The Policy Blender

Well, at least we've all stopped short of the 'n' word. And it's clearly not a mistake to use racist language if that's what you had intended to do anyway - even if it's just to provoke a reaction from Chris.

Keep at it guys! Fight - fight - fight!

Can I just check on a more serious note:

Chris - Your point is that some words have been used in such a way in the past that using them now can't really be separated from their former use, whatever your intention, whether you mean to be insulting or merely flippant?

Ben - Your point was either...1) The words you use shouldn't have any stigma attached to them, as long as you don't use them in a way which comes across as insulting... 2) They're at least as inconsiderate of the sensitivities of a white Christian community, so why should we go out of our way to appease them?...3) Bloody sand-niggers, all suicide bombers the lot of them.

I think they're all tenable positions. Except that last one.

Matt - in answer to your question 1) yes; 2) don't care; and 3) because of my answers to one and two, and my explanation below, yes.

Your point one is the closest to how I feel about language. The use of language is an art, and - as you can probably tell from my position on legislating against things - I'm a book writer rather than a book burner.

One of the key points about art is that, beside being pleasing to the eye, or not in many cases, it provokes a reaction, an emotion, a window into someone else's view of the world. Most of all, language, just like art, is a method of communicating.

If we ban the use of language over a certain issue we limit our capacity to communicate our ideas. Of course, our choice of words represents our position, passion and understanding (or lack of) over an issue, just as an artist chooses to use graphic bloody or sexual images to communicate - no one credible now calls for the censorship of the work of Goya or the Chapman Brothers for example. If our explicit choice of words determines precisely what we want to convey, then surely we stand a better chance of communicating our feelings over an issue than if we were forced into bland and ambiguous terminology. The latter is derogative to honest and frank discussion which is key to communicating differences of opinion. We would all agree that a little communication of differences would go a long way for the world.

Of course, I'm not arguing that bracketing of religious or ethnic groups is necessarily a good thing. What I am arguing is that the socialological self-censorship that has been born of political correctness is leading directly to the death of discussion of contentious issues. This can only be bad for a society. Allied to this, it is often those with the most extreme views who seek the protection of the politically correct language Stasi (The Commission for Racial Equality et al) - these are precisely the people that we need to be communicating with the most.

Free discussion is vital for society. People who regard themselves as abused by language should sort themselves out. We are all individuals - if one person feels that they have been driven to violence by another's words then they really should think about what that says about themselves. I'm not saying that provocative language does not play its part in political violence, but to treat it as the cause is to miss the point - if there weren't underlying unaddressed tensions, to be provoked then the provocative language would be redundant. Communication saves lives. Language is our prime weapon in the war against miss-communication - let's not disarm ourselves and leave ourselves at the mercy of the extremists.

Over to you Chris

by the way Matt, "Sand-Nigger" is so passe. The current term is "Dune-Koon".

Just thought I'd update you...

Surely terms that group a whole race or religious group, and then damn them in terms of nothing but the colour of their skin or what they happen to call God, are encouraging anyone who uses them or who sees or hears them used to treat anyone from that group as 'one of that group', and not the individuals you were talking about?

Are we really having a conversation about why it's wrong to be a racist? Or am I failing to see the subtlety between 'being a racist' and 'using racist language'? And are you really suggesting someone who shouts abuse at someone because they happen to be a funny colour is actually being an artist? Goya and the Chapman Brothers aren't censored because they're not shitre. If language is an art then there are words that we don't need. There are a group of terms that are a little bit like crapping on the canvas then hanging it on the wall. It may provoke a reaction, but it's not clever, or artistic. I'm all for freedom of expression, but all rights come with responsibilities.

I hate it when important words are misspelt. That should read '..the Chapman Brothers are not shite' (which goes against the grain with me, but needs must.)

My comparison to art was to draw a parallel between the kind of art that some find distasteful that others defend as legitimate methods of expression and the language surrounding contentious issues. We often find that the pretentious twerps who are most vocal in their defence of various works (against the Daily Mail "this isn't art" brigade) are also those that are most vocal in seeking to eliminate so called undesirable words from serious and open discussion of contentious issues.


It is a well recognised debating skill that in order to defeat an opponent, no matter how compelling his argument, you must simply prove that his terms of reference are incorrect. To debase opponent's argument by stealing the language with which he constructs it is nothing new. Indeed, this was the main weapon of any Greek or later, Roman, professional arguer.

And here is the point - Yes, of course there is a distinction between being racist and using racist language. Of course it's not good to be racist, to hold preconceptions against people because of their appearance or background and certainly not good to "shout abuse at someone because they happen to be a funny colour". But that is to miss the point - it is entirely possible to be racist without using "racist" language - "Ethnic minorities should be deported" or even the religiously specific "Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote". Both comments are manifestly racist, but do not utilise so called "racist language". Conversely of course, the phrase "my Paki friend" utilises "racist" language but is, in itself, not racist.

We really do need to be grown up about this - the urge to demonise those who express honest opinions that are not intended to be racist is now intrinsic within our society. Freedom of speech and expression should mean that we can talk about stuff like adults without finger pointing and telling Miss that so-and-so said a bad word. The real racists are better at the PC game than those of us that are not. Try to find a racist word on the BNP web-site

The problem is that calling someone 'my Paki friend' might not be taken as racist to your friend, but for example to your friend's mother (perhaps because she's more conservative, perhaps because she has lived through a time or in a place when racial tensions were more open) it might be deeply offensive. I've never been abused, verbally or physically, for the colour of my skin, or my family's ethnic or religious background, so perhaps I'm not best equipped to say anything on it. But perhaps the issue is that you don't know the people in Bethnal Green, and you wouldn't call them 'My friends in the araby' to their faces. Just like black people in Quentin Tarantino films call each other 'my nigger', where trying to replicate it with black people you don't know in downtown L.A. would be a move that would have good odds to sharply end this debate, at least for you, no matter how racist you meant to be. Maybe I'm so opposed to using racist language flippantly because it wastes so much time, and can be so easily misconstrued as genuine hatred. Wouldn't it be easier to say 'The Muslim community in Bethnal Green'?

And it's not a matter of legislation or what's permissible, it's just a matter of good manners. It's like your eating broken glass example for legislation. Surely you can see it's a bad idea, without having to be told?

in the same way that pornography is bad manners because it would upset my friend's mother?

On the pornography front, despite the fact we have zero readership, this website is a public place. If you were to publish porn here it would be inappropriate. What you call your Asian friend when it's just you two is between you. The araby in Bethnal Green might well end up here on Policy Blender. So it's offensive here, even if it's not somewhere else.

Chris, there's no need for that kind of farmerist language. Now stop it. Behave as if people are actually reading this site, both of you.