No, Trad's point was quite right.
Then I think you're as mistaken. :idunno:
Using the word for shock value is very different from the way it was used by the racist.
I didn't say he used it for shock value. I said he used it to amuse himself. I noted that without the association, the negative foundation he'd just be spouting nonsensical syllables, so for him or you or anyone to try to mitigate the usage is wrong headed and unreasonable.
Are you really trying to deny this? Res nailed it: his intent is absolutely different.
I responded on that point. You're talking about specific function. So it depends on how you look at it, but no matter how you do the root remains and the homage/strength of the word flows from that sewage.
And Trad's primary point was that origin does not determine whether usage is evil, which is fairly obvious.
I answered that point as well. It can and in this case does, since not only was the foulness in origin but is used to that end today. This isn't an evolution or alteration of a term, except in a community divided about it that isn't Trad's.
It's actually analogous to your shock value when you call a man "Sally" in a visitor message. Any shock and potential humor derive from the facts that:
1. Sally is a derogatory way to call a man feminine.
2. Such a strong, insulting turn of events catches the hearer off-guard.
3. It is clear that you are not actually intending the word in the derogatory sense: you are not actually calling him a Sally.
The N word isn't that sort of word. It was used against blacks to degrade them, to separate them in a negative. That's how Trad and most racists of varying stripe still use it.
...that's why you always follow such a thing with "
".
No, if on some rare occasion I use Nancy (more often than another) I'll use the smiley to give the general public the understanding the person I'm speaking to will already have and it's an awful, thin comparison. Now were I to use fag in that way you'd have more of a point. It would be a closer parallel...but, of course, you won't find me using fag, or Chink or Dago, or any term that draws its strength from that sort of denigration.
Origin isn't a very good argument, nor is common usage in itself.
In order, it is the best possible argument and it is among racists. I don't know what study gives you the idea that it's more commonly used as an endearment or in some other way given that even within the black community there is real and heated discussion about how to approach the term. And that's a substantial minority, divided.
I think it's not only easy to argue that the use is evil, supporting and continuing an evil notion, but that I've done precisely that. I haven't heard a convincing counter to it yet, to match your practice on that point.
:e4e:
