I agree completely and said as much on my site here.

First of all: we've been through this on this site several times, and the short answer is -- yes, the language rules for members of a historically oppressed minority are, indeed, different than the language rules for the historically oppressing majority. This will be true as a general rule, and I suggest you learn to accept it already, and save your indignation for things more worthy of it.

Second: in this particular case, lots and lots and lots of people do object to the treatment of women in rap music, and to language of hos, etc. That Snoop Dog is not one of those people is pretty darn irrelevant.

Third: rappers don't hold high-profile interviews with major political figures, and don't have their views televised daily on major news networks. The rules in question don't just vary by race, but also by outlet and forum. And Imus has proved that he is rather undeserving of the one that he has had for far too long already.

Radio talk show host makes racist comments - condemnation from all corners and talk of job termination.

Rappers make racist comments - hailed as "artists" by critics and talk of Grammy awards.

First of all: There are a significant number of things which we (or at least I) cover "several times," and the fact that something has been discussed before does not mean it's off limits. If it were, I would not be allowed to discuss, for example, pork spending or other budgetary matters. That a certain societal quirk exists does not mean I should "learn to accept it already." The short answer is - I will save my indignation for what I think is worthy of it. You, philosopher, will not be dictating what I do and do not deem interesting. Zach put it well in a comment before:

And that's why I blog, to reflect on what interests me...

Were I to abandon my interests in favour of the subjects you deam imperative, blogging would seem more like a chore than a labour of love -- and you would have much less of it.

Which is a long way of saying that if you are dissatisfied with ITA, then you can expect a full refund in the mail -- just provide your name and address.

Third: I fail to see how reaching millions of people through MTV and radio is any less significant than reaching people through MSNBC and radio. Just because it doesn't reach the outlets you watch or isn't discussed in your circles doesn't make it any less significant. Indeed, that's partially the point. Snoop Dogg and his fellow rappers will have an infinitely more signfiicant impact on American culture than Don Imus could ever dream of having. The difference here is that the offensive words made their way on the air waves of media elites who determine the newsworthy stories.

Matt: There is a significant difference between a rapper using the "n-word" and someone like, say, Michael Richards. One is used in a derogatory way with several hundreds of years worth of racist overtones. The other is not. But the treatment of women deserves no such pass from rappers and Snoop Dogg's feable attempt to justify it is pathetic.

Right on, Josh. As soon as I heard the audio clip of the Imus show, I was thinking along these lines. The other guy talking with Imus started in with the hip-hop slang when he said "Those are some hard-core hos," to which Imus responded "Those are some nappy-headed hos."

It's wrong when hip-hop artists talk like that, and it was wrong and foolish for Imus and the other guy to emulate it. What really struck me about the clip was not that Imus was being racist, but that he was being sexist, because right after his comments about the Rutgers team, he said something like "And the girls from Tennessee, they're all cute."

Frankly, we are fast becoming the epitome of a Jerry Springer society. It seems to have become more important to have an audience and notoriety when confronting conflict than it is to attain resolve and mutual respect. That model seems to serve the needs of the exploited and those who seek to exploit; reinforcing all that relegates objectivity to the outhouse while making the frailty and imperfection of the human condition a spectacle that harkens back to the Coliseum.

This situation isn't and shouldn't be about whether liberals or conservatives, this race or that race, hip hop or honky-tonk, one group or another, are more offensive and therefore more responsible for all that is wrong with America. I am not capable of judging the whole of Don Imus nor am I capable of crafting a recipe to fix all of America...and neither are the countless pundits and partisans who have sought to frame it so.

I'm not a religious person...but I often find kinship with the imagery surrounding the portrayal of one called Jesus and his teachings of understanding and forgiveness. For all the banter I hear about the Bible and Christian values, it certainly seems to me that we are fast abandoning what many view as the sacred "tablets" in favor of the sacrosanct tabloids. If I'm right, all I can say is heaven help us.

Read more about the dynamics that lead a situation to become larger than the sum of its parts...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Along the same lines, here is some Pepsi promotional stuff.

I don't think it is accurate to say that we have merely 'been over' the double standard issue before; phil has made a significant contribution to the debate, so much so that casual reference ignores some sophisticated progress in our thinking on the subject. It's not that it is off-limits, rather, it's played out, at least in the absence of a response to phil's earlier comments.

For everyone's edification, here is our collective "sophisticated progress in our thinking on the subject."

And, Karl, that was amusing.

I think my original statement wasn't quite clear, as JC's construal of it wasn't the one I intended; in particular I didn't mean for the remarks to be continuous with the earlier ones where I was trying to urge Zach (inter alia) to take on part of the hard job of engaging with the current sickness that plagues American conservatism down to its bones. It's a job that needs doing, and I was trying to argue that the non-hackish members of this blog are well-situated to do some of it. (This is why the 'we'll give you your money back' line is rather off-target; it presupposes that I'm just expressing something like a personal preference for what I'd just happen to like to read about. And that's not the relevant claim there at all.)

