# Political correctness and substituting derogatory words in context



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 2, 2014)

I guess I have two questions. I'm setting my novel for over a period ranging from the 1950's to the early 1990's. In the earlier parts I will at a couple times be dealing with the subject of racism. This means I may have to use the dreaded N word on one or two occasions (As quotes from the racist elements). I'm just wondering if using this word in the context that it would have been used at the time would be acceptable in a novel setting now? I know there are mixed sentiments concerning To Kill a Mockingbird for example as the term is used 48 times from what I understand.
      The second question has to do with language in general. I am not really a fan of derogatory language (and especially the N word believe it or not) but sometimes my characters might be prone to the occasional F bomb if you will (not the gist of the story mind you but it will be there). Anyway will a piece of writing still work if instead of actually using the actual derogatory word I write the first letter and the proverbially used symbols as a substitute, instead of say sledgehammer (I'm using an example obviously) I write S#$%^% or something to that effect. I'm thinking that will work (now that I think about it that might solve my N word dilemma too) but I'd like to know what you think. Hope this wasn't too long a post. Thanks.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 2, 2014)

If your character would say "the N word", then use it. If they would say "sledgehammer", then use it. Do NOT use symbols - you're writing for adults, after all. 

That said, unless you're using first person, do not use those words as the narrator. The narrator should be neutral in that respect, and unfortunately, use of such terms could cause backlash on you as the author.


----------



## LeeC (Aug 2, 2014)

I can't really answer your first question because it goes to specific context and how other varying readers perceive it. There will always be dissenters, and you have to gage how well meaning your portrayal is. 

(ditto what shadowwalker said about the narrator)

As to the latter question, I see writing where foul language is used for the shock value, which to me may indicate that the story is weak. On the other hand I see writing where the story wouldn't be as powerful without the foul language. I tend write the kind of stories that include only the occasional mild language, and use phrases like "he uttered an oath" otherwise. So it's a judgement call, relative to what you're trying to accomplish ;-)


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 2, 2014)

I like the way Stephen King said it in On Writing.



> If you substitue "Oh sugar!" for "Oh shit! because you're thinking about the Legion of Decency, you are breaking the unspoken contract that exists between writer and reader--your promise to express the truth of how people act and talk through the medium of a made-up story.



Of course if the character is the type of person who wouldn't curse, then don't force them to. Let the characters say what they will.


----------



## Plasticweld (Aug 2, 2014)

My thought on this, not that it matters.  Is that saying the N word does not make you a raciest and more than saying Jesus Christ makes you a Christian.  I grew up with a  grandfather who used the word on a regular basis I doubt that it was any more than habit. When I write about him I repeat his words as I remember them, future generations my read what I have written about our family and to edit it would be dishonest.


----------



## escorial (Aug 2, 2014)

Recently read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and that words in there for sure...for me it's not a comfortable thing to read but in the context of where and when it was written i can appreciate that.....if i was to come across a modern book covering such topics i don't think i would read it..good luck with that a very tricky situation.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 2, 2014)

I'm usually against political correctness in the modern terms: you can't say black but Afro-American, etc., but, in your case, it's not about political correctness, I think it's more of a hate talk (I'm not saying you are a hater), or maybe even racism. I remember, when I was younger, I often had ideas, but threw them pretty easily because what will people think of me? Then I read Paulo Coelho's book (I'm not sure, but it might be Eleven Minutes) in which he said that a writer has to be true to himself; maybe some readers wouldn't like the theme, but you gotta write what you have. It encouraged me, and now I'm gonna encourage you: if you feel that's the natural flow of the story, and it belongs there, write it. Don't write it if you only want to provoke a reaction, it can turn against you pretty easily.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 2, 2014)

Use the word that the character would use. No matter what that word is. This rule is golden for any dialogue in any story. Cursing in the narration (unless it's first person) is always a different matter. But dialogue? You must say exactly what the character would say, especially when dealing with a subject like racism. If Mark Twain hadn't written it exactly as it was back then, his stories wouldn't be as eternal as they are, I guarantee it. Anyone who rallies against this type of in-dialogue cursing is prudent and afraid of the truth.

That said, if you use s*%# instead of shit, you're basically telling the reader you're too childish to use big-boy words. Don't do that.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 2, 2014)

Never think of words as 'dreaded'. You may not want to sound racist, but you're being lexist* if you don't use a word where it should be used (unless you're writing for children). Assess a word's effect in context, but don't be driven away from one in general because of its volatility.

Let your characters choose their words. Then they'll sound less like words and more like people.

*Discriminating against words, according to the COD (Cadence's Online Dictionary)


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 2, 2014)

Thank you. I am heartened by all your comments. I would be using all these words as quotes from the characters. I certainly agree with Schrody that the N-word definitely falls into the category of hate language but hopefully she will be heartened that that particular word is only going to be used as language from a character that is either a Klansman or at least a Klan sympathizer (not quite sure where I'm going with that yet). As for the derogatory language I am writing sections I am calling journals as well which will cover the thoughts of my eight major characters (pretty ambitious huh?) and some (not all) may use such language. One in particular will have a lot of anger as the story goes along. In any event there was never any way I'd use these words in my own narration. Again thanks for all your input.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 2, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Thank you. I am heartened by all your comments. I would be using all these words as quotes from the characters. I certainly agree with Schrody that the N-word definitely falls into the category of hate language but hopefully she will be heartened that that particular word is only going to be used as language from a character that is either a Klansman or at least a Klan sympathizer (not quite sure where I'm going with that yet). As for the derogatory language I am writing sections I am calling journals as well which will cover the thoughts of my eight major characters (pretty ambitious huh?) and some (not all) may use such language. One in particular will have a lot of anger as the story goes along. In any event there was never any way I'd use these words in my own narration. Again thanks for all your input.



