I would actually push back on that quite a bit. Institutionalized racism is sustained because capitalism creates the means through which it can remain so. You get rid of that, you get rid of the social incentives keeping racism and power structures currently used to reinforce it. No need for policing language
Capitalism does create the means by which institutionalized racism is sustained, yes. Part of those means are under the umbrella of cultural hegemony, a concept most associated with Gramsci. Language, the way we communicate, is a part of that. Using speech that isn’t at the expense of marginalized groups helps break up parts of that cultural hegemony.
Again, the words only carry meaning insofar as you ascribe it to them. The n-word, other than its dark past, means nothing on the surface. The fact that only blacks are “allowed to use it” is proof enough of this point. The idea that blacks are incapable of themselves self-perpetuating racism by their own use of the word, but somehow white people ‘can?’ seems itself racist to me.
It’s a needless social construct that should expose itself as such with the death of capitalism.
Words have meaning, and this meaning is decided culturally. What you’re arguing is more akin to saying capitalism dying will also cause words to cease having meaning. Further, refusing to fight the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie and letting all language, art, and culture be shaped at their whim makes it more difficult to kill capitalism once and for all. If you join an org, you’ll see this also in real life, the substitution of bourgeois structures and culture with proletarian structures and culture.
Language conveys certain data. Slurs and language that carries bigoted undertones help reinforce bourgeois culture and divide the working classes. We don’t transcend this by telling people not to be offended, but by showing solidarity and refusing to use these same terms.
Words have meaning yes, but I’m opposing the ‘objective meaning’ that is assumed when a non-black person uses the n-word EVEN in a non-malicious manner. This is what I’m rejecting. I’m not suggesting that people should be free to level identity-based hate language towards groups, I’m saying that this idea shouldn’t be applied mechanistically.
I’m also not saying that we should ignore the cultural hegemonic fight in the way we wouldn’t transphobia or misogyny, but that language isn’t necessarily always an expression of ideology. You can absolutely have language that isn’t ideologically tied. This is why blacks can use the n-word without the perception of animosity that would come with a white person using it. This is because they directly challenged ideology and the language adapted in accordance. In fact, having certain words that are “off limits” ironically sustains working class divisions because it has failed to do away with social constructs invented by the bourgeoisie.
You’re mistaking the fact that being more careful to not use bigoted language hasn’t dismantled capitalism as meaning it sustains capitalism, but that doesn’t follow. Having solidarity and empathy in how we use language is important for protecting marginalized communities and keeping bigots out. Again, if you join an org, you can better see this in practice.
The very fact that you acknowledge that words have meanings generally understood by the public should also help you see how using words with bigoted undertones helps perpetuate that bigotry.
Are you deliberately missing my points or what? I’m referring to ‘objective meaning’. I’ve repeated this ad nauseam. Realistically, there’s nothing stopping anybody from creating a new ‘slur’ once the old one becomes unfashionable. This is why it’s a pointless endeavour to police language. Rather, focus on opposing the structures that would afford the persistence of oppression through demeaning language.
see how using words with bigoted undertones helps perpetuate that bigotry.
So you think black people also shouldn’t use the n-word?
You do realize you can do both, right? Like, you don’t have to pick between not using slurs and organizing, you can do both. The fact that new slurs get invented doesn’t mean we should give slur use a pass. I understand your points on “objective meaning,” and I am directly telling you that language and communication aren’t just meaningless, varying in interpretation from person to person, but are decided socially and interpreted socially.
As for the n-word, there’s a large difference between marginalized groups disempowering the word and non-marginalized groups perpetuating its power.
Slurs are socially constructed; opposing its use affirms its existence. I’m saying there’s no point in opposing it because that’s not how you get actual social change! The slur use exists insofar as oppression exists. The slur CAN’T exist without oppression. What you’re promoting is literal idealism that Engels critiqued.
there’s a large difference between marginalized groups disempowering the word and non-marginalized groups perpetuating its power.
There is something deeply racist about the idea that the only thing a white person can do by choosing to disregard a social construct is perpetuate oppression—and further that there be no nuance on the matter.