Here, however, I am arguing that your claim of umbrage about an alleged double-standard is _objectively_ ill-grounded. I'm not saying "write about something else", so much as I'm saying "your claims here are not well justified by the available evidence". For (I was arguing) there isn't as much of a race-based asymmetry as you think, in that rap stars are the target of a great deal of scorn & outrage from folks on the left. (Indeed, including Sharpton himself, and the vast majority of the so-called 'racial grievance industry'-- a fact which reveals Andy McCarthy to be ludicrously poorly informed about his chosen subject matter, in the piece linked to above.) I don't think you're in any position to say whether it's the same amount as with Imus; the key difference, rather, is that Imus is (er, was) employed by some major media outlets, in a way that Snoop never has, and I expect never will be. And I'm not saying that Snoop's argument isn't, as you say, "pathetic". It is. I'm saying there's just little point in trying to compare him to Imus.

And to the extent that there is some white/black asymmetry here, it's an entirely appropriate one, which I thank Zach for pointing out above. Zach has perfectly grokked my intended tenor of the "we've been over this before" -- I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about it, but rather that our conversations about it should take seriously, and take into account, the conversations _that have already been had_. There are lots of good arguments out there about how it's just & right for blacks and whites to have different levels of access to & authority over racially loaded terms, and I think it's just a matter of basic intellectual virtue to engage with such arguments if you're going to talk about an alleged double standard here. I have authored no such arguments myself, but I have brought them into discussion on this blog several times, and I guess what I'm objecting to most of all is your climbing so easily up onto the double-standard dudgeon without recognizing & addressing them.

As for the comparison between MTV and NBC... are you really serious about saying they should be treated equivalently? Surely we can & do expect very different things from these different forms of media (just as we expect different things from, say, a candidate's official blog and random allied political bloggers). And, for that matter, I suspect that if an official MTV hostperson used such a phrase as carelessly as Imus did -- especially if a white, male (as Eric is right about the sexism being _very_ relevant here) MTV hostperson did -- he'd find himself out of a job even faster than Imus did.

As for the comparison between MTV and NBC... are you really serious about saying they should be treated equivalently?

I think my point is the exact opposite. MTV is infinitely more influential on culture than MSNBC's morning slot.

The racist comments are a lot like the schoolyard, where one kid is doing something wrong and another decides to do it as well and use the first kid's actions as justification. The first kid may get away with it, but that doesn't justify the second doing it. That's hard for a lot of people to stomach.

Perhaps it would be useful to step back and distinguish between a couple of different questions here.

One question is: "who is more pernicious overall, Imus or Snoop?" I think you're probably right that the answer there is Snoop, though I would immediately want to then re-emphasize that we need to take into account not just the size & demographic of the audience, but also the format. Imus frequently hosted major political leaders; Snoop does not; the former's statements thus get a kind of status that the latter does not. But, still, I'd grant the main point.

But another question is: "who is more deserving of official public expressions of outrage?" And there the answer is Imus. Largely because of that format issue I just mentioned; and largely because the outrage can have a positive effect on Imus (i.e., getting him fired) that it won't on Snoop (i.e., making his music even _more_ attractive to his target demographic); and largely because there has already been expressions of outrage over Snoop that there really haven't been over Imus.

It's not that Snoop is "getting away with it" because he's blameless -- rather, there just aren't any real public levers over his behavior. But there are for Imus.

There's also a distinction between what Imus said and it's usage by rappers: Imus was referring to specific people, whereas rappers rarely do. I agree it would probably be ignored, but it should be just as insulting if Snoop called the Rutgers team what Imus did.

But I'm not interpreting Snoop's comment the same way. Josh seems to be saying that by saying 'ho', Snoop is 'degrading' poor women because poor women are just trying to get a n---a for his money. I think Snoop is saying that a poor woman who is just trying to get a n---a for his money is not a nice person, or as he says 'ho'. There's too much that's being inferred that was not specifically said. Sure they also do all kinds of explicit things with their 'ho's' which one might somehow find degrading or may read into it that they are somehow making some statement about women being objects or 'meat'. But if you're going to object to guys talking about sex with women without mention of love or commitment, you've gutted a good chunk of the rock/rap/hip-hop canon.

Seems like I've seen countless WWII movies where the men are talking about 'broads'; it'd never occur to me to take offense by inferring they said all women are pieces of meat. No argument that 'ho' is more derogatory, but popular music for my lifetime has always thrived on being a little edgier or shocking than what came before, so I'm not surprised or concerned that this generation's 'broad' is something like 'ho'.

Plus how far do we go with this purported 'double-standard'? Is it acceptable for Chris Rock to do Jeff Foxworthy's redneck routine in front of a bunch of, well, rednecks if they took offense?

It's not that Snoop is "getting away with it" because he's blameless -- rather, there just aren't any real public levers over his behavior. But there are for Imus.

Phil, you have changed my thinking on this subject with your arguments.

Really, I think the root of this matter is that people do not like perceived inconsistency in the views of others. My perception is that Snoop's audience is being inconsistent with their 1.) sympathy with Snoop's abuse 2.) antipathy with Imus' abuse. This perceived inconsistency is frustrating.