I don't mind you writing that word, I would mind if it's only for the reaction


----------



## dale (Aug 2, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Thank you. I am heartened by all your comments. I would be using all these words as quotes from the characters. I certainly agree with Schrody that the N-word definitely falls into the category of hate language but hopefully she will be heartened that that particular word is only going to be used as language from a character that is either a Klansman or at least a Klan sympathizer (not quite sure where I'm going with that yet). As for the derogatory language I am writing sections I am calling journals as well which will cover the thoughts of my eight major characters (pretty ambitious huh?) and some (not all) may use such language. One in particular will have a lot of anger as the story goes along. In any event there was never any way I'd use these words in my own narration. Again thanks for all your input.



yeah. a klansman using the term "african-american" would sound quite corny and unrealistic. i hate political correctness in life and literature. it's dishonest to the core.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 2, 2014)

> it's dishonest to the core


A core of racism and hatred mightn't be always a bad thing to be dishonest to. Maintaining a certain level of decorum has always been deemed a societal requisite, probably since Cain and Abel. It's just a matter of compromising where to draw the lines. Like at historically accurate quotations, but not narrative editorialism.


----------



## dale (Aug 2, 2014)

ppsage said:


> A core of racism and hatred mightn't be always a bad thing to be dishonest to. Maintaining a certain level of decorum has always been deemed a societal requisite, probably since Cain and Abel. It's just a matter of compromising where to draw the lines. Like at historically accurate quotations, but not narrative editorialism.



i actually find racism and racial slurs laughable. they don't bother me in the least, simply because it's only white people who are held under scrutiny
for the practice, which is actually racist, in itself. it's a joke to me.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Aug 2, 2014)

Just do it, you should never hold back for PC's sake (unless you're actually racist, in that case, just stop writing all together). But also don't use it for the sake of just using it or shock value. Though you don't seem to be in danger of that. Use it if it adds to the moment.


----------



## Reject (Aug 2, 2014)

I agree, you would be doing your reader a disservice if you tried to hide the world and its unpleasant history from them.  If racism could not be written the BNP would not have a manifesto!


----------



## Schrody (Aug 2, 2014)

dale said:


> i actually find racism and racial slurs laughable. they don't bother me in the least, simply because it's only white people who are held under scrutiny
> for the practice, which is actually racist, in itself. it's a joke to me.



I don't know, racism always bothered me.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 2, 2014)

It actually bothers me too. That's partly why I asked the thread question. By the way Dale. I like the Beatles reference.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 2, 2014)

ppsage said:


> A core of racism and hatred mightn't be always a bad thing to be dishonest to. Maintaining a certain level of decorum has always been deemed a societal requisite, probably since Cain and Abel. It's just a matter of compromising where to draw the lines. Like at historically accurate quotations, but not narrative editorialism.



Yep. Decorum is almost always necessary. At a prior workplace, I had a coworker who was, by any standard, a narcissistic, arrogant, arrogant, lazy, cruel, and just unpleasant $&@!?. I never informed her of that fact, or even made much of a deal out of it, because no one needed the drama. On the other hand, if you wrote about the conversations I had with my wife about how my days at the office were going back then, the language would have to be salty.


----------



## aj47 (Aug 2, 2014)

Depends on the situation as much as the character.  At a lynching, he would use "nigger" but in a courtroom, "negro".  Just putting that out there.  Your characters will say what they will but in different situations their speech patterns may shift.  For example, my kids don't cuss around me thought I highly suspect them of cussing when there are no adults around.


----------



## dale (Aug 3, 2014)

Pidgeon84 said:


> (unless you're actually racist, in that case, just stop writing all together). .



with this attitude, there would be no HP Lovecraft. and without HP Lovecraft, the entire horror genre as we know it today would hardly exist at all.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 3, 2014)

dale said:


> with this attitude, there would be no HP Lovecraft. and without HP Lovecraft, the entire horror genre as we know it today would hardly exist at all.



Yeah, I really don't get into author's personal lives or beliefs. If they write well, that's all I care about. We're all just people, after all.


----------



## dale (Aug 3, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Yeah, I really don't get into author's personal lives or beliefs. If they write well, that's all I care about. We're all just people, after all.


i feel the same way. there are SO many writers, musicians, artists, etc, that i disagree with, as far as their beliefs and opinions; but love as far as their work.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 3, 2014)

dale said:


> with this attitude, there would be no HP Lovecraft. and without HP Lovecraft, the entire horror genre as we know it today would hardly exist at all.



Yep, but in his time it was desirable to talk like that, today isn't.


----------



## dale (Aug 3, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Yep, but in his time it was desirable to talk like that, today isn't.



i wouldn't say it was "desirable" to talk like that then, but maybe more acceptable. much like today, it's more acceptable for a black person
to talk against whites in a racist manner. it's "racist", either way. it's why i simply don't take racism seriously. a white racist doesn't bother me
anymore than a black racist does. or any other skin tone of racist. i find it humorous.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 3, 2014)

dale said:


> i wouldn't say it was "desirable" to talk like that then, but maybe more acceptable. much like today, it's more acceptable for a black person
> to talk against whites in a racist manner. it's "racist", either way. it's why i simply don't take racism seriously. a white racist doesn't bother me
> anymore than a black racist does. or any other skin tone of racist. i find it humorous.



I somehow have the feeling that if you weren't expressing that way, people thought you're "with them" (Afro - Americans), but, just a thought. I didn't live in those times. And yes, it's racist no matter which race are you.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 3, 2014)

Agreed. I abhor racism wherever it comes from.


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 3, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> ....This means I may have to use the dreaded N word on one or two occasions (As quotes from the racist elements).



Perish the thought! I'm flabberghasted! You wrote the "N word." Shame on you! For shame, terrible shame... We're not supposed to talk about that! It's verbotten! There should be a law or something to protect people from words.



> I'm just wondering if using this word in the context that it would have been used at the time would be acceptable in a novel setting now?



How are you going to write a novel about windmills if you don't use the word "windmill" or acknowledge that it even exists?



> I know there are mixed sentiments concerning To Kill a Mockingbird for example as the term is used 48 times from what I understand.



Mixed sentiments?

OK, be advised, this next bit isn't for everyone. Some will find it offensive: Those who have "mixed sentiments" about a period novel that uses period language are... Well, "ignorant" is too weak a word. They're people that are pursuing opportunities to take offense so that they can find some sort of personal reward in the subsequent feeling of righteous indignation because they don't get enough of it from news-reports of mass-killings, murders, molestations and rapes. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a period piece, a very important one. I suppose Alex Haley was supposed to write "Roots" without casting his eye on slavery?



