hyrcan

Glad to see the way you approached this as a conversation here. Also glad that you are opening up the question. Would be very curious to hear others' reactions.

I do believe that rules in many situations apply to some and not others. I used to refer to this as the fat sister principle. I can call my sister fat and joke with you that she is fat, but you can't joke back and say that something about her "beeping when she backs up." You might call that unfair, but I might call that not having the proper clearance. Sometimes you need varied levels of societal clearance to express certain things acceptably and without causing unintended offense, I think, or so I am now proposing. Double true on T shirts, where you express yourself to strangers who have no context of who you are or where you are coming from. Thus, Ts are more likely to cause objections.

Hi Hyrcan,

Anymore, these days, no matter what we do, we're going to offend someone. You just have to decide if you can deal with the fallout.

Barbara Swafford's last blog post..FEFF - It's Good For The Ego

Someone told me a while ago, when I first arrived at the U.S., that I can't say "black". I have to say "African American". Only African Americans can use the word "black". I was also told, by a lesbian friend, that while she can use the word "dyke", I must use the word "lesbian". So yes, there's a double standard. Is it justified? I don't know. But is definitely exists.

vered's last blog post..Google Search Terms: The Funny, The Sad, And The CREEPY

@Jess: I think the "fat sister" principle breaks down when you apply basic conversationalist rules. Engaging in conversation or the sharing of jokes is not and can not be a one way act. By opening the topic of discussion you by default create a two way street for conversation.

Also, even if your sister may be overweight I fail to see how using her as the butt of your jokes is acceptable. You are not th overweight one, and using your logic, the person you are telling the joke too may view it as a petty jab at your sister, or worse, your sister could overhear you telling it.

There's also the difference between telling jokes at the expense of others, such as "beeping when she backs up," and that of using a bit of pop culture slang that while has some connection to race hasn't been overtly used in derogatory manner. Thus my comparison to the "homeboy" shirt. There was no public outcry when the movie "Undercover Brother" was made (well except for a few movie critics perhaps). But I think that touches on to my question of would my use of "brother" be ok if the design was in support of Obama's choice on the FISA act (or anything else for that matter).

@Barbara: Sadly I think you're right. Books can be (and probably have been) written on the topic of the rising sensitivity.

@Vered: Is it justified?
That's what I'm really interested to find out. Along with why do we allow it to exist if it is offensive in some cases.

If it's offensive if I say "fag" because I'm not gay, why would it be ok for me to say it if I were. For that matter, here's a bit of a twist, why does it seem ok for an African American to, in good humor, say to me "What's up cracker", but it seems it would be beyond offinsive for a "white" to say "What's up nigga" in the same good humor?

Obviously any word said backed by hate is unacceptable no matter who says it, but even in situations where no doubt of it's good nature could be had using terms like these out of the socially accepted norms is frowned upon.

If it's that people don't want to be hurt by words, or want to avoid the possible promotion of the negative which hovers around some words. Shouldn't the words either not be used in any manor and allowed to die off from our vocabulary like so many words before, or just don't segregate the usage to allow the positive meaning overwhelm the negative through out all of society. The idea that one group is restricted to only the negative definition of a word is in someways rather insulting, as if they are only capable of hate...

It's a bit like in your post, "Sexism, Facebook Edition: Is This Image Truly Harmless?", if we want to prevent the negative impact these words and images have, we must remove what gives them the negative impact. Either don't forward the image, or remove the negative social pressures on women (young and old) to look a certain way or the other negative issues the image exposes (women as sexual objects, etc...).

No easy task in any case.

While reading The Pinky Show's new blog Must-See Film: The W0r1d Acc0rd1ng t0 M0nS@nt0 and watching the video. It occurred to me that in Pinky's Diary she shares a e-mail which touches on yet another aspect of what we're talking about. In Third World, Underdeveloped, or…? a student at Georgia State University expresses her feeling that the term “3rd world” is a very derogatory term for underdeveloped countries.

Pinky's response highlights several things, first in some cases (as with "3rd world") an offensive term is the only option, a large number of people may not even take in consideration that the term is offensive or derogatory, and that in some cases the "use of nicer, more enlightened language is actually instrumental in cultivating and maintaining inequity."

I'll argue that making it socially acceptable for one group to use a term and not some other group, thus segregating the "good" and "bad" meaning of the word between these groups is similar to the process which also cultivates and maintains inequity.

Therefor if it is wrong for one person of a group to use a term, it should be wrong for all.

Just stumbled across this quote:

"Bernie Mac's putting the brother in Big Brother!'' ~Bernie Mac, boasting on spying on his kids with a nanny cam, on the Bernie Mac Show

I work for the federal government, and talk about being surrounded by 'sensitivity' concerns. As a matter of fact, I just spend over 2 hours at a Harassment Training session. Which, of course, made us all giggle because it seemed that we were being sent off to learn how to properly harass. I thought it was going to be over the top ridiculous, but I was pleasantly surprised to find out some common sense is finally working its way back in.

There are some pretty blatant and obvious cases of racism, so I won't spend time on those. For the not so obvious, which you were referring to, bottom line, I think it boils down to 'know your audience'. I know my co-workers and what is accepted amongst ourselves. When I am at a meeting, or a new member joins the team, I am sensitive to my language until I get a feel for the new audience. As Jess points out, with t-shirts you can't possibly know your entire audience. But then again, do you care? Barbara points out that it's up to you what you are willing to risk in fallout in order to get your message across.

No easy answers and I could certainly explore this in way more depth, but will leave it at this for now. Hey! Did I match the word count on your comment on my site? *smile* Seriously, thanks for dropping by my site, and thanks for your perspective! Hope to see you again, and I will certainly be dropping by here. I always have something to say!

