Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

ScottKuma · 01-07-2008, 01:14 PM

Racism is a null concept in the absence of intent.

As an example, consider the n-word: NIGGER, to be clear...not that there is likely to be any confusion. The term has apparently morphed to take on qualities of friendship, comradery and pride when used among two blacks. However, it is undeniably racist when being used by a non-black (and especially a white) towards a black.

I think that it's ridiculous, however, that the term is now practically un-utterable. We have become like the Wizards and Witches in the Harry Potter universe, afraid to speak a simple word, and in doing so have made ourselves look just as foolish. In banning a term or concept from our language, WE HAVE NOT FIXED THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. We have just made it harder to solve, by making it harder to talk about.

Is the WORD racist in and of itself? Despite its origins, I would argue "No," unless someone can tell me how I have used it in a racist sense in this post.

Racism is about belief - is about intent. It has to be! Otherwise, even the IDENTIFICATION of a race is somehow racist. Hell, we might as well not even identify hair color...or body shape....or name....because ALL of those can be used, either individually or in aggregate, to identify someone's race.

So to answer the OP: In the case you have outlined, where a particular race/group of humans solely exhibits a disease or malady, and a term is coined that links the two together, I would argue that this is NOT racist if it is used in a clinical setting as a pure identifer of that condition. I would furthermore aruge that using it MIGHT be racist if the utterer has ill intent when using the term.

01-07-2008, 01:14 PM	#66 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	Racism is a null concept in the absence of intent. As an example, consider the n-word: NIGGER, to be clear...not that there is likely to be any confusion. The term has apparently morphed to take on qualities of friendship, comradery and pride when used among two blacks. However, it is undeniably racist when being used by a non-black (and especially a white) towards a black. I think that it's ridiculous, however, that the term is now practically un-utterable. We have become like the Wizards and Witches in the Harry Potter universe, afraid to speak a simple word, and in doing so have made ourselves look just as foolish. In banning a term or concept from our language, WE HAVE NOT FIXED THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. We have just made it harder to solve, by making it harder to talk about. Is the WORD racist in and of itself? Despite its origins, I would argue "No," unless someone can tell me how I have used it in a racist sense in this post. Racism is about belief - is about intent. It has to be! Otherwise, even the IDENTIFICATION of a race is somehow racist. Hell, we might as well not even identify hair color...or body shape....or name....because ALL of those can be used, either individually or in aggregate, to identify someone's race. So to answer the OP: In the case you have outlined, where a particular race/group of humans solely exhibits a disease or malady, and a term is coined that links the two together, I would argue that this is NOT racist if it is used in a clinical setting as a pure identifer of that condition. I would furthermore aruge that using it MIGHT be racist if the utterer has ill intent when using the term. __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me Last edited by ScottKuma; 01-07-2008 at 01:18 PM..