> The second question has to do with language in general. I am not really a fan of derogatory language (and especially the N word believe it or not) but sometimes my characters might be prone to the occasional F bomb if you will (not the gist of the story mind you but it will be there). Anyway will a piece of writing still work if instead of actually using the actual derogatory word I write the first letter and the proverbially used symbols as a substitute, instead of say sledgehammer (I'm using an example obviously) I write S#$%^% or something to that effect. I'm thinking that will work (now that I think about it that might solve my N word dilemma too) but I'd like to know what you think. Hope this wasn't too long a post. Thanks.



Don't do this.

If you have to do that, then it's better that you just avoided the use of such language altogether. People do not say "$^@^#."

You are a writer. You are the conscience of our culture. You can not be that while simultaneously ignoring it. You can not be that if you refuse to acknowledge parts of it that may be distasteful. It's those parts of our culture, those that cause us pain or promote instability, that you're supposed to be able to examine. If you can't examine them and bring them out of the shadows in which they hide, then writing is doomed to be empty and futile. You do not have to stand on a soapbox and point an accusing finger in every story that you write. But, you must be afforded the ability to do so. Do not withdraw your pen in an effort to be "politically correct." Being "politically correct" is a _fad._


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 3, 2014)

I think you found the one word I would not put in an adult book. Pretty much everything everyone said is right, about honesty and not being PC and being true to the story. I liked the powerful emotion that word evokes, and I like being true to the times. But I finally came to... It's just not worth it. Do you want a child finding that passage? Does that word earn you a fast trip to the slush pile? If an African-American was really offended by that word, could you just think, "That's your problem"?

$^@^# is a problem for me as a reader because they use it in comic strips. "F- you" seems fine to me, and here I mean with the hyphen. The reader can fill in what's happening and deal with it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 3, 2014)

dale said:


> yeah. a klansman using the term "african-american" would sound quite corny and unrealistic. i hate political correctness in life and literature. it's dishonest to the core.



I am probably going to lose a popularity contest with this, but...

I think it's completely ridiculous that a writer even has to consider something like this. The last I knew, there are no lines in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that provides anyone _the right to not be offended_. But, because of the hyper sensitivity of small groups of people, there are now words that are considered "taboo" and have become the literary equivalent of Voldemort.

I understand the idea behind it, but that doesn't mean I think the Political Correct crowd is right.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 3, 2014)

> The last I knew, there are no lines in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights


Far as I know, you're free to use the words if you want, in your writing. It's not illegal. It's also not illegal to disparage you if you do. It's also not illegal to refuse to publish them. Your choice, if you think there's value in it. I think the OP is weighing the value. It's not a hard choice for me, but I think it is for some. My writing will not lose anything from refraining. I don't think there's much value in using them just to prove you can if you want. There might be some value in using them sometimes to establish historical context, but I'm pretty sure I could do that just as well, better, without using them. You can use them if you want and other people can decide if they want to read them or print them. So it's a reasonable consideration, what the effect will be on your works' readership and publication.


----------



## dale (Aug 3, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I am probably going to lose a popularity contest with this, but...
> 
> I think it's completely ridiculous that a writer even has to consider something like this. The last I knew, there are no lines in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that provides anyone _the right to not be offended_. But, because of the hyper sensitivity of small groups of people, there are now words that are considered "taboo" and have become the literary equivalent of Voldemort.
> 
> I understand the idea behind it, but that doesn't mean I think the Political Correct crowd is right.



 maybe the old "does art imitate life? or life imitate art" question is fitting. people have become fearful of the thought police and it's reflected in language. thus, the language arts, in imitating life, becomes fearful right along with it. i refuse to conform. ha ha. to me, letting the thought police dictate my art would show a lack of integrity i just can't justify.


----------



## voltigeur (Aug 3, 2014)

A really good example of this being done right is _Million Dollar Baby. _In the scene where we are introduced to Danger. Watch the exchange. We learn volumes about Morgan Freeman's character in about a 10th of a second. 

Great writing and great acting. 

It is exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 3, 2014)

I don't think people should use various words just for shock value. At the same time, I don't think words should _not _be used just because someone might find them offensive. (Note: that's in literature, not polite company.) Nor do I think writers should worry about who might accidentally pick up a book - that's up to parents, not authors. To me, there is nothing worse than reading pablum when red meat is required.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 4, 2014)

ppsage said:


> Far as I know, you're free to use the words if you want, in your writing. It's not illegal. It's also not illegal to disparage you if you do. It's also not illegal to refuse to publish them. Your choice, if you think there's value in it. I think the OP is weighing the value. It's not a hard choice for me, but I think it is for some. My writing will not lose anything from refraining. I don't think there's much value in using them just to prove you can if you want. There might be some value in using them sometimes to establish historical context, but I'm pretty sure I could do that just as well, better, without using them. You can use them if you want and other people can decide if they want to read them or print them. So it's a reasonable consideration, what the effect will be on your works' readership and publication.



I agree to a point. But, when we have to consider  words "value" based on nothing more than possible reaction to it, then we are no longer truly "free" to use some words. 

Freedom of Speech is being eroded by the PC crowd. 

Having said that, I agree there are some things that really don't need to be printed or even written unless they are _period correct and well within the norms of the time being written about._


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 4, 2014)

J Anfinson said:


> I like the way Stephen King said it in On Writing.
> 
> 
> > If you substitue "Oh sugar!" for "Oh shit! because you're thinking about the Legion of Decency, you are breaking the unspoken contract that exists between writer and reader--your promise to express the truth of how people act and talk through the medium of a made-up story.



But that's just the key - it's a made-up story.  Your characters can act however you want them to, because it's YOUR story.  The "truth of how people act" is whatever you want it to be.  Maybe your characters are smart enough to get express their feelings without profanity; mine certainly are.  Not a single person has told me my characters are unrealistic because they keep it clean.

