The Exception That Proves the Rule

In the previous post, "Words Gone Bad," I suggested the idea that words cannot be inherently bad, but what makes a word bad has to do with intention, and perception (and in a different way, definition as well). Although I stand by that idea, I now want to discuss the exception that proves the rule...

Its an exception in part because there are certain words that one should never use, but in another way it's not such an exception because the reason those words should not be used has to do with the three rules of defintion, intention, and perception. The words which shall not be named are words that are or have been used to denigrate, insult, or subjugate an entire group of people.

Now... by and large, one might say that it would be unnecessary to point out that certain words like those are just never appropriate, but there are some issues that come up regarding this that I found myself discussing recently, and I'd like to lay out my point of view, and it has a lot to do with the practice of "taking words back."

I was hanging out with some friends recently when the subject of taking words back somehow came up and one of my friends repeatedly used the n-word as he was attempting to explain why he thinks that if a word can be taken back, then all should have equal access to it or else its (reverse) racism, or else the word should simply not be able to be taken back at all. Now, I could do a whole blog (or several) on racism and probably will because its something that is used and abused as an issue, and nobody seems to properly understand it. BUT that's not what this blog is about. This is just about the word...

My view is that that word is simply never appropriate for me to use. As far as taking it back goes, though... well, there are a couple things. First off, the way my friend was saying the word and the way that black people who use the word are two ENTIRELY different things even before we get to the point of who's saying what. Finishing the word with "-er" just isn't gonna sound the same as "-a" any which way, and yes, it does sound somehow more inherently evil with the "-er" ending, whereas the other ending is arguably friendlier somehow.

Secondly, if a word has been used to insult an entire group of people, I would agree with the idea that only those people have a right to take it back. Here's why: the idea behind it is to deprive the word of its hurtful meaning, but the hurtful meaning is still there. If I were someone who was a member of a group that had a word like that slung at them, I could always be confident of its usage and meaning among those who could be hurt by that word in the first place, because they can understand what its like to be hurt by that word. Someone who is not a member of that group doesn't necessarily get it in the same way, and if someone else used that word with me, even if I knew that they didn't mean it in a harmful way, there's always going to be that nugget of doubt there.

The attempt to deprive a word of its meaning is an on-going one and it may never be so complete as to allow everyone equal access to that word. Which is why its arguable as to whether its even appropriate to try to "take back" a word at all, and there are those who feel that those words shouldn't be used by anyone, but should just be put to death as the horrible words they are. And I think they have a point. I could see it either way, really, but if (IF!) there's any merit to taking back a word at all, then I would say that only those who have been truly affected by that words meaning can even attempt it.

Anyone else should just bite their frakking tongue.

So now that I've made my point as to why certain people should NEVER EVER use certain words, I'd like to now contradict myself by offering yet another exception to the rule... You should NEVER EVER use certain words.... unless you're attempting to portray the use of those words. As a writer/filmmaker, I can think of a number of situations in which the use of such words that I would otherwise never use would better represent a certain kind of character or a certain situation. I don't really have a problem with that kind of usage. I would still generally cringe at the sound of certain words, but sometimes I think certain things must be portrayed in the arts, and in that circumstance, I don't think it should be offensive so long as it is used in that way.

Some upcoming blogs that are applicable to what I'm saying here will be "Fiction is not Truth" and also "You Can't Say Frak on TV!" although my next blog will probably be the flipside to the Faith blog: "Too Much of a Good Thing" or maybe I'll finally get around to "The Balloon Theory." I don't know, but all of these are upcoming blogs.