Talk:Nigger/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 23 May 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Expansion

Does this article really need expansion? Neveruse513 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is embarassing. It should be gone. Matt oblong 23:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It's a very important word, for better, worse, or neutral, and deserves to be discussed rationally. I've restored all but one version which is censored because it is soooo extreme. TheRationalOne 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's such an important word to discuss on Rational Wiki then write something for it that has at least minimal insight. Cleaning your toilet is not censorship it is removing shit.Matt oblong 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia made a decent job of it, so why can't we? - π 23:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reason this article exists at all here is because it is a taboo word and someone thinks they're making some statement about anti-censorship by writing it. If the motive was to 'make a decent job of it' then I agree that it should be here. But that was not the motive and I don't see a problem in it being deleted until someone comes along and at least make a minimal attempt at providing some insight. Matt oblong 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't say "insight", only Schlafly uses that word to mean thing I pulled out of my arse. How about we add some facts. - π 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I take note of your wish to censor the word 'insight' which is of course typical of a liberal. Your use of speech marks rather than enclosing the word in quotes is also telling. Maybe you believe in dog murder? Matt oblong 23:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that was sarcasm. TheRationalOne 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as the page is treated well. I truly despise the use of the word in general, though. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

However deleting it would clear our lonely pages list. - π 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with pi, and I'm not sure how this has anything to do with anything on RW. Hence the loneliness. Lyra § talk 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I third the deleting. It doesn't serve any purpose on this wiki. Researcher 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with deletion. It adds nothing to the wiki. Corry 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Is this PC-Wiki? - Nasreddin 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not PC-wiki, but it doesn't come in line with the mission statements as such... does it? SJ ^Debaser 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I searched for "mission statements" but didn't find anything. Anyways, I see the fear of the word "nigger" as an instance of logophobia, and phobias are not rational, so I think this can and should be discussed, and snarked about. - Nasreddin 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Taboo words are generally ridiculous. We manage to have articles on cunt and fuck so why not nigger? It's not the word that's the problem it's what people do with it. All that sticking an asterisk in the middle of gOD nonsense drives me nuts. I vote keep but I'd be interested in SirChuck's view on that matter.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

I note about 6 votes for deletion, and about 2 for not deletion. That's not quite consensus, but I'll go ahead and delete it if there is no real argument against soon. Also going to put the tag on the page. Researcher 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone comes up with something to link to it, I'll be against deleting it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I added two links to it. One link is within context, the other is in the title of a song about racism, so I figure that one is ok, too. - Nasreddin 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete please. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Makes a good point about racism. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That we are so politically-correct as to worry more about people saying "nigger" than about more damaging race-discrimination; that race-discrimination is quietly tolerated so long as it is not expressed in overt forms. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but that should be added to the racism page - it's a phenomenon common to a lot of racist terms & not specific to this word. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here in the U.S., few words carry quite the level of stigma as does "nigger." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Makes a good point about racism/language, but people bicker about the article too much for my liking. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done a small rewrite to make it a bit less controversial. 92.9.227.235 19:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. What's the fuss? It's a "bad word", but we treat it fairly well. Oh, and researcher, where are you counting that 6:2 vote? (I'll probably find out as soon as I hit "save"...) ħuman 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It keeps logging me out for no good reason, but this is researcher. I counted myself, Matt Oblong, Pi, Lyra, SuperJosh, Corry, and Aboriginal Noise. I wasn't really sure about Pi or SuperJosh, but they at least seemed to lean that way, and thus the word "about" in it. 67.142.130.38 18:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I saw the discussion in the section above this one after saving. I was confused because I was looking at the bold "votes" in this section. Anyway, it's more about the "reasons" than the # of votes. ħuman 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Human et al. it's not a bad word (words by themselves cannot be bad) it's what people do with them and that makes them bad. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Needless fuss. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Great, the herd mentality once again. 6 V 2 is BS reasoning. Consensus is typically Wikipedian verbiage. Nonsense. So much for your collective abilities for 'higher reasoning'. Great example of why this website is slowly dying, your cleverest members rightly storming off in contempt (I'm thinking of the Dane here) Grow the hell up and stop playing at being 'rational'. MarcusCicero 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bohdan? He was a vandal, nothing more. Why the hell should we want him around? Ten times worse than you. -- 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he means AKjeldsen. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[At Cicero:] You gonna make any positive suggestions or just stomp around making contemptuous remarks about the site on multiple talk pages? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We're having a party and no-one invited the bog-blanket so he's knocking over all the ornaments.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Positive suggestion? Nah. Life's too short to care shit about an adolescent's hobby horse. MarcusCicero 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So, uh, what're you doing here? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Flare^Talk 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing here? I don't right know. Probably for the same reasons that you find conservapedia so amusing. MarcusCicero 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