The ability to get your point across without resorting to crutches is a major, major component in the art of writing.  You want to explore racism? Do it through actions, situations, and settings.  I remember a children's book called "Maniac Magee" that told the story of an orphan who ended up in a racially divided town - whites in one section, blacks in the other.  Racism was a huge theme in the book, and the author explored it quite well without using the N-word once.  Was he "not being true to the real world"? Of course not.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't think people should use various words just for shock value. At the same time, I don't think words should _not _be used just because someone might find them offensive.



Perfectly said, Shadow. As usual


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> But that's just the key - it's a made-up story.  Your characters can act however you want them to, because it's YOUR story.  The "truth of how people act" is whatever you want it to be.



But made-up doesn't need to mean unrealistic. "The truth of how people act" doesn't just affect realism, it affects whether people believe your story or not.

I'm reminded of a moment with my wife, we were watching the film "Death Proof" (any chance to talk about Kurt Russell, right Bruno?  ) and in it, Stuntman Mike gets shot. (Erm. Spoiler alert, in case you've not seen this 7 year old movie...) In the film, he kinda goes nuts with pain, gripping at his arm and screaming out in paralyzed agony, and basically looking like a total whimp, right down to the tears and of course many an f-bomb. He went from a total badass to a bitty coward with one gunshot wound. At that moment, my wife said, "Wow... someone acting _realistic _about being shot." in genuine surprise at the director's choice of making the psychotic killer "human". Despite my love for many an 80's action movie, the heroes do take a lot of bullets that they just go "Ugh!" and keep on fighting. 

My point? There's no better moment for a humongous F-bomb then the first time you take a bullet, no matter how smart or refined you are. If, out of nowhere, you got shot in the arm, leg, chest, anywhere that you might feel it without dying, the last thing on your mind is going to be "Oh, fluffer nuggets."


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 4, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I remember a children's book called "Maniac Magee"



The key point here being "a children's book". As a parent, no, I wouldn't want my child reading adult language in a children's book. As an adult, I have no problem reading adult language in a book for adults.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> But that's just the key - it's a made-up story.  Your characters can act however you want them to, because it's YOUR story.  The "truth of how people act" is whatever you want it to be.  Maybe your characters are smart enough to get express their feelings without profanity; mine certainly are.  Not a single person has told me my characters are unrealistic because they keep it clean.
> 
> The ability to get your point across without resorting to crutches is a major, major component in the art of writing.  You want to explore racism? Do it through actions, situations, and settings.  I remember a children's book called "Maniac Magee" that told the story of an orphan who ended up in a racially divided town - whites in one section, blacks in the other.  Racism was a huge theme in the book, and the author explored it quite well without using the N-word once.  Was he "not being true to the real world"? Of course not.



The style, genre, and POV of the book have an enormous impact on the choice of language used. It is not a 'crutch' to use profanity, or racial epithets in a book where the setting and characters would typically use them. My book is set against the backdrop of high-stakes dog fighting and several major characters are gang members, ex-cons, and drug users. The f-bomb is dropped with regularity, and a violent white supremacist uses the n-word a couple of times. I would have been a coward to not use that language for those characters.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 4, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I am probably going to lose a popularity contest with this, but...
> 
> I think it's completely ridiculous that a writer even has to consider something like this. The last I knew, there are no lines in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that provides anyone _the right to not be offended_. But, because of the hyper sensitivity of small groups of people, there are now words that are considered "taboo" and have become the literary equivalent of Voldemort.
> 
> I understand the idea behind it, but that doesn't mean I think the Political Correct crowd is right.



I agree with you T.S., but I know I wouldn't be comfortable using that word. Hell, I even changed my black dealer into a white (probably because there are only a few of black people in my country, and on the TV it's always a black dealer/pimp, so it could be a media influence), because I thought someone might get offended. Finally, I just described a dealer without mentioning the color of his skin, but his race isn't even important for the story, he's just a passing by character.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 4, 2014)

King's point is that characters should act accordingly. Some people use profanity, some don't. If a long-time sailor smashes his thumb, it's not very believable for the dialogue to say, "Golly gee darn." Not to me, anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 4, 2014)

Schrody said:


> I agree with you T.S., but I know I wouldn't be comfortable using that word. Hell, I even changed my black dealer into a white (probably because there are only a few of black people in my country, and on the TV it's always a black dealer/pimp, so it could be a media influence), because I thought someone might get offended. Finally, I just described a dealer without mentioning the color of his skin, but his race isn't even important for the story, he's just a passing by character.



I guess my biggest concern would be about offending African Americans in particular but I can't help but think that no matter what you write you are bound to offend somebody.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 4, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> I guess my biggest concern would be about offending African Americans in particular but I can't help but think that no matter what you write you are bound to offend somebody.



You're gonna offend someone just by your mere existence


----------



## dale (Aug 4, 2014)

Schrody said:


> You're gonna offend someone just by your mere existence



yep. banana activists used to hate you because of your banana exploitation in selfie pics. now? the pineapple activists totally despise you.
so...who's next on your fruit hit list, schrody?


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 4, 2014)

> *OP Dale.* yeah. a klansman using the term "african-american" would sound quite corny and unrealistic.


Unless it is an educated racist using an ironic tone.

I remember an old black and white film, possibly the Damn Busters, in which a Labrador was called N...., it certainly drew my attention. While I concede the case for using the word in context, I will caution you that it will have an out-of-proportion impact on readers like me. Like all explosives it should be used cautiously.


----------



## dale (Aug 4, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> Unless it is an educated racist using an ironic tone.
> 
> I remember an old black and white film, possibly the Damn Busters, in which a Labrador was called N...., it certainly drew my attention. While I concede the case for using the word in context, I will caution you that it will have an out-of-proportion impact on readers like me. Like all explosives it should be used cautiously.



was it a yellow lab?


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 4, 2014)

> *OP Dale.* was it a yellow lab?


How should I know, it was a black and white film. It was dark in colour.


----------



## Schrody (Aug 4, 2014)

dale said:


> yep. banana activists used to hate you because of your banana exploitation in selfie pics. now? the pineapple activists totally despise you.
> so...who's next on your fruit hit list, schrody?



I don't know, I'm trying to figure it out


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 4, 2014)

Hey Schrody..I am allergic to Mango. I say you go after those bastards next!