One of the reasons why a double standard should not be accepted is that it can create confusion over what will actually cause offense, which will cause people to inadvertently offend others more often. This particular objection to double standards is inapplicable, sometimes -- Imus, for example, should have known that the way he used the word "nappy" would be offensive. Also, there are words that everyone should know will cause offense, whether or not Snoop Doggy Dog or some group called "Nappy Roots" uses them. However, other words like "nappy" keep a lower profile than other offensive n-words, and the accepted use of it by black celebrities and others may justify people who are not black in believing that it can be used without causing offense to people who are. It can justify them in believing this, even if that belief is wrong. As a result, they would use the word, causing offense.

I am not claiming that there actually is a double standard for the use of the word "nappy." Because I am aware that double standards exist, I have no idea whether it would be acceptable for me to use that word in a neutral context, in the way that this "Nappy Roots" group does, as a word that describes hair. Fortunately, I do not like the sound of the word "nappy," so I don't use it, anyway.

One of the reasons why a double standard should not be accepted is that it can create confusion over what will actually cause offense, which will cause people to inadvertently offend others more often.

If everyone knows (as is implied above) that it's okay for minorities to say things that it's not okay for non-minorities to say, then it's not a double standard (any more than women being allowed to use the women's restroom but not men is, anyway).

Imus, for example, should have known that the way he used the word "nappy" would be offensive

Right, right.

he accepted use of it by black celebrities and others may justify people who are not black in believing that it can be used without causing offense to people who are. It can justify them in believing this, even if that belief is wrong. As a result, they would use the word, causing offense.

If "stupidity" is the best defense against "racism" one can come up with for people like Imus or Michael Richards, then you can darn well count me out. I don't like stupid people any more than I like racists.

I do not think you read my previous comment as carefully as you could have. You first missed the main point, and then reacted to several sentences in isolation, overlooking important distinctions that I had made previously in the same comment, and in some cases, found in those sentences the opposite of the point that I wrote them to make.

If everyone knows (as is implied above) that it's okay for minorities to say things that it's not okay for non-minorities to say, then it's not a double standard (any more than women being allowed to use the women's restroom but not men is, anyway).

First, I would not have implied that (and looking back at my comment, I did, in fact, fail to imply that). The main point of my post dealt with the effects of a double standard when the word in question is, like the word "nappy," relatively unfamiliar. The sentence that you quoted argues that if a double standard results in members of a minority group using a relatively obscure word as a neutral adjective, even though the word would be offensive if used by people outside of that group, some of the people outside of the minority group will be confused and will use the word, causing offense. It is not possible to argue this while implying that "everyone" would know whether it was "okay" to use the word, because one of the necessary assumptions is just the opposite. Second, if a different standard is consistently applied to different people or to categories of people, then it is a double standard. I do not know why knowledge of the existence of a double standard would prevent its existence. Finally (and I am basing this sentence on the assumption that your comparison of a double standard on speech and the women's restroom example treated double standards as inherently negative), because while the women's restroom example probably is technically a double standard, I do not agree that a difference along racial lines in deciding what speech is appropriate is as harmless as keeping separate restrooms for men and women.

If "stupidity" is the best defense against "racism" one can come up with for people like Imus or Michael Richards, then you can darn well count me out. I don't like stupid people any more than I like racists.

The quote that this supposedly responded to was not a defense of Imus and Michael Richards. I had explicitly distinguished them before (though I did not actually name Richards) from what I was discussing in the rest of my comment. The rest of my comment, of course, concerned only when people could be justifiably confused because the word in question is not well-known. I wrote, "This particular objection to double standards is inapplicable, sometimes -- Imus, for example, should have known that the way he used the word 'nappy' would be offensive. Also, there are words that everyone should know will cause offense, whether or not Snoop Doggy Dog or some group called 'Nappy Roots' uses them. However, other words like 'nappy' keep a lower profile than other offensive n-words..." Amazingly, you had even quoted the part of this that explicitly states that my point does not apply to Imus, and still missed it. The third quote in your comment did not apply either to Imus, who should have known that his use of "nappy" would cause offense, or Richards, who used one of the "words that everyone should know will cause offense, whether or not Snoop Doggy Dog" uses it. You did not include the beginning of the first sentence from your third quote, which should have helped to clarify that the "it" that would cause confusion if used by black celebrities and others was "other words like 'nappy'" which "keep a lower profile than other offensive n-words."

All of this was available to be read in my previous post. I am just going to assume that you were frustrated with something while writing this.

Finally (and I am basing this sentence on the assumption that your comparison of a double standard on speech and the women's restroom example treated double standards as inherently negative), because while the women's restroom example probably is technically a double standard, I do not agree that a difference along racial lines in deciding what speech is appropriate is as harmless as keeping separate restrooms for men and women.

If we're going to create a new category called "technical double standards," then that's fine - but I'd just throw the some-people-can-use-words-others-can't double standard in with the some-people-can-use-toilets-others-can't standard. I'll concede that yes, there is a double standard - but not one that concerns me.

This is, to me, just the same as me saying that no one can beat up my little brother except me. There are plenty of things that my friends could say to me or my fiancee, for instance, that I might likely punch a stranger for saying. And as such, I think it's okay if black people say things to each other that they'd get mad at white people for saying - and I really tire of the "gotcha" argument that Chris Rock uses the n-word and so it should be okay for anyone else to.

(Now, I do think that the sex/gender aspect is different. I don't think it's generally okay for men to call women "hos," whether the men in question are disc jockeys or rap artists. But I gather we're just talking about the "nappy-headed" part of the comment here.)

