If people still use it that way, it should be in the dictionary. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive
This, especially since dictionaries (at least Spanish ones) have a lot of abbreviations to indicate when a term is archaic, deprecated, rude, etc. Even if nobody uses it in such way today, considering it was used not so long ago, it should remain. It’s history and evidence of the discrimination, I get that it’s offensive but erasing it from the dictionary doesn’t do anything for their cause.
Here’s the definition:
- adj. despect. Dicho de una persona: Avariciosa o usurera. U. t. c. s.
“despect.” is despectivo, which means “pejorative” or “derogatory”. Also, it’s the last definition given, not the first.
What U. t. c. s. Means ?
U. t. c. s. stands for: “usese también como sustantivo” which means: “it can be used as a substantive/noun”
Removed by mod
Do you apply this logic to racial slurs as well?
Yes. We can talk about racial slurs without directing them at anyone. We can talk about the history and origin or racial slurs like spic and wog and (dare I say it in the hopes that people actually understand my point) removed. (edit: Lol, fuck censorship, but this helps prove my point below because you don’t even need to see the word but you know what it was and what it represents due to context)
We can talk about these words, the concepts and hate they represent, the pain they are meant to inflict and all of that context without being offensive or using those words in an offensive manner.
Here’s a little secret to offensive words, you can make any word offensive because as stated in my previous comment, it’s not the word itself that’s offensive it’s the intent it’s used with.
Fairy princess is offensive if it’s used to derogatively represent someone, and endearing when your 3 year old daughter wants to be one. Does that mean ‘fairy princess’ is a slur? Yes, but only when it’s used that way.
The difference that racial slurs have over other offensive language is that they are specifically created words for being derogative, unlike other derogative speech which reappropriates existing words and medical terms as insulting metaphor. But even then you can talk about racial slurs without being offensive as previously explained. Like we’re doing right now.
Ask yourself, is there anything in this comment you find “offensive”? Or maybe offensive words just make you uncomfortable. I’m comfortable around offensive language because I understand it and can recognise the difference between objective use of language and directed insults.
Hey, I took some time to see things from your perspective, but I need to make something very clear.
We have a firm policy against racial slurs, even when discussing them. This is because these words are weaponized to dehumanize people and create a sense that some people are not equal to others. This also includes when they are not used with malicious intent. We want to create a space where everyone feels safe and respected, and that includes avoiding the use of racial slurs at all times under any circumstance.
If you want to talk about racial slurs, you must self-censor and avoid using these words. If you do not, your comments will be removed. If you are unable to abide by the rules on the sidebar, then let us know.
I’ve heard this argument more times than I would like to admit. The idea that people who are uncomfortable with offensive language are simply uncomfortable with themselves is a blunt and overplayed strawman.
Your arguments are ones of bad faith. For example, the word “f**ry princess” may not be offensive when used to describe a young girl who wants to be one. However, you, I, and everyone reading this very well knows it is used to belittle women and LGBTQ+ people alike. By your logic, you are clearly ignoring the fact that language can be harmful even when it is not intended to.
The same is true for racial slurs. These words were created to dehumanize and denigrate people of color. Even when they are not used with malicious intent, they can still be harmful because they can trigger generational trauma and pain. If that was not the case, people who use the word would not still use the very word that was used while black men, women, and children met their ends hanging from a tree.
I honestly don’t think you are frustrated but just pandering to justify the use of hateful language. I could be wrong however it makes no difference.
Please remember as I stated in the beginning:
Such language will not be tolerated under any circumstances and will be promptly removed. It is important to remember that these words have a real and harmful impact on people. We want to create a space where everyone feels safe and respected, and that includes avoiding the use of racial slurs.
This is language theory not pandering or looking to excuse the use of deliberately discriminatory language or racial epithets, but a master class on understanding the nuance between offensive language and inoffensive language and the damage that disingenuously taking offense at inoffensive language does in stifling legitimate discussion of the topics and the disingenuous censorship of legitimate inoffensive language at the behest of a failed education system.
Case in point.
You’re clearly not qualified to be giving any type of “master class” on anything. Your comments are:
- Harmful
- Offensive
- In bad faith
You are clearly unwilling to contribute to a productive discussion that follows the community guidelines. If you want to have a legitimate discussion about the topics, then you need to start by being respectful of others. That means abiding by the community guidelines. If you can’t do that, then I suggest you find a different forum to participate in."
Yes. The way people generally use the N word with an A at the end is often used in a non-racist way.
The word is ugly with and without the “a”. It is a word that was used to terrorize enslaved people and is still used to this day to dehumanize black people. Anyone especially black people should not be using that word.
