I like a tiered approach. Like personally I wouldn't mind some cishet person using some slurs i've been called in a neutral context, like some straight 3rd party saying "it's okay that crime calls herself a dyke because she's a lesbian and she's reclaiming it" or "last night someone called her a dyke so she punched them in the mouth". like if someone were to try to dance around saying the word it would almost be more uncomfortable imo, and like saying "the d-word", I wouldn't have any idea what that means. That's obviously not at all the case for the n-word.
Or like cishets using the phrase "the queer community", totally fine in my book (or like, saying "oh yeah, they're queer", provided the person in question identifies that way) vs like calling someone a queer.
Using slurs in a dehumanising way is obviously never good, and should be combatted.
The question is whether the model for the N word (where it becomes taboo to even use the word) is preferable to reclamation, de-stigmatisation, or disassociation.
‘Idiot’ and ‘moron’ are good examples of that latter model. They’ve been thoroughly de-stigmatised, to the point where if you directed them at someone with a learning disorder, it wouldn’t even make sense.
On the other hand, banning entire words is a pretty good way of signalling society-wide that certain approaches and views aren’t acceptable.
I don’t have strong views one way or another here. I’d just like to see this discussed in left spaces from a strategic perspective, as usually when it’s discussed outside of left spaces it becomes a shitshow of litigating the basic existence of the targets.
‘Idiot’ and ‘moron’ are good examples of that latter model. They’ve been thoroughly de-stigmatised, to the point where if you directed them at someone with a learning disorder, it wouldn’t even make sense.
I'm not really here to dive into a conversation, I just wanted to point out that I think this is wildly far from the truth. Not to say anything of your over-arching thought here or anything o7
yeah I guess "tiered" isn't really the right phrasing so much as "nuanced" — I'm totally with you, there's no sense in keeping a strict ranking or whatever about which is worse. Mainly that context matters and blanket bans of most slurs aren't necessary (the main glaring exception obviously being the n-word)
deleted by creator
I like a tiered approach. Like personally I wouldn't mind some cishet person using some slurs i've been called in a neutral context, like some straight 3rd party saying "it's okay that crime calls herself a dyke because she's a lesbian and she's reclaiming it" or "last night someone called her a dyke so she punched them in the mouth". like if someone were to try to dance around saying the word it would almost be more uncomfortable imo, and like saying "the d-word", I wouldn't have any idea what that means. That's obviously not at all the case for the n-word.
Or like cishets using the phrase "the queer community", totally fine in my book (or like, saying "oh yeah, they're queer", provided the person in question identifies that way) vs like calling someone a queer.
Yeah, this is the sort of thing I was angling at.
Using slurs in a dehumanising way is obviously never good, and should be combatted.
The question is whether the model for the N word (where it becomes taboo to even use the word) is preferable to reclamation, de-stigmatisation, or disassociation.
‘Idiot’ and ‘moron’ are good examples of that latter model. They’ve been thoroughly de-stigmatised, to the point where if you directed them at someone with a learning disorder, it wouldn’t even make sense.
On the other hand, banning entire words is a pretty good way of signalling society-wide that certain approaches and views aren’t acceptable.
I don’t have strong views one way or another here. I’d just like to see this discussed in left spaces from a strategic perspective, as usually when it’s discussed outside of left spaces it becomes a shitshow of litigating the basic existence of the targets.
I'm not really here to dive into a conversation, I just wanted to point out that I think this is wildly far from the truth. Not to say anything of your over-arching thought here or anything o7
deleted by creator
yeah I guess "tiered" isn't really the right phrasing so much as "nuanced" — I'm totally with you, there's no sense in keeping a strict ranking or whatever about which is worse. Mainly that context matters and blanket bans of most slurs aren't necessary (the main glaring exception obviously being the n-word)
deleted by creator