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 4, 2014)

If I read a book where someone actually substituted shit or anything like that I would throw the book away and avoid the author. I can't stand people getting offended unless someone is directly addressing them. I'm envious of those who do get offended, though, they must have pretty swish lives to actually find the time to make something like that a big deal. Use whatever words you want because they are just words and words are really stupid, I think


----------



## aj47 (Aug 4, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I agree to a point. But, when we have to consider  words "value" based on nothing more than possible reaction to it, then we are no longer truly "free" to use some words.
> 
> Freedom of Speech is being eroded by the PC crowd.



Actually it's not.  It's just the words deemed "offensive" are changing.  On the way home from the convenience store, we listened to a country music station.  They played Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue" and, since it was a live recording at a prison, there was a bleep.  My mother said that what he sang was "son of a bitch".  

Also the radio version of "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" has the boy, "Johnny" say, "I told you once, you son-of-a-gun..." and there are recorded version where he says "son-of-a-bitch" instead.  

Our classic rock station replaces "-shit" in Pink Floyd's "Money" with silence.

During the 1950's the Cincinnati Reds baseball team was generally referred to as the "Redlegs" because of the association between the word "red" and Communism.  

Not to mention "Victory cabbage" and the like.

It's not a new thing, it's been that way. What usually is referred to as "political correctness" is better described as common politeness. I don't call anybody a "nigger" because it's rude.  Not because someone thinks it's the One Right Way.

If you want to use a word, use it.  But recognize that all words have connotations and associations. Don't be surprised if your readers bring those connotations and associations to the table.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 4, 2014)

I'm with Annie here. 

Also, without getting into a discussion about the meaning of freedom, as someone subjected to two semesters of Constitutional Law and multiple bar exams (happily only one per state), I can say with some confidence that in the US the First Amendment's protection of free speech applies only to governmental power. There is no constitutional right to have people listen to you, agree with you, not tell you that you are wrong or to not be offended.

All that said, sometimes good writing has to offend. The question is, who are you going to offend? 

I prefer to not offend those with a hard enough way to go in life without me piling on, but I know that I sometimes come up short or misspeak myself.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 5, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I prefer to not offend those with a hard enough way to go in life without me piling on, but I know that I sometimes come up short or misspeak myself.



Then again, if the character using offensive language is not the "Good Guy" of the story, it's not really "piling on", is it? It's showing another aspect of the "Bad Guy". If someone says to me, "Your character shouldn't use that word because it's offensive", my response will inevitably be, "Yes, but then, my character is offensive.".


----------



## Schrody (Aug 5, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Hey Schrody..I am allergic to Mango. I say you go after those bastards next!



I don't like mango, so mango loves beware!


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 5, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Then again, if the character using offensive language is not the "Good Guy" of the story, it's not really "piling on", is it? It's showing another aspect of the "Bad Guy". If someone says to me, "Your character shouldn't use that word because it's offensive", my response will inevitably be, "Yes, but then, my character is offensive.".



I agree 100%, shadow. If you can't make the Bad Guy bad, it is hard for the Good Guy to be good. I hope that all outrage I inspire is more from substance than semantics, which is a pretty high ambition, I know.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 5, 2014)

astroannie said:


> During the 1950's the Cincinnati Reds baseball team was generally referred to as the "Redlegs" because of the association between the word "red" and Communism.



Most of your post is quite accurate. However, the part I quoted isn't.

_"The Cincinnati Red Stockings left the American Association on November 14, 1889 and joined the National League"

_I live just a few minutes from Cincy and being a baseball fan (I can get away with being a Tigers fan as well as a Reds fan because they are in different leagues) I know the reason that the Reds were and still occasionally are called the Redlegs has absolutely nothing to do with communism. 



> It's not a new thing, it's been that way. What usually is referred to as "political correctness" is better described as common politeness. I don't call anybody a "nigger" because it's rude.  Not because someone thinks it's the One Right Way.



Political Correctness is less like common politeness than it is a "We know what's good for you better than you do" attitude on the part of a vocal minority who manages to grab the ears of the politicians.

And who was it that convinced you it's "rude?" Parents? A very loud group of people saying so? 

This is pretty much the same thing as the uproar about the Washington Redskins. Even though there is a huge number of Native Americans (and I don't call them that because I think the word Indian is wrong or rude, but because they were here first) that simply don't give a rat's ass, along with a large number of them who have said they don't mind it, a vocal minority is creating a controversy where none need be.

Are we, as writers, to stop using a word when ten people find it offensive? 100 people? 10,000? When is it determined that a word isn't "proper?"



> If you want to use a word, use it.  But recognize that all words have connotations and associations. Don't be surprised if your readers bring those connotations and associations to the table.



But who gave them those "connotations and associations?" 

Most "offensive" words would not have nearly the power they have been given if it weren't for a group of people who are/were overly sensitive.


----------



## aj47 (Aug 5, 2014)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/29/greene.redlegs/


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 5, 2014)

astroannie said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/29/greene.redlegs/



Seriously, Annie..I _live_ here. 

Link all you want. The "Redlegs" originated with the original team name. Nothing more.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 5, 2014)

The article she links to is kind of persuasive.

"For six seasons during the 1950s, though, the official name of the team was changed to the Cincinnati Redlegs."

"I don't think the younger fans make the association between the name 'Reds' and the anti-communist Red Scare of the 1950s," said Greg Rhodes, the team's official historian. "But that was the reason, no question about it -- the team's management did not want anyone to mix the ball club up with anything that had to do with communism.


----------



## dale (Aug 5, 2014)

well, to hell with the redlegs, anyway. we have the same type thing going on in the NFL now. it is going to infuriate me if the washington
redskins are manipulated into changing their name. it will damn near make me stop watching football, which to me is one of life's great joys.
i get pissed just thinking about that these whiny, overly sensitive wusses would actually coerce the team into changing that name.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 5, 2014)

I am a white guy who doesn't care for the name of the Washington NFL team, but that name is only the fourth or fifth worst thing about the league.