The rest of my comment, of course, concerned only when people could be justifiably confused because the word in question is not well-known.

Who doesn't know the word "nappy?" Seriously, I go back to what I said before, although I suppose I'll add another prong to the test for you. Either 1) Imus is a moron who didn't know what the word "nappy" was (even though he successfully used it in a coherent statement), or 2) Imus is a moron who used the word "nappy" and just thought that no one would get mad about him using it even though he obviously knew of the racial implications (as demonstrated by the way he used the word), or 3) Imus is a racist. Whichever of those is the case, I could care less.

===

It's not that I didn't read your post (although I confess, I've been frustrated for some time now; it's been a long semester). It's that I just disagree with you, although I may have argued very poorly in retrospect.

In short: I don't think Imus really has any excuse - anyone who's even remotely educated and has been in the public eye ought to know better than to use any obviously racial term like "nappy" or "greasy" or "slant-eyed" or "big-lipped" or whatever, especially directly before the use of a perjorative term for an entire gender!

That he might not have understood just how offensive the term might be is no real defense. I agree that it's likely that he's just stupid and didn't think before he opened his mouth, but I find it easy to defend CBS for firing someone for being that stupid. (Imagine Dan Rather calling a group of Korean women "slant-eyed sluts." I mean, really, how is Imus' comment not just beyond the pale?)

" especially directly before the use of a perjorative term for an entire gender! "

How is 'ho' a pejorative word for an entire gender? The worst definition I can find is 'prostitute'; is that word (and slut, whore, harlot, etc) pejorative for an entire gender? Those words specify a woman with particular attributes; not all women.

You say that you read my comment, but simply disagree. But then, for a second time, you wrote something indicating that you believe that my argument was a defense of Imus:

That he might not have understood just how offensive the term might be is no real defense.

But it wasn't a defense of Imus at all, and I dedicated a good portion of my second comment to expressing amazement that you had not noticed my unambiguous statement from my first comment that my reasoning could not apply to Imus because he had to have known that the way he used "nappy" would be offensive. You even quoted that sentence.

The reason why my argument does not apply to Imus and Richards, however, is not just that I say it doesn't. It is because my argument concerns the consequences of keeping a double standard with respect to a particular infrequently-used word that describes members of a minority group or one of their common physical traits, when because of the relative unfamiliarity of the word, people outside of that minority group would not know that the word is offensive, coming from themselves, and could innocently think that it is not offensive because they have heard it used in a neutral context by people whose race they no longer remember. That is a long sentence, but I haven't been able to communicate my point with the short version. Anyway, because the argument depends on the speaker being unaware of the word's inherently offensive nature, as a result of the speaker's unfamiliarity with the word, it just does not apply to someone who actually knows or has every reason to know that the way he intended to use it was offensive. It cannot apply to such a person, and I explicitly stated in both of my previous comments that it does not apply to such a person.

Who doesn't know the word "nappy?"

I have heard the word "nappy," but I have heard it a lot less (and I have heard a lot less about it) than the famous racial slurs. I did not hear of the word "nappy" until the middle of high school, and even then, it was (mis)used to refer to an off-brand cola. I do not know how long it was before I heard it again. I do not remember hearing it used to offend until Imus did it (and was the offensiveness a result of the way he used it, or a result of the fact that he was white? I would have thought that it was a result of the way he used it), and when I have heard it, it was often by people who sounded like they were trying to be cute, like the "Nappy Roots" musicians referenced in the original post. I do not know what their races were. Even though I know the meaning of the word "nappy," I am still not certain from what I have heard that it is automatically offensive when used by a white person, regardless of the use or context. That does not mean that the word "nappy" is not, in fact, offensive when used by a white person. It does, however, demonstrate how unfamiliarity with a word can make people unfamiliar with the extent of its offensiveness (if it even is offensive when used as a neutral adjective in appropriate circumstances), and how a double standard can distort perception of a word, even if you do believe that a double standard is justified.

This is, to me, just the same as me saying that no one can beat up my little brother except me. There are plenty of things that my friends could say to me or my fiancee, for instance, that I might likely punch a stranger for saying. And as such, I think it's okay if black people say things to each other that they'd get mad at white people for saying...

I understand the idea, but I disagree that it is acceptable. I realize that you did not invent this idea (racial division), but I find it alarming that the difference between the relationship of two black people and the relationship of the average black person and the average white person could be seen as anything like the difference between the relationships between you and your brother, fiancee, and friends, on one hand, and you and a stranger on the other. I am making this point not just to lament this unnatural, harmful division. I also think that accepting this division will lead to more of the same, and that it needs to be challenged, not explained.

Just so that you know, I am not creating a new category of technical double standards. I sensed that we define "double standard" differently, and I tried to work around that by saying that under my definition, the women's restroom example is (technically) a double standard, but that I do not care.

In the comment that I just posted, the people whose races I said that I did not remember were the few people who I have heard using the word "nappy," not group of musicians called "Nappy Roots."

Fwiw, I don't think that "nappy" by itself was especially the issue, so much as its appearance in conjunction with "ho". Are there commentators out there who have focused on "nappy" by itself?

