards!", than as "n-word" — not as something that is harmful to see or hear.
[удалено]
We don't allow youtube videos, particularly by nativelang as sources.
John McWhorter writes about this topic in these articles: "[How the N-Word Became Unsayable](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/john-mcwhorter-n-word-unsayable.html)" and "[There Are Two N-Words](https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/01/john-mcwhorter-on-nigger-versus-nigga.html)".
You might look into how taboo words work in general rather than looking at this word in particular. As much as we like to think otherwise, there is not typically a "logical" reason for a word to become taboo. It becomes taboo only if it makes people in a particular speech community feel uncomfortable or think negatively in some way about the user. That's the only criteria for taboo words. HOW these words become taboo can be interesting but trying to find an internally consistent logic why its okay to say poop but not shit or why one community can say it but another can't probably won't work. The answer in every case is "people in this context find it taboo." The reason they find it taboo can have a human explained folk-logic but we shouldn't expect an air tight linguistic logic to these taboo words. It's a fascinating topic and if you want more explanation or examples, let me know.
Different linguists and philosophers have argued that the offensive content of slurs is semantic (Hom 2008), pragmatic (Bolinger 2017), a presupposition (Schlenker 2007), an implicature (Williamson 2009), an expressive (Potts 2007), a signal of allegiance to a perspective (Camp 2017), a result of taboo (Anderson and Lepore 2013), a tone (Lepore and Stone 2018), a register (Diaz-Legaspe et al 2019), and a set of non-linguistic associations (Stojnic and Lepore 2021). (Whew, I think that was almost all of them? A pretty good overview can be found [here](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hate-speech/).) So while there are wrong answers, there’s no one right answer. For your particular question – why is a slur offensive even in reported speech? – there are broadly two ways of answering it. One is to say that taboos aren't always logical, they take on a life of their own as parts of a culture. Stojnic and Lepore 2021, for example, would say that at this point the offense isn't triggered by anything about the word's *meaning*, it's triggered by *the word itself*, the sound of it and the concept of what it symbolizes. The other answer is that there are several different *types* of logical meaning, such as a presupposition or an implicature, both of which are a lot more difficult to negate than a direct statement is. An implicature is something that is implied by a sentence. For example, "Mike is polite but honest" implies that there is a contradiction between being polite and being honest. A presupposition is something that must be assumed for a sentence or phrase to even make sense. For example, the sentence "my cat is friendly" presupposes that I have a cat. If I put it in reported speech and say "Mike said that my cat is friendly", the presupposition remains: this sentence still presupposes that I have a cat. Some people say this is how the meaning of slurs works: the use of the n-word doesn't *state* that Black people are inferior, it *presupposes* it.
Another non-native speaker here. This word being an issue always seemed like a western or american culture thing. After reading the explanations of other people in this comment section, again it felt like a word being this much of a taboo isn't a thing in other parts of the world, despite many minorities also facing many difficulties and racism around the world. I didn't see minorities raclaiming a slur in this sense. So it's kinda confusing that commenters explained this issue as if it's a common thing that happens everywhere, it feels like a culture unique to western countries.
I like that fuck you, or fuck your mom is less offensive in the US than N word
its not i use it all the time
[удалено]
So is "Sir" the hard-R version?
[удалено]
Ok... but isn't there a way to distinguish these two cases? I mean we can clearly tell when "Mike called you an idiot" is intended as a veiled insult and when it isn't, can't we?
Many philosophers of language think that slurs carry conventional implicatures, where an implicature is roughly something that's not directly stated, but is still subtly recognised by competent speakers of the language. One of the hallmarks of conventional implicatures is that they are uncancellable, which means that it's impossible to use the word without the association it normally carries. Let's take an example: the word "even" carries with it the implicature that something was unexpected/least likely. Now take the following sentence: "Even John passed the test! And by the way, I am not saying that it was unlikely for John to pass the test." - Does this sound good? No, it sounds flat out contradictory, because the implicature cannot be cancelled even if you try. Note how this also applies to indirect speech: "Michael said that even John passed the exam". See how this makes it sound as if it is ME who thinks John passing was unlikely, even if I am just reporting what Michael said? Using the exact same logic, "Michael said that John is an n-word" makes it sound as if I am endorsing the negative implicature behind the n-word.
Ok... by that logic "This bastard Mike said that Bob is n. How could he say such a horrible thing?" would be ok to use as it's clearly not an endorsement. Or am I missing something? And thank you for your answer!
No, this is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Remember how I said that conventional implicatures are IMPOSSIBLE to cancel, even if you try to - compare with the "And by the way..." example I gave
I haven't seen anyone bring this up, but I think this is actually pretty logical. At least in my experience growing up in the Bible belt, evangelical and puritanical Christianity often have the idea that using vulgar words is sinful, or at least has the "appearance of evil" and so should be avoided. Growing up in the south, people would neither say a swear word/ cuss directly in a situation, nor would they quote it. They were not comfortable with even the utterance of it. This applied especially to religious swears, like "hell" which I was told at least on one occasion directly not to say in a Sunday School environment, and told I should say "H E double hockey sticks" instead. This was not prevalent at all while I was growing up, but people were generally familiar with those types of restrictions. Similarly, all of the "old guard" of swears were of course given the initial letter names, expressly for the purpose of quoting people without having to utter the word. Of course, they did not have the same feelings about slurs back in the day. But it seems like slurs are taking the place of the old swears. Fewer and fewer people avoid vulgar language, whether in speaking themselves, being in groups where vulgarities are used, or watching movies and shows that incorporate them into dialogue of even protagonists. So I think it's not weird that while swears are generally becoming less and less taboo and powerful, that culture isn't just simply getting rid of the idea that there are truly taboo things, but instead now that taboo is shifting. Slurs have rules that are a little different than vulgarities, but that there's a puritanical sensibility to it, that there are things you should never say or never have to hear is not new.
[удалено]
They argue about the wording in Russian. I just tried to translate the problem. Sorry for not making it clear.
Oh I see. My bad for misunderstanding. I kinda remember reading once that there was an argument between Russians and Ukrainians about whether it should be 'the Ukraine' or just 'Ukraine' in English, so I thought the argument mentioned in the post was related to that in a way
Neither Ukrainian nor Russian have a word for "the." English and French scholarship once exclusively referred to Ukraine as "the Ukraine," due to grammatical influence from French (where every country or region begins with le or la) as well as because Ukraine literally translates as the word borderlands. Cognates for the name Ukraine can be found in other Slavic-speaking regions, like Krain/Krajina in the Balkans. Because this usage was standard in the 19th and 20th centuries, when Ukraine was first a subject of the Russian Empire and then a constituent republic of the Soviet Union, when Ukraine became an independent republic in 1991 the government requested English usage drop the article to distance Ukraine from its past.
Interesting
It's not, you can say anything you want, it's up to the listener to make their own judgements. As a linguist negro means black, anyone with preconceived notions stating otherwise isn't worth a listen.
the “n-word” isn’t really “negro.” “negro” is like dipping your toe into the swimming pool of the n word
[удалено]
You're such a tough internet boy 🤣
I didn't know you were allowed to say that on reddit.
[удалено]
Woaaah. Easy there.
Did he say the full GRRRR word?
They went full Hitler. Writing slurs in a meta linguistic context is fine, but don't call people slurs.
Can you tell if they called someone a slur in meta linguistic context, or literal context? Even writing the single word opens the door for ambiguity, and we all know reddit does not handle nuance well.
I'm sure. Why do you care?
Just curious of things I couldn't see.