----------



## dale (Aug 5, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I am a white guy who doesn't care for the name of the Washington NFL team, but that name is only the fourth or fifth worst thing about the league.



the name was never meant as a sign of disrespect and still isn't. all the indian related names were chosen because the indians were known as
proud and fierce warriors. it was a show of honor and respect to the indians, and still is. all these people wanting it changed obviously have nothing 
better to do in life than sit around and think of ways to cause division and problems. the only people in this country that get offended at stuff like
this are people who either WANT to be offended or have been conditioned to be offended.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 5, 2014)

dale said:


> the name was never meant as a sign of disrespect and still isn't. all the indian related names were chosen because the indians were known as
> proud and fierce warriors. it was a show of honor and respect to the indians, and still is. all these people wanting it changed obviously have nothing
> better to do in life than sit around and think of ways to cause division and problems. the only people in this country that get offended at stuff like
> this are people who either WANT to be offended or have been conditioned to be offended.



I can't possibly say with confidence what someone's intent is or was, especially someone from long ago. I can say that times change. 

To to the point of the thread, however, if I was writing fiction about an NFL fan living in DC, the dialogue ought to be realistic in its terminology. What I do in my own life with my leisure time and money is a different matter entirely.


----------



## aj47 (Aug 5, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> And who was it that convinced you it's "rude?" Parents? A very loud group of people saying so?



Calling someone something they don't want to be called is rude. Especially if you know and choose to do it deliberately.



> But who gave them those "connotations and associations?"



It doesn't matter whether they come from Latin roots or Cockney rhyming slang, the point is they're there. As a writer you are aware of them.  How you deal with that is up to you. 

And that's my point.  You choose what to write. Pretending someone else is choosing for you is just that--pretense. If you want to write Great Literature or pulp fiction or what-have-you, it's your choice, no one else's.

And if you want to use offensive language, the only person stopping you is YOU.


----------



## Mutimir (Aug 5, 2014)

I don't believe you should. You'll just trivialize it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 5, 2014)

I don't disagree with that idea, annie.

It's just that, when a writer has to choose his or her words based on their "value" (as in,would it be worth taking the chance on offending someone) rather than whether or not they fit into and lend realism to the story, then there is something wrong with the way the world is working. 

It's gotten to the point where you almost have to consider EVERY word you write very carefully for fear of someone taking offense to it.

Just for the record, you will not see the word 'nigger' (or any other slur..at least until someone reads my stories...someone will probably get offended by the word 'dragon' since I have yet to see the PC name for them) anywhere in any of my work. I don't use the words in real life and I really wouldn't find much place for it in the fantasy world I have created. 

So I suppose I am just playing Devil's Advocate at this point.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 5, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I can't possibly say with confidence what someone's intent is or was, especially someone from long ago. I can say that times change.
> 
> To to the point of the thread, however, if I was writing fiction about an NFL fan living in DC, the dialogue ought to be realistic in its terminology. What I do in my own life with my leisure time and money is a different matter entirely.



But why, when the vast majority of Native Americans could give two poops about the whole thing, are you offended by it? If they aren't bothered, why are you? 

Because someone convinced you that you should be?

I am a white dude, and I don't care what the team is called. It doesn't directly effect my life and forcing the team to change it's name wouldn't change that. 

Again, I am basically playing Devil's Advocate here. But I am also genuinely curious about people's reasons for getting offended by something that has no bearing on their personal lives.


----------



## Mutimir (Aug 5, 2014)

dale said:


> the name was never meant as a sign of disrespect and still isn't. all the indian related names were chosen because the indians were known as
> proud and fierce warriors. it was a show of honor and respect to the indians, and still is. all these people wanting it changed obviously have nothing
> better to do in life than sit around and think of ways to cause division and problems. the only people in this country that get offended at stuff like
> this are people who either WANT to be offended or have been conditioned to be offended.



Yeah, it was just a coincidence that it's also a derogatory word for Native Americans. Come on people!


----------



## Mutimir (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> But why, when the vast majority of Native Americans could give two poops about the whole thing, are you offended by it? If they aren't bothered, why are you?
> 
> Because someone convinced you that you should be?
> 
> ...



Hasn't America done enough to destroy Native Americans? We essentially wiped out the majority of them. 

Even if it is minority that cares, I think that minority deserves some respect.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 6, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> Hasn't America done enough to destroy Native Americans? We essentially wiped out the majority of them.
> 
> Even if it is minority that cares, I think that minority deserves some respect.



And that sentiment is why there are so many things going wrong with America right now.

Whatever happened to "majority rules?" If the majority doesn't care about a name or logo, then _respect _the opinion of the minority, but don't allow them to dictate the rule.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 6, 2014)

All the more pertinent considerations aside, of historical usage and so forth, I really don't think everybody takes having an entertainment troupe of steroid laced media idols named after them as a sign of respect. The things that teams are normally named for symbolize brute force or animal cunning or stubborn resistance and really aren't the sorts of things which favorably characterize a whole culture.


----------



## Jon M (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> And that sentiment is why there are so many things going wrong with America right now.
> 
> Whatever happened to "majority rules?"


Sure. Until you happen to find yourself in the minority. Over. And over. And over again. Then I suppose you might tire of the whole gentlemanly, take-one-for-the-team, stand-up guy routine. By then the "majority" might really leave a bitter taste in your mouth. 

"Majority rules", as a general notion, can be a slippery slope if we aren't careful. You can't march around with blinders on, spouting "Majority rules! Majority rules!" without thinking about where the majority might one day lead you.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 6, 2014)

Jon M said:


> Sure. Until you happen to find yourself in the minority. Over. And over. And over again. Then I suppose you might tire of the whole gentlemanly, take-one-for-the-team, stand-up guy routine. By then the "majority" might really leave a bitter taste in your mouth.
> 
> "Majority rules", as a general notion, can be a slippery slope if we aren't careful. You can't march around with blinders on, spouting "Majority rules! Majority rules!" without thinking about where the majority might one day lead you.



True enough. But when the minority begins to be heard INSTEAD of the majority, which is becoming the case more and more, that same slippery slope appears.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 6, 2014)

I think I'll take the time to post a reminder to keep this thread on topic. Debates are against WF policy. Anyone from this point further who doesn't will receive an infraction. You've been warned.