However, I do think that the responsibility should fall on the majority community, not the minority community, to avoid using potentially loaded terms. If you know that "nappy" (or anything else) is a term that is used in connection specifically to African-Americans, then it's up to you to find out whether it's an ok word for you to use before you use it. Following this rule will keep you out of the kind of epistemic danger of double-standards that Karl had mentioned: if you don't know for sure whether the word is ok, then just don't use it.

"I also think that accepting this division will lead to more of the same, and that it needs to be challenged, not explained." But this is a symptom that cannot be treated without treating the root disease; and indeed trying to treat the symptom directly will only exacerbate the illness itself.

Fwiw, I don't think that "nappy" by itself was especially the issue, so much as its appearance in conjunction with "ho". Are there commentators out there who have focused on "nappy" by itself?

I have not heard of any commentators who have said that, which is one reason why I still am not certain whether it is considered acceptable.

However, I do think that the responsibility should fall on the majority community, not the minority community, to avoid using potentially loaded terms. If you know that "nappy" (or anything else) is a term that is used in connection specifically to African-Americans, then it's up to you to find out whether it's an ok word for you to use before you use it.

Once someone already suspects that a word might be unacceptable, this would at least be workable, though it is possible to take it too far (it is unhealthy for us to accept either too little self-awareness on the part of the speaker or too little thick skin on the part of the listener) unless you assumed that there would be reasonable limits on it. However, there would still have to be something about the usage of the word that would suggest that it may be offensive. I have witnessed people taking offense at the use of "you guys" and the collective "you" to refer to a group the speaker was speaking to (not "you people," which is better known for causing offense), reacting to it as though the usage was race-related (even though it clearly wasn't, from the context), so it may be far from obvious whether there is even a potential for offense. Also, a majority person who suspects that a word might be offensive would still have to figure out who to ask about it. After all, different members of a particular minority community may see it differently, and some white guy trying to defend something offensive that he said by saying that a black person had previously told him that it is okay would be unlikely to succeed.

But this is a symptom that cannot be treated without treating the root disease; and indeed trying to treat the symptom directly will only exacerbate the illness itself.

I think that this "symptom" exacerbates the illness itself. Actually, I think that the root illness could even be seen as just an aggregation of all of these symptoms (though that is not a perfect description of the problem). Every example of people of different races thinking that they are inherently different from each other, and every example of people separating themselves from each other along racial lines in either their minds or in some practice, is a symptom of the problem, but collectively, they make up attitudes and behaviors. They are not just a consequence -- they are the problem itself. They give everyone else a reason to think that it's just the way things are, and they create a pattern for themselves to adhere to in the future (people tend to act in a way that is consistent with what they have thought and done in the past). Whether the double standard seems to make sense in isolation or not, it is still just another opportunity for people to become used to the idea of placing themselves in one category, and people who have a different skin color in another.

This reminds me of the reaction to Bill Cosby's comments in 2004. A phrase that I remember hearing used in response at the time (and have just Googled) was "dirty laundry." Cosby was criticized for exposing "black dirty laundry" to the rest of the public. I do not question that it is possible for people who would have suffered many of the same experiences to feel a connection as a result, but I think it is not only stunning but also inexcusable that this sense of separation has become so severe that anyone could have understood a secret to have existed between an entire race and Bill Cosby, while people living in the same city, in many cases going to the same schools and churches, can be viewed as strangers who shouldn't be exposed to each other's "dirty laundry." A writer named Christopher Farley was apparently the person who first made this "dirty laundry" comment -- doesn't he realize we live in the same world? This attitude is certainly a consequence of the problem, but it is also an obstacle to solving the problem. You are right that addressing this lone symptom will not work, and you may be right that addressing it alone will make things worse, but I doubt that the solution, whatever it is, can be effective unless this attitude is addressed as a part of it.

The issue with things like "you guys" is different than the issue with things like "nappy ho". The concern with the former is that the speaker means something synonymous with "you people", which may well be a legitimate concern, but that's a concern that should be addressable. With the latter, there is a question of who has authority & access to the vocabulary in question (which is obviously not a question with such completely common words as "you" and "guys").

I have to just fundamentally reject the picture of the problem of racism as you're painting it, Karl, where you make it sound like there's one thing that is equally shared around by different racial groups. This way of thinking about the problem utterly fails to take into account the historical and ongoing problem of anti-black racism, and the different and specific moral obligations that this problem imposes. If I could press a magic button that would make all racial thinking go away, I would be happy to press it. But there is no such button. So our thinking about what are appropriate policies, and about who owes what kind of respect & deference to whom about what questions, simply cannot be addressed by asking whether such policies or deferences would exist in an idealized world. In the actual world we live in, whites have some substantial moral obligations to minorities for which there is no reciprocal obligation. The illness in question can only be treated successfully by our starting from that moral fact.

The reason why my argument does not apply to Imus and Richards, however, is not just that I say it doesn't.

You'll have to forgive me for having just assumed disingenuousness when I see others making the same exact arguments in defense of Imus. (I've grown bitter in my old age, I suppose, for which I apologize.)

It does, however, demonstrate how unfamiliarity with a word can make people unfamiliar with the extent of its offensiveness...

Which is why people should take care in using words like that in the first place. How often do you hear the word "niggardly" bandied about, even though it is wholly unrelated to other certain perjoratives?

