 |
|
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
|
|
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: The Problem Runs Deeper Than Details (Score: 1)
by minotaar on Tuesday, April 20 @ 01:17:38 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Im not confused, but I would suggest another approach to voicing your concerns:
For expository reasons, you need to actually use the word Chink. However, since you only use it once, you dont give yourself the opportunity to demonstrate a subtle point.
For example, rather than saying
Consider the recent row in Philadelphia over requests by the Asian American community to change the name of a restaurant called “Chink’s Steaks.” Would there have been any objection to changing the name of a restaurant called “N--ger’s Steaks”?
You could use the word again, in censored form:
...a restaurant called “Chink’s Steaks.” C---k is an offensive racial slur, and, like all racial slurs, is offensive regardless of context. Would there have been any objection to changing the name of a restaurant called “N--ger’s Steaks”?
by using the word twice, once to state a fact, and once to subtly voice your opinion that the word should be censored, and by simultaneously putting your opinion in context and setting up for the next sentence, you drastically increase the power of this paragraph.
I realize that you were trying to use a vehicle, but I also feel that it is too easy to misinterpret, on a lower level, because use of Chink in its uncensored format implies, on some level, that even you dont censor it, even though you censor Nigger.
|
| Parent |
|
|