Urban Panther's last blog post..Santagati and the Great Canadian Beaver

@Urban Panther: It's good to hear some common sense might find its way into some facet of the government, however small it is! I was in the NCCC, a program that was part of Americorps, (Hey Jess! "The Corps" lol ), and we went to countless "diversity" training, and "sensitivity" training sessions. As you say, there are some cases that, well, hardly need to be brought up here, which most of that training focused on. And I can assure you at the time they were needed by a few of the other members.

But these things, the grey areas really have started interesting me.

Knowing your audience, and caring (or not) about the flack you're going to get are ways to avoid, or prepare for any offense you may cause.

The problem though is that they don't really address whether offense should be taken in the first place, or if it does cause offense whether the word should cause offense no matter who says it.

One thing is certain, No easy answers... :)

Thanks for stopping by!

I think you it might be a close call on the word count. I always feel like my comments should probably be blog posts in and of themselves sometimes. ;)

First of all, I love the way you open the discussion by posing questions, it really shows you are open-minded!

1. I don't think it's legitimate to say that it's up to yourself to know if you can handle negative reactions. If I'm considering whether something I am saying might be sexist, racist, or otherwise offensive, I shouldn't be thinking about what could happen to me but rather about what someone else might feel.

2. The "double standards" we are talking about might be some sort of counterweight to privilege. As long as the privilege exists, I think the double standards are legitimate. And if you are offended by something, I can't go out and say, "come on, it's not offensive, it's only a joke". It's your experience, so it's not up to me to define what's offensive and what isn't.

3. If I am using language that might be considered offensive on a group I myself obviously belong to, then it's only natural that people are going to understand it as ironic and not be offended. But if I use such language on other groups, it's probably not going to be understood as ironic.

@filip: I find being open-minded is where it's at. ;)

Thinking about what others feel about something possibly offensive in some what is that prompted the post, the more I thought about it the more concerned I was for how others would be effected by it. And while the irony defense of using possibly offensive statements is perhaps the most sound. Though I still worry that in some way it perpetuates those statements offensiveness.

As I said above relegating one group to only being allowed to use the offensive meaning of a term, is insulting to that group as a whole, implying that the group could never use it in any other manner than to offend. This prevents members of that group from supporting the changed definition that other groups are using, stifling the linguistical evolution of the word, reinforcing it as an active word used to offend.

Though, of course, even if we remove the word, the cause behind someone purposefully using it as an offensive word would remain, which is it's own important topic we should discuss. Though I think it definitely deserves it's own post...

or 12...

;)

I did not know what race you were when I saw this Obama picture and I thought it was offensive. And to VERED (comment #3), I agree that a double standard definitely exists. Truth is, you're not going to call me a deragatory name and expect me to be ok with it, whether you're part of my 'in-group' or not. People seem to think that all members of one group are ok with the terms they use to call each other and its simply not true. If you truly want to be a compassionate person you wouldn't call anyone outside of their name.

@Prometheus: "If you truly want to be a compassionate person you wouldn't call anyone outside of their name." I think that's a very good rule to live by.

Do you also feel the other examples were offensive? Such as the "Obama is my homeboy" t-shirt, or the quote I cited in my comment above, "Bernie Mac's putting the brother in Big Brother!" or movies such as Undercover Brother?

Hyrcan,

Excellent topic. We should all discuss this is grade school. Why we don't I don't know.

I do not like double standards. I suppose the in group feels powerful with the verbage, but most of it is derogatory. In a way it's glowing in your victim status.

Ellen Wilson's last blog post..Freelance Business Burnout

@Ellen Wilson: I think that would be a great idea... but that would cause a lot of text books to need a rewrite. U.S. History is wrought full of racist views on issues that are acceptable, though they are slowly (painfully so) getting better. I mean... seriously? Columbus day? We still "celebrate" that... Ferdinand Magellan was the first person to sail around the world right? Um, no he died, it was a Malaysian that was with him as an interpreter and 18 of the surviving crewmen who went with him that made it all the way around... he died in Philippines. So teaching about how racism is bad in school is tricky but I also think would be a good idea.

As for double standards, I know that sometimes it's good to usurp something and twist so it loses it's meaning, but when you don't let it lose it's meaning by restricting who can use it in the non-derogatory way, you're promoting the negative definition. If it's wrong for one group to say it, it's wrong for everyone.

It is hilarious. I found your site while looking in a Google image search for "big brother barack". I had a similar idea, but yours is far more hilarious.

I am privileged to work with a couple (very) free-thinking blacks who would laugh with me at this. One of my coworkers uses the N word in his screeds... quite a lot. It p-s me o and I've let him know as much. While I'd like to see the word go away, he's 180 degrees on this... he wants whites to be able to say it without penalty. We are at loggerheads on that... and will be ad infinitum, as I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks.

To your question: no, it is in no way racist. Did you intend it as much? No? Then it cannot be as much.

If someone takes offense, that is his or her prerogative. Other commenters made the very salient point that if you take any position today, you're bound to offend someone. The only way you can prevent offense in others is to not exist. Your mere presence among racists not of your race will offend.

That said, I try to be respectful. I went to the Obama rally in Richmond, VA just before the election. I stood outside with perhaps 10 McCain supporters. I held a sign which my wife had had printed at CafePress. It read "SOCIALISM We Can Believe In: Obama for Premier". Yes, antagonistic a bit. But thoughtful and provoking. I held the same sign up at a Palin rally in Glen Allen, VA a week or so later.