===

As for racial division: I suppose it all depends on how generally you look at things. I look at things from a broad view, and see that there are plenty of cases where A can say something that's fine to B that would be offensive if A said it to C.

Given the history between whites and blacks in America, which, mind you, was unimaginably more contentious a mere 40 years ago than it is now - well, that there might be some things that black people are okay to hear other black people say but not to hear other white people say is unsurprising. I think that this sort of divide will weaken over time (although it may not disappear for a very, very long time, if ever). But I don't see this as an example of things getting worse - I see it as an example of things getting better.

===

As for double standads, yes, you're correct. It's just that I don't see the cause for alarm over this one, either. (In fact, I'd swallow same-sex restrooms far quicker than I'd swallow some sort of mandate that no group of people can be offended by someone outside that group's use of a word.) Certainly people have a right to be offended, right? I wouldn't support a ban on racial slurs, but I am fine seeing people get fired for using them.)

A separate comment will follow because I just had to type all that twice, and I don't want to lose it again. :D

If you know that "nappy" (or anything else) is a term that is used in connection specifically to African-Americans, then it's up to you to find out whether it's an ok word for you to use before you use it.

This is a much more eloquent version of what I was trying to say, as well as evidence that I should read the rest of a thread before replying.

===

After all, different members of a particular minority community may see it differently, and some white guy trying to defend something offensive that he said by saying that a black person had previously told him that it is okay would be unlikely to succeed.

Right, and that's why such terms (with obvious reasonableness limitations, of course) should just be avoided. I have met women who proudly wear the label "bitch," and I have also met women who are offended by the term. More extreme (in both directions) are the reactions to the "c-word," which is again embraced by some and reviled by others. This is why you really shouldn't call a woman a bitch or refer to her genitals as such without some really excellent prior knowledge of how she (and anyone around) might react.

===

This way of thinking about the problem utterly fails to take into account the historical and ongoing problem of anti-black racism, and the different and specific moral obligations that this problem imposes...our thinking about what are appropriate policies, and about who owes what kind of respect & deference to whom about what questions, simply cannot be addressed by asking whether such policies or deferences would exist in an idealized world.

Again, saying what I would have said, except better.

How is 'ho' a pejorative word for an entire gender? The worst definition I can find is 'prostitute'; is that word (and slut, whore, harlot, etc) pejorative for an entire gender? Those words specify a woman with particular attributes; not all women.

Two things:

1) I didn't mean exactly what I wrote there. More accurately, what I meant was along the lines of "he used a racially-loaded term right before he used a gender-loaded term."

2) Although I didn't mean what you said, as I thought about it, I realized that what you said makes no sense.

You claim that "ho," "slut," and such are not offensive to all women because they only refer to certain types of women - are you seriously implying that only women who accept money for sex or who are promiscuous can be offended by such terms? Would you really call a woman a slut and then say something like "Oh, silly, you're not promiscuous so you don't have any right to get mad about that name!"

No, the terms are offensive to all women. Just like (contra Chris Rock) the n-word is offensive to all African Americans and the term "beaner" is offensive to all Hispanics, regardless of whether or not they in fact consume legumes.

The division between what you say and how you say it constitutes a false dichotomy; both what you say and how you say it are important to take into account. And so while there are women who are happy to be called sluts, hos, bitches, etc, just as there are members of all groups who adopt as a badge of pride an otherwise perjorative term, this does not change the fact that the general use of the term is perjorative. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that the term is perjorative to all members of a targeted group, regardless of whether it specifically applies.

(And sorry for the multiple comments... stupid internet connection. :P )

I hear what you're saying, Nick, but if I'm understanding your examples correctly, we may be talking past each other. I am not saying that slut, ho, are interchangable terms for 'woman', nor do they have a history of being such; the n-word has the history of being a demeaning reference for *all* black people, 'fag' for all gay people, etc. I am 'seriously implying' that it is no worse to use a term like 'whore' or 'slut' instead of 'prostitute' or promiscuous. In your example above there is essentially no difference to calling a woman a 'slut' and calling her promiscuous or saying she sells sex for money, both are pejorative. It is offensive to say to a woman that she is promiscuous no matter what euphemism you find acceptable.

The utterance of the words 'slut' and 'whore' are simply not offensive to all women, especially since many women have no qualms about using those words themselves as you acknowledged. Are you seriously implying that 'slut' and 'whore' are supposedly profane or vulgar in every usage, like the 'f' or 's' word? I'd argue that the concept of a certain arrangement of letters being vulgar (since what they actually refer to is not) is ridiculous, and we've already poisoned enough words already.

Would actual prostitutes object to the term 'whore' and say, 'Don't call me a 'whore', I'm a prostitute'? Is it pejorative in your mind to say, 'A lot of druggies and whores hang out on Hollywood Blvd?'

Well, there are connotations to each word that do make them mean different things. To "whore" can also mean to "compromise principles for personal gain," as in "She totally whored herself to her boss in order to make partner." You wouldn't ever say* "She totally prostituted herself to her boss in order to make partner" because the words can have diffent meanings, and only one of them is particularly perjorative.

*Although if our hypothetical "she" did in fact have sex with her boss for money in order to make money, I suppose the phrase would work.

