Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry Winkle
The example you directed at me is completely different than the case we're talking about. They are reporters. They are reporting a fact. They aren't calling anyone names.
I've read a few European newspapers. In my experience they tend to actually use offensive words when that's the fact of what was said or posted. I admire cultures that are mature enough to face facts.
Also, saying "N word" is not meaningfully different than saying "nigger" to me. It's still invoking an offensive (in the context) word.
If they wanted to be considerate they wouldn't specify which racial epithet was part of the place name. Saying something like "... a place name containing a racial epithet ..." is sufficiently descriptive while truly being removed from a word that is offensive in the first order.
I would prefer it if they'd just use the word without varnishing it.
|
Funnily enough, Mum and I were discussing the offensive words and euphemisms the other day. She'd heard some programme or other about some research on responses to 'rude' words. Turns out that for people who find the word 'fuck' offensive, there is a revulsion response. Probably borne of hearing their parents responses to those words (displaying revulsion). Euphemisms, such as 'the f-word' or 'effing' do not provoke the same revulsion response for those people.
I fail to see why 'fuck all' is any more offensive than 'sweet fanny adams'. But that's because I don't have a revulsion response to the word 'fuck'. If I did, I would find the euphemism far more palatable. Apparently.