----------



## dale (Aug 6, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> Yeah, it was just a coincidence that it's also a derogatory word for Native Americans. Come on people!


 . 

edit: nevermind.


----------



## aj47 (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I don't disagree with that idea, annie.
> 
> It's just that, when a writer has to choose his or her words based on their "value" (as in,would it be worth taking the chance on offending someone) rather than whether or not they fit into and lend realism to the story, then there is something wrong with the way the world is working.



But a writer doesn't have to think like that.  Just because that's how *you *approach writing doesn't mean the rest of us spend a lot of time weighing what we're going to say and what our characters are going to say in the context you're presenting. My characters generally tell me what they're going to say, not the other way around.  

All I'm saying is if you're going out of your way to use language considered to be offensive--then expect someone to be offended.  If you're not, then don't worry about it.  If someone reads your writing and is offended--well, they've read it. And isn't that part of your goal as a writer? To be read?


----------



## spartan928 (Aug 6, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> I guess my biggest concern would be about offending African Americans in particular but I can't help but think that no matter what you write you are bound to offend somebody.



Consider that African Americans, who may generally find such a word offensive, are capable of reading in literary context. Your goal isn't to write for people who can't, so don't fret. Write your story as you need.


----------



## Apex (Aug 6, 2014)

I write fiction as non-fiction. My characters are real people, who act,  and speak as living people. All I ask of a reader; "If my work offends  you, please put my book back on the shelf, and seek what pleases you on  ails two, and three."


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 6, 2014)

And that's the thing. I really am shooting for realism in my writing as well. If I writing about something that might have hypothetically happened in the 1950's or early 1960's I want it to appear as authentic as possible. Again thanks for all the advice.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 6, 2014)

astroannie said:


> But a writer doesn't have to think like that.  Just because that's how *you *approach writing doesn't mean the rest of us spend a lot of time weighing what we're going to say and what our characters are going to say in the context you're presenting. My characters generally tell me what they're going to say, not the other way around.
> 
> All I'm saying is if you're going out of your way to use language considered to be offensive--then expect someone to be offended.  If you're not, then don't worry about it.  If someone reads your writing and is offended--well, they've read it. And isn't that part of your goal as a writer? To be read?



Heh. I agree with you. And I never said anything about that approach being the way I approach things. 

I have never really worried much about offending anyone. I don't go out of my way to offend, of course. But I don't mince words very often either.

Like I said, I was pretty much just playing Defil's Advocate and presenting another side of things.


----------



## Mutimir (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> And that sentiment is why there are so many things going wrong with America right now.
> 
> Whatever happened to "majority rules?" If the majority doesn't care about a name or logo, then _respect _the opinion of the minority, but don't allow them to dictate the rule.



So the majority that are indifferent on the subject rule those that are offended? That sounds so insane to me. I think what's wrong with America is how steadfast people stand behind flawed polls.


----------



## aj47 (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Whatever happened to "majority rules?" If the majority doesn't care about a name or logo, then _respect _the opinion of the minority, but don't allow them to dictate the rule.



The majority doesn't care one way or the other.  Really.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 6, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> So the majority that are indifferent on the subject rule those that are offended? That sounds so insane to me. I think what's wrong with America is how steadfast people stand behind flawed polls.



Since when do people have the right to not be offended? And since when should the opinions of the minority trump the opinions of the majority?

I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find people that are offended by t-shirts.  Does that mean we should all stop wearing them, just to appease that minority?

And if you say to that, "But of course that's ridiculous!", well, you're in the indifferent majority, aren't you? Who are you to say what's ridiculous and what isn't?


----------



## E. Zamora (Aug 6, 2014)

I don't think any group of people was denied basic rights or considered less than human because they wore t-shirts.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 6, 2014)

Be careful playing the devil's advocate, TS. 

InstituteWoman will ask me, "why does [person or group both of us disagree with] say we should [do something we both consider to be batshit crazy]?" Having been trained to argue all sides of an issue, I will gamely explain my understanding of the [in my mind idiotic take on the] position, and pretty soon we are in a pitched discussion with me on a side that I firmly believe should lose.

Moral: sometimes your spouse knows exactly how to get you wound up. Also, be careful advocating for a devil.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 6, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> So the majority that are indifferent on the subject rule those that are offended? That sounds so insane to me. I think what's wrong with America is how steadfast people stand behind flawed polls.



And I am pretty sure that both sides of ANY issue are guilty of exactly that. The Liberal bunch has their pet polls and so do the Conservatives.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 6, 2014)

astroannie said:


> The majority doesn't care one way or the other.  Really.



That's exactly the point. The vast majority, even of those who would seemingly be directly effected, don't care. It doesn't bother them. So what's happening is that we, as a country, are allowing a very small, vocal minority, to dictate for everyone else.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 6, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Be careful playing the devil's advocate, TS.
> 
> InstituteWoman will ask me, "why does [person or group both of us disagree with] say we should [do something we both consider to be batshit crazy]?" Having been trained to argue all sides of an issue, I will gamely explain my understanding of the [in my mind idiotic take on the] position, and pretty soon we are in a pitched discussion with me on a side that I firmly believe should lose.
> 
> Moral: sometimes your spouse knows exactly how to get you wound up. Also, be careful advocating for a devil.



Hah. That's why I don't hangout on sites with my spouse and I avoid conversations like that as if they were plague ridden rats. LOL


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 6, 2014)

Fun how people who pontificate about how "the vast majority" of a minority group "not caring so much" about the use of horrid invective and blatant racial slurs are usually not part of that group. 

Probably best to use common sense when it comes to the OP's question. If you're uncertain about whether your words will be taken as flippant or incendiary, there's a good chance they will be. Why not err on the side of getting through the gauntlet? Those that say "Majority rules!" and "Fall on thy sword!" and "Death before caving to the sensibilities of oppressed peoples!" are probably not getting their work taken seriously. I'd save the N-bombs and other stuff for whatever brash works you want to write once you're more established, if you must. 