It’s still a word like any other. How it is used is what matters, not the word itself; and saying black people should also not use that word is pretty racist, unless you’re also black…
Also looking at the decimation of the comments in here, the mods and users are overly sensitive over words. Fucking pathetic.
I’m black and I don’t use the n-word. It’s a word of hate and oppression, and I don’t want to be associated with it. I don’t think it’s possible to “repurpose” the word, and it should be buried in the footnotes of history. That being said there is a side bar with clear rules if you have any difficulty abiding by them please let us know.
Fairy is a homophobic term. You may think it’s acceptable, but I’ve lived through homophobic abuse, so have many others but there is a very good reason I’m offended by the term.
Homophobia has no place in modern society, and no amount of nihilistic sophistry will change my mind.
I so I will be offended by you calling me a fairy, fag/faggot, shirt lifter, battyboy, fudgepacker…
I’m two generations removed and on the wrong side of the family try to be considered jewish, but close enough that some living relatives are practicing Jews. I will also take offense at you using the word Jew and you using it in the way the post intends.
Not because I’m a sissy fairy fag cocksucker, which I am, but because I’m big enough and ugly enough to tell you to go fuck yourself with your pseduo-intellectual circumlocution.
You say yourself, “it’s not the word but how you use it” and then go on to use it as an epithet. There is nothing wrong with using the word fairy to describe Tinkerbell, or the mascot of absinthe, but when you proudly use it as an insult you’re being a hypocrite, you are using it exactly in an offensive way.
It’s like in Polish - the word “żyd” (jew) has negative connotations, and maybe it becomes rare in usage these days, but the negative meaning sticks. It’s still an offense to call somebody that.
We have more words like this (cygan, rumun) that on its own are official words for etnicity or nationality, but carry some negative meaning. We also have dedicated words to call many different groups in offensive ways.
However languages happen organically and they reflect how people speak, not the other way that there’s some sort of entity that dictates how the entire population should speak (although reformations are possible).
Funny how people try to regulate that by law. We had such case in Polish when few years ago feminists tried to change how we call professions that are typically assigned with men, but some women are also performing them (police officer, firefigter, ministry etc). Some of those forms didn’t make sense completely due to semantics, some were dropped from the language decades ago and sound archaic or unnatural, the lobby lead to memes at the very most.
That movement worked though. You wrote police officer and firefighter instead of policeman and fireman.
Fireman and policeman in English are also not offensive because they aren’t referring to gender or sex.
Human - Group
Humans - Collective Individuals
Man - Individual
Men - Collective Individuals (Non-sexed)Not to be conflated with
Men - Collective (Sex Male)
Women - Collective (Sex Female)
Wo - Female, men - collective individuals (non-sexed).Keep in mind these are all traditional definitions and were constructed before sex and gender were determined to be separate and before intersex was a classification.
We now often conflate those in common English with human and man and person being interchangeable. As man (individual) with man (sex). And many others conflate sex and gender.
Firefighters - Group
Fireman - Firefighting Individual
Firemen - Firefighting Collective (Non-sexed)Police - Group
Policeman - Policing Individual
Policemen - Policing Collective (Non-sexed)The arguments for removing gender from professions is based on the misapprehension that the professions were ever related to gender and as a result mass illiteracy has made it an “issue”.
Wait until they realise a female Jew is a bean
I’m saddened to hear that there are still an appreciable amount of Spanish people talking about us that way, but I’m not upset at the dictionary for recording the way the language is used.
I’m guessing it’s approached in something of a similar way to how English language dictionaries handle the word gyp, which is to give its definition and note that it is offensive.
Exactly, dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how words are used, not prescribe how they should be used.
Definition of Zionist: right-wing scumbag who believes religion should dictate where people live, regardless of who suffers as a result.
I don’t mind Jews, but I hate zionists because they are all religious nationalists by definition.
How is that relevant to this post?
Because they see “Jew” and think “Zionist”.
I know. I also know he can’t say that because they are all whiny little cowards.
One really has to be deep into antisemitism to think that’s a relevant point to make in a discussion on how the word Jew is defined in Spain.
America bad, Isreal bad
Israel =/= Judaism
There are Jews who don’t like the government of Israel, and Israelis critical of their own country.
See my other comment on the matter.
Are you just upset I’m calling out zionism for what it is? I think so, but you’re going to try to lie and make it seem about something else.
I am asking why you are talking about Zionism on a post that isn’t about Zionism. If you do not think all Jews and Zionists are the same then why are you bringing it up here and now?
See my other comment on the matter.
You have no other comments on this post. Have you made comments somewhere else about this specific post and how it’s relevant to Zionism?
I think they’re referring to “I don’t mind Jews.” It’s about as convincing as “I’m not racist but…”
Alright. Goodbye man. Lol.