===

And if you think those terms have never been used to slur the entire female gender (the way that the n-word is used to slur an entire race), then you really should go listen to Andrew Dice Clay's comedy, or Dr. Dre's albums. "Bitches Ain't Shit but Hos and Tricks"? Come on.

(And the way that I think it's okay for black people to call themselves whatever they want but getupset if white people call black people whatever they want, women have the same right contra men. Just because a woman wants to buy Bitch magazine and listen to Bitch by Merryl Bainbridge doesn't mean that she is somehow precluded from getting upset if a man tells her that bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.)

The issue with things like "you guys" is different than the issue with things like "nappy ho". The concern with the former is that the speaker means something synonymous with "you people", which may well be a legitimate concern, but that's a concern that should be addressable.

In both cases, it concerns whether someone's words will be viewed as offensive and racist, even if the speaker did not know or have any reason to know that it would be seen that way and cause offense. It also concerns a double standard, because, of course, if the person who says "nappy" or "you guys" is of the same race as the people who the words are being used to talk about, then no one will think that words were the product of offensive thoughts.

Even if the distinction you draw between "nappy" and "you guys" is a true difference, I still see the "you guys" trouble as a good example of how the speaker may not even suspect that the word or phrase has the potential to cause offense. It is possible that you wanted to limit your "responsibility should fall on the majority community" idea to words that a majority person suspects could always cause offense when coming from him/her, but I do not know why you would. If "nappy," for example, were only offensive in a certain usage or context, then the need to avoid offense would not deny anyone access to the vocabulary altogether, but it should shape the use of it, just as it would shape the circumstances under which "you guys" might be used. If there is an obligation to investigate, I don't see why it would make a difference whether the word is completely off limits or can only be used in certain ways.

"You guys" may or may not be an equivalent of "you people," as you claim. Even when race is not involved, I see "you people" as involving at least a little hostility, but "you guys" is just a way of dealing with the English language's lack of a separate word for the collective version of "you." If someone, in the course of a sentence, needs to use a pronoun to refer to the group to which she is speaking, there is no reason to assume on this basis alone that the use of "you" or "you guys" has any racial component to it or was the product of any hostile intent.

I have to just fundamentally reject the picture of the problem of racism as you're painting it, Karl, where you make it sound like there's one thing that is equally shared around by different racial groups.

I disagree with this characterization of my "painting." In my previous comment, I wrote, "every example of people separating themselves from each other along racial lines in either their minds or in some practice, is a symptom of the problem, but collectively, they make up attitudes and behaviors. They are not just a consequence -- they are the problem itself. They give everyone else a reason to think that it's just the way things are, and they create a pattern for themselves to adhere to in the future." This does not suggest that this is shared equally between any two races. I have no idea how to quantify it or express it as a ratio. What I have said is that this sense of division is an obstacle to solving the problem, regardless of where it is. This is as much a practical question as a moral one, and if the solution won't work, it isn't even a solution.

This way of thinking about the problem utterly fails to take into account the historical and ongoing problem of anti-black racism,

Actually, I acknowledged both that "This attitude is certainly a consequence of the problem" and that "it is possible for people who would have suffered many of the same experiences to feel a connection as a result." I also said that this attitude could only be successfully attacked along with the rest of the problem. I do not, however, agree with the implied conclusion that if it was caused by the problem, it cannot now be feeding the problem, or accept

...the different and specific moral obligations that this problem imposes...In the actual world we live in, whites have some substantial moral obligations to minorities for which there is no reciprocal obligation.

I suspect that I disagree with more in this than it is actually possible to respond to now, since I only have one explicit example of these substantial moral obligations without reciprocal obligations. In theory, though, I reject it on both moral and practical grounds.

This is wrong on moral grounds, first, because everyone has moral obligations to other people. They may not be reciprocal obligations (because they are the same obligations shared by everyone else, not those obligations' counterparts), but they exist. Among other things, there are obligations to be reasonable and civil in dealing with other people, and to avoid making judgments about a person, or at least to avoid judgments until one has something to base them on. These remain in effect between people of different races. These obligations do not arise as a counterpart to obligations that themselves arose out of history, but they exist. No one who I know, who is black, does not accept these basic obligations, at least to the same extent as people of other races seem to be meeting them.

Second, regarding the "substantial moral obligations" that "whites have," you point to history and to present racism to explain the origin of this obligation, but this argument does not follow from its basis to the conclusion. Its main failure is assuming that any moral blame or obligation can attach to a color of skin, unless you just meant to say that this is an application of the universal moral obligation to take an interest in justice and in what is happening in the rest of the world (and particularly the part of the world within one's reach) to the context that a person has light skin. In that case, I would just say that I do not think that this obligation could play out the way you would have indicated.