MC, you must have a very sad, pathetic little life if all you have to do in your free time is try and stir up some shit on a marginal website.... Can't you at least funnel your energy into something positive? Go work on improving the rate of energy gathered from solar panels or somethings and let us get on. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 11:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That article right now

I see nothing wrong with having this article, but if we're gonna do it, we need to do it right. Give it the same level humor we give other topics or it's not worth the space it takes on the innertubes. Right now, the article reads somewhere in between an objective overview and (please excuse the expression) a terrified white guy afraid the NAACP is gonna come get him. So I'm gonna think on this and see what we can do to spice this up. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, SirChuck chimes in with the voice of actual reason and as usual I agree! If we're going to have an article on "nigger" can we please link it to Tim Minchin's song called "Taboo"? ^pathetic 11:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and plent of "taking it back" jokes a la Clerks 2. ^pathetic 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article now, it seems good and I can't see what the controversy is, just needs some references. Lonely, lonely, lonely. SJ ^Debaser 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the whole issue of the comedians and the "who can say it" issue, I have a personal frustration to "vent". I watch a lot of stand up type stuff on TV, and of course some of the black acts use the word, often profusely. And I like them because they're funny as hell. But we all also know that language is contagious, hearing/reading styles of language embeds them in our own "hyper vocabulary" (like reading too much WP makes me start "thinking" in 'cyclopedia-speak, how dull). So what watching these acts does is raise the dreaded word "up higher" in my potential vocabulary, making me 1. more comfortable with uttering it while discussing it, which carries a certain level of danger, and 2. more likely to accidentally use it in a "context" I learned on TV that doesn't quite fit in real life (a white guy saying it). I hope that one day those who are allowed to use the word will achive what the gays have done with "queer", where I feel safe using the word as long as my context isn't hateful. ħuman 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah this talk page has certainly helped me learn some things about certain people around here that I otherwise would not have expected, and I don't like it. Why would any white person 'need' to say this word? If you're not a black comedian you're not going to be using it in the same context no matter how hard you try (and please don't try hard with any blackface shennanigans!). Are you serious that you are glad you can say 'queer' now? As if you really wanted to say it before it was rehabilitated? I realize these comments are 13 years old but I am suprised nobody has said anything about them in all that time. Even if your 'wish' to use this word is completely 'innocent', even though it sure doesn't sound like it is, it's still ridiculously naive. Quentin Tarantino has said that he reason he puts this word in his movies so often is because he wants to dilute it's meaning by using it a lot or something... well who asked him to conduct this reckless social experiment?? If black people want to use this word that is their right, they've earned it. Nobody else has and nobody else will. But if we're going to hope for any change in the usage of this word, it should be hope that someday no black people will find the need to use it, rather than a hope that white people will someday get to use it again. FairDinkum (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rassismus

Benutzung von dieses Wort ist eine rassistische Volksverhetzung. Jemand, dass diesen Artikel geschrieben hat, werden zu einem Toleranzlager schicken. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the walls, my haddock is learning the accordion. Sophie^Wilder 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)