Unless you imply that blacks are like children, I don't see the point.
This almost feels like a willful misunderstanding, but I will continue to assume good faith and elaborate anyway: children were an example to establish a principle (that words convey ideas, which is influenced heavily by context). You can tell because I put the word "Example" in front of it, and then immediately explained the principle the example was demonstrating. So it should be perfectly obvious that I was not implying that.
And yes, words change meaning based on circumstances but the idea that some words are either "good" or "evil" based on the ethnicity of the speaker doesn't match my view of the world.
This is not what we were discussing, nor what was claimed. The question was whether it can be reasonable to use the word in one context and not be offended, and have it hurled at you in another where it is.
Words communicate ideas. The n-word communicates something different from one person than it does another. This isn't unfair, and it does not imply that the word is good or evil. Just that it can convey different ideas which are good or evil. Language is more than flexible to accommodate this.
Now, if you want to argue that this is a counterproductive posture, fair enough. Maybe it is. But there's nothing really contradictory or even particularly confusing about it, and it would be perfectly reasonable for a black person to react
very differently to that word in those two contexts.
Because despite the fact that I'm debating with you don't mean I'm debating about you.
I didn't ask you to debate about me, I asked you to debate the idea I'm putting forward. I am saying "should." The fact that some non-specific group may be saying "must" instead has no bearing on that argument.
I don't see such a clear distinction between "should" and "must" in the real world as your posts imply. For example, there's a petition for the Redskins to change their name (with 11k signatures). For me, that sounds awful like "must". In most cases, the distinction isn't there.
I'll agree that at a certain point societal pressure becomes roughly indistinguishable from force in most meaningful senses. However:
a) a petition is nowhere near that point, and in fact, is an example of exactly what "should" should look like in practice, to my mind.
b) if you're comfortable noting that there's a spectrum between should and must, and even judging that we've crossed that line, then you have already made exactly the kind of subjective judgment I'm saying we can make about reasonableness. I'm not sure why you're perfectly comfortable making that kind of judgment here, but not there.
Maybe the objection is me reading too much (or wrongly) into the meaning of the post I originally replied. We (presumably) agree that "reasonable offense" is subjective. Hence my issue with the concept that we'd have to ask ourselves if someone else is "reasonably offended" when we have no way of knowing what their "reasonably" means.
Ah, perhaps this explains things. When I say "reasonably" there, I mean
we determine if it is reasonable. I mean we should judge if it is reasonable for them to take offense. Obviously everyone who takes offense believes themselves to be reasonable in doing so, or they wouldn't do it. It's not their earnestness that's at question, just their reasonableness. You can say that being offended by "Redskins" is not reasonable, if you don't think it is. It just doesn't seem like that's the prevailining opinion in this thread. Almost all of the arguments are about questions outside of that.
Let's start with an example. Do you think that a band called Deicide "should" stop playing their song Kill the Christian? Do you think that Christians can have a "reasonable offense" for such a song?
Yes, they should, and yes, they do.
Please note, I haven't heard the song and have no idea what it's like. But I'm assuming from the context of your question that it's extreme and would easily offend, and that is what chosen for exactly that purpose. If it's not what I'm expecting, my answer may change.
I don't mean myself when I say "individual perspective". I just mean a single person vs society (legislation). I'm convinced that a person who says that something "should" be done would if he or she had the power, enforce it as a "must" far more often than not. On a personal level, the distinction between "should" and "must" is vague at best.
I don't think the same way about those concepts. There are many things I think people should do that I would never suggest they should be made to do. I suppose I can't prove to you that, if I had infinite power, I would not abuse it. Maybe I would. But the ideas are necessarily distinct and there's not much discussion to be had if you're going to tell me you simply don't believe me when I say I advocate one and not the other.
Regardless, I think differing opinions of "should" are probably making the divide here seem larger than it is. We "should" be civil and polite to one another, too, but I wouldn't dream of making that a
law. It's just something we should do, should expect of others, and which society should encourage and influence to make happen. To my mind, "should" propositions are what make freedom work, since a society that legally requires such things would be oppressive, but one that did not do them anyway would be unlivable.
Reply to Topic
So I'll have to contact a medium and get back to ya on that one!