Can you imagine what the world will be like once the wrinkly white guys are a minority and must finally embrace multiculturalism and diversity and the "Majority rules!" business is no longer license to invoke pseudo-patriotic invective? But then again, I live in an area that's sort of a microcosmic sociological experiment and tend to lean away from the repulsive state of affairs here. Heard a guy the other day at a job site railing against WBE businesses, saying stuff like, "Women really should just stay home, like Mother did." Whew. Good thing the vocal minority has been able to effect change over the years. It directly affects me, as I've been working for a WBE for six years. 

Digressions.


----------



## E. Zamora (Aug 6, 2014)

Take the "redskin" for example. The label is nothing like warrior or brave or Seminole. 

Unlike those words,  "redskin" was actually used in documents used set bounties on native Americans. It's much like "colored," which sounds relatively benign, but it was the official language of the Jim Crow era. 

Both words have a history of use as pejoratives, and both were used to classify people as less than human. Is is OK to use redskin for a team name because some people aren't aware of how it was used in the past? I don't think so. 

I think it's entirely reasonable for any number of Native Americans to object to a label used in a  time when they driven off their lands or killed for a bounty. And ignorance is not an excuse to shrug your shoulders or say the majority should have their way.


----------



## Mutimir (Aug 6, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Since when do people have the right to not be offended? And since when should the opinions of the minority trump the opinions of the majority?
> 
> I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find people that are offended by t-shirts.  Does that mean we should all stop wearing them, just to appease that minority?
> 
> And if you say to that, "But of course that's ridiculous!", well, you're in the indifferent majority, aren't you? Who are you to say what's ridiculous and what isn't?



Interesting. However, if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. Wouldn't we?


----------



## Mutimir (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> And I am pretty sure that both sides of ANY issue are guilty of exactly that. The Liberal bunch has their pet polls and so do the Conservatives.



Good to hear. So you agree the poll you're referencing is invalid. So what exactly are you trying to defend?


----------



## aj47 (Aug 6, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> That's exactly the point. The vast majority, even of those who would seemingly be directly effected, don't care. It doesn't bother them. So what's happening is that we, as a country, are allowing a very small, vocal minority, to dictate for everyone else.



*We* are not.  You may be.


----------



## dale (Aug 6, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> Take the "redskin" for example. The label is nothing like warrior or brave or Seminole.
> 
> Unlike those words,  "redskin" was actually used in documents used set bounties on native Americans. It's much like "colored," which sounds relatively benign, but it was the official language of the Jim Crow era.
> 
> ...



yeah. it really grinds my gears when i get called a "paleface". i get so sensitive about that. sometimes i wanna cry on my mom's shoulder about it.


----------



## E. Zamora (Aug 6, 2014)

Pale faces were never killed for a bounty set by the U.S government. Pale faces didn't die by the thousands as they were driven of their lands. Pale faces were never considered subhuman. Pale faces in the U.S. never had to suffer because of the color of their skin. You can't equate the two labels.

I doubt any Native Americans are crying. It's simpley about respect and good manners. Would you call a black person colored to his face? I'm guessing you wouldn't. So why is "redskin" OK, considering that it was used specifically as a pejorative in the same way?


----------



## dale (Aug 6, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> Pale faces were never killed for a bounty set by the U.S government. Pale faces didn't die by the thousands as they were driven of their lands. Pale faces were never considered subhuman. Pale faces in the U.S. never had to suffer because of the color of their skin. You can't equate the two labels.
> 
> I doubt any Native Americans are crying. It's simpley about respect and good manners. Would you call a black person colored to his face? I'm guessing you wouldn't. So why is "redskin" OK, considering that it was used specifically as a pejorative in same way?



actually, i've called black people worse than that to their face..if they deserved it. i live in urban indianapolis and much of my life has been spent in neighborhoods where I'M the minority. that pretty little girl you see in my avatar? 1/4 black. my ex-wife is a mulatto. most of the people that cry about this crap? are whites who live in gated communities, and don't even know what it's like to be in a situation like mine. they live in their little white-bred worlds and think themselves SOOOO noble for playing this race-baiting bull. me? i live in the mixed race world. my best friend in the world is a black man. my ex is 1'2 black, and my daughter is mixed....and none of them are weak-minded enough to think something as trivial as a ball team being named the "redskins" is a big deal.


----------



## E. Zamora (Aug 6, 2014)

"Oh, I live around black people so I can say anything I want!" 

Funny.

I love that line of bull people use about all their associations with  black and mixed race people etc. So what? That doesn't make any difference. And don't assume anything about me. Because I'm betting I can easily trump your hand of race cards; but I just don't think it matters.

Anyway, this isn't about writing; and I'm not going to change your mind. So I'm done.


----------



## dale (Aug 6, 2014)

E. Zamora said:


> "Oh, I live around black people so I can say anything I want!"
> 
> Funny.
> 
> ...


no. i can say what i want because it's my privilege as an american. but that privilege is constantly being taken away. but i don't care. 
i'll still say what i want. jail me or kill me or ostracize me. i know who i am. and i'm not ashamed. if anyone has a problem with what i say?
 then they must have their own shame they're desperately trying to lay at my feet. but i don't need your shame. keep it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 7, 2014)

Wow, go away for a bit and look what happens...

Personally, I don't like slurs used against anyone - including white people. It's not a matter of sensitivity - it's a matter of civility. However, in writing, I can only repeat what I said earlier - don't use a word for shock value, don't not use it for fear of offending. Be true to the story and the characters in it.


----------



## dale (Aug 7, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Wow, go away for a bit and look what happens...



*snicker* ok. now i'm at the point where everything's funny.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 7, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> Good to hear. So you agree the poll you're referencing is invalid. So what exactly are you trying to defend?



Just because the poll I reference says something that doesn't agree with the poll you reference doesn't make the results any less valid.

And on that note, since this thread has now devolved into the normal crap that always seems to happen in a discussion like this, I'll take my leave.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 7, 2014)

Seeing as the original question has been answered, this thread is now closed. Debates are against WF policy and continuing to do so after a warning is not acceptable, by any means. The fact that such action had to be taken is inexcusable. For future reference, please remember to keep the rules in mind so such action does not have to occur in the future.


----------