As for the practical objections, the attitude I discussed last night is a practical obstacle to solving the problem. Even if you can establish that a particular black person is justified in seeing his white neighbors as strangers who cannot be allowed to see "black dirty laundry" while seeing celebrities as close enough friends (provided that they are also black) that a secret can be shared between them, I do not know how you can deny that this is at least an obstacle to solving the problem, if not now a part of the problem itself. It is difficult to explain why without actually having a solution to examine, but whatever the solution will be, I think it will at least be necessary 1) for large parts of both of these races to be exposed to each other and to become familiar and comfortable with each other, to the point that this invented idea of "race" loses its mysterious power over them, 2) for it to be understood that culture and language are, at the very most, correlated with race, and are not truly connected to it in any meaningful sense, 3) for people of different races to somehow come to accept willing people from every other race as their equal partners in dealing with the remaining racists, and 4) for black people to believe, and to be justified in believing, that they are safe and that their rights and their place at this table are secure. This is not a real solution because I do not know how to accomplish these four things, and it is possible that something else would need to be done in addition to them. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine a solution succeeding without these four points, and the attitude of people who think like "Christopher Farley" would interfere with the first and third, at least. Every attitude or behavior that a person has that separates him or her from other people, along racial lines, whether in practice or just in the mind, would interfere with the solution.

You talk about how this is not an idealized world, and how we cannot just press a button, and you are right. However, I think that the path you seem to be advocating is impractical, and is like wishing for the magic button. If we don't have to defeat the "Christopher Farley" attitude as a part of the solution, then it will continue to be a factor in causing physical separation, preventing the formation of trust, and impeding communication. Also, even though people who are black did not create racism and doubtlessly wish it would go away, the "no reciprocal obligation" language, particularly in its use as a response to my criticism of the Christopher Farley attitude, would seem to reject any potential solution that would require a willingness to trust well-meaning white people who want an end to racism, to see these white people as their neighbors (for the lack of a more novel word for this) in general (though it could still rightly require white people to see black people as their neighbors), and for it to be possible to discuss all of these issues freely and openly. I think it would also reject potential solutions that depend in part on "thick skin."

This would increase what any solution would have to ask of white people collectively, and even if that is justifiable, it can make it unworkable. From a standpoint of practicality, how much self-awareness and sensitivity and verbal precision are we actually likely to eventually get out of most white people, in addition to a good-faith desire to make things better? People of the same race frequently speak imprecisely and offend each other by accident, and then overreact to the other person's reactions, and build simple misunderstandings into remarkable feuds. How are we going to get white people to do better than that on a mass scale? Also, even if you think that it is justified to impose "significant moral obligations" on them, and even if you were objectively right about this, it will be difficult to get a white person to agree to this if he thinks he is being treated unfairly. How will we make them drop these objections while causing them to proactively reach out across racial lines while changing their own behaviors, on a mass scale? How will we convince them to do this, on a mass scale, even when there is a risk that they will be called racist or insensitive for saying "you" or "you guys" or for stepping on some other landmine? This does not even have to sound probable to you for it to affect their willingness to go along with the plan. Will we be able to convince them to talk to the Christopher Farleys, who aren't eager to talk back, again, on a mass scale? Then, of course, there are the logistical problems of reaching so many white people and instructing them on what they need to do and what they need to avoid doing. We would need that magic button to make white people carry this burden on this scale, and as you said, there is no such button.

The solution is going to take a lot of effort, whatever it is, but I think it will become a lot harder, and possibly impossible, if addressing the "Christopher Farley" attitude and requesting tolerance for innocent errors are taken off the table.

Actually, 'prostituted' can be used just like you used the word 'whored', and I think the two examples you gave above are equally pejorative. Now if you want to contrast that with 'She compromised her principles to make partner', I'd agree that that is potentially less pejorative, only because 'whored' and 'prostituted' imply in their most common definitions that she had sex to get ahead.

I didn't say no one has ever used slut and whore to disparage all women, but if that's the criteria then we've got tons of words that are now supposedly pejorative; 'come on' indeed. No one is demanding for example that the nursery rhyme, 'Hickory Dickory Dock', be removed from children's books because Dice used it in his dirty (and stupid) rhymes.

"...doesn't mean that she is somehow precluded from getting upset if a man tells her that bitches ain't..."

I agree, for the same reason that she can get upset if a man tells her that women are worthless except as prostitutes; it's not the words that are pejorative in that case, it's the sentiment. Now if the same woman is having dinner with me and my girlfriend and I refer to my girlfriend as 'my bitch', I don't think she has the right to be upset; if she doesn't know whether I meant it as an affectionate or a disparaging term, then she shouldn't get upset if she inferred it incorrectly. And I think that ties in to what I implied earlier, that the use of the term 'ho' in rap songs does not always equate to the sentiment that 'women are pieces of meat'.

We're basically on the same page regarding "you guys", where there's nothing basically offensive about anyone's using the words, and it's _just_ a question of speaker's intent; that's why I was saying that such concerns should be addressable when they arise. My point was to _distinguish_ it from cases like "nappy ho", where the words themselves have an offensiveness.

The short answer to the rest of your post is that achieving your step (4) requires actions of white people that it does not require of black people -- it is _our_ obligation to create an environment where (4) is at least possible. And that our yielding any right to any say-so whatsoever over words like the n-word are an important part of creating that environment.

I agree that that particular word should not be used, which everyone over a particular age who is not a hermit should know of and should know is deeply offensive.

And regarding part (4), I essentially agree with that -- I do not think that it is in our hands alone, but I do assume that anyone who is black would already be doing everything that he can think of to secure their rights and their "place at the table," so any new effort on point (4) would have to come from people of other races.