I would actually push back on that quite a bit. Institutionalized racism is sustained because capitalism creates the means through which it can remain so. You get rid of that, you get rid of the social incentives keeping racism and power structures currently used to reinforce it. No need for policing language
Capitalism does create the means by which institutionalized racism is sustained, yes. Part of those means are under the umbrella of cultural hegemony, a concept most associated with Gramsci. Language, the way we communicate, is a part of that. Using speech that isn’t at the expense of marginalized groups helps break up parts of that cultural hegemony.
Again, the words only carry meaning insofar as you ascribe it to them. The n-word, other than its dark past, means nothing on the surface. The fact that only blacks are “allowed to use it” is proof enough of this point. The idea that blacks are incapable of themselves self-perpetuating racism by their own use of the word, but somehow white people ‘can?’ seems itself racist to me.
It’s a needless social construct that should expose itself as such with the death of capitalism.
I don’t know why you keep picking the dumbest hills to die on.
Is this supposed to be an own? I don’t think you achieved what you thought you were going to with this
Words have meaning, and this meaning is decided culturally. What you’re arguing is more akin to saying capitalism dying will also cause words to cease having meaning. Further, refusing to fight the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie and letting all language, art, and culture be shaped at their whim makes it more difficult to kill capitalism once and for all. If you join an org, you’ll see this also in real life, the substitution of bourgeois structures and culture with proletarian structures and culture.
Language conveys certain data. Slurs and language that carries bigoted undertones help reinforce bourgeois culture and divide the working classes. We don’t transcend this by telling people not to be offended, but by showing solidarity and refusing to use these same terms.
Words have meaning yes, but I’m opposing the ‘objective meaning’ that is assumed when a non-black person uses the n-word EVEN in a non-malicious manner. This is what I’m rejecting. I’m not suggesting that people should be free to level identity-based hate language towards groups, I’m saying that this idea shouldn’t be applied mechanistically.
I’m also not saying that we should ignore the cultural hegemonic fight in the way we wouldn’t transphobia or misogyny, but that language isn’t necessarily always an expression of ideology. You can absolutely have language that isn’t ideologically tied. This is why blacks can use the n-word without the perception of animosity that would come with a white person using it. This is because they directly challenged ideology and the language adapted in accordance. In fact, having certain words that are “off limits” ironically sustains working class divisions because it has failed to do away with social constructs invented by the bourgeoisie.
You’re mistaking the fact that being more careful to not use bigoted language hasn’t dismantled capitalism as meaning it sustains capitalism, but that doesn’t follow. Having solidarity and empathy in how we use language is important for protecting marginalized communities and keeping bigots out. Again, if you join an org, you can better see this in practice.
The very fact that you acknowledge that words have meanings generally understood by the public should also help you see how using words with bigoted undertones helps perpetuate that bigotry.
Are you deliberately missing my points or what? I’m referring to ‘objective meaning’. I’ve repeated this ad nauseam. Realistically, there’s nothing stopping anybody from creating a new ‘slur’ once the old one becomes unfashionable. This is why it’s a pointless endeavour to police language. Rather, focus on opposing the structures that would afford the persistence of oppression through demeaning language.
So you think black people also shouldn’t use the n-word?
You do realize you can do both, right? Like, you don’t have to pick between not using slurs and organizing, you can do both. The fact that new slurs get invented doesn’t mean we should give slur use a pass. I understand your points on “objective meaning,” and I am directly telling you that language and communication aren’t just meaningless, varying in interpretation from person to person, but are decided socially and interpreted socially.
As for the n-word, there’s a large difference between marginalized groups disempowering the word and non-marginalized groups perpetuating its power.
Slurs are socially constructed; opposing its use affirms its existence. I’m saying there’s no point in opposing it because that’s not how you get actual social change! The slur use exists insofar as oppression exists. The slur CAN’T exist without oppression. What you’re promoting is literal idealism that Engels critiqued.
There is something deeply racist about the idea that the only thing a white person can do by choosing to disregard a social construct is perpetuate oppression—and further that there be no nuance on the matter.