'But do note that I have to euphemize the N-word here in print just as someone would have once have felt compelled to say, “By Jove!”'
But why? They're just words - a set of phonemes as @jasode points out. The meaning is only inferred from the context in which the word is used - this is made clear from the last few paragraphs about the use of the word nigger to mean buddy.
My first (unconscious) response on reading 'N-word' or similar is to translate that euphemism to the word itself, so nothing is spared in the mind of the reader by "censoring".
Instead it seems the author is trying to expunge himself of having used profanity, when in fact discussing a word in this context is surely not profane?
You may be underestimating how powerful a hold that word has on the American subconscious. Heck, I even get a little queasy when I read Angular code with ng-this and ng-that. Of course I know "ng" just stands for Angular, but I still do a double-take, at least a minor one.
Regarding the use of the word among black men to mean "buddy", sure, my older Italian relatives used to call each other "wop" as a in-group term of affection. But woe to any non-Italians who called them that!
> But woe to any non-Italians who called them that!
I wouldn't question that - the point was that a discussion of the words themselves in a clinical sense carries no pejorative meaning (and even their intended meaning can vary according to context).
It's unfortunate for the purpose of this discussion that the author chose "N-word" as his example. It would have simplified matters if he had chosen "F-word" or "C-word" given that all modern profanity in the linked article has been reduced to euphemism, as my question wasn't about racial labelling per se, but rather about the need to reduce any (modern) profanity to 'X'-word when discussing the words themselves, as distinct from using them for their implicit meaning.
One would absolutely refrain from using racial labels in a pejorative context. However in a discussion of the meaning or history of the words themselves (racially linked or not), their use is unambiguously not profane. One only has to consult an authoritative dictionary to confirm that these words do in fact exist, and can be used in an uncensored form without causing offence.
Who decides what a word means and when? Has a dictionary ever defined the complex web of emotions tied to that or any other hateful slur? Can the OED tell you what it feels like for a person of color to hear it, even in supposedly clinical circumstances?
Woe betide anyone who believes assault is a proper response to words. If there is only a vocal response, the woe comes only in invisible amounts, even from old Italians.
This pretty well sums up my feelings on how children's movies approach profanity. Or in the article, how the musical avoided using the word "belly."
The curse word itself is only offensive because of the meaning, or what it implies. The proof of this: say the word to someone who does not know it (for example, someone who does not speak the language); they won't be offended.
So, when a kids movie says "What the freak!?" or "What the fudge!?" the meaning is the same as "What the fuck!?" Or when a loud noise drowns out the speaker, we know what was said. So, then, why is this okay? Because we didn't hear the sounds? If I carry an airhorn around with me, go up to people and say to them, "You're a fa<HOOOONNNNKKKKK>!" they will be upset (and not just by the loud noise).
I've felt before that I'm just not offended by profanity. But after reading this article, I've had to really reconsider that view. I'm not okay with using "the N-word." When people say it, I cringe. I don't even want to type it, because it is offensive. But when I say "the N-word," I know what word I mean. You know what word I mean. You're probably not offended though, because we're just talking about the word. Using the word "nigger" in a conversation about the evolution of profanity should not offend anyone.
The article talks about how many of the words we consider offensive today are used to slur groups of people. This is why it's not offensive for black people to use the word in place of "buddy." It's not a slur, it is an endearment. From this, I conclude that using any word as a slur is offensive. To slur is to "make damaging or insulting insinuations or allegations about." That action is offensive. It's not the sounds that are offensive.
In closing, I would just like to say that you're all a bunch of <HOOOONNNKKKKKKK>!
But why? They're just words - a set of phonemes as @jasode points out. The meaning is only inferred from the context in which the word is used - this is made clear from the last few paragraphs about the use of the word nigger to mean buddy.
My first (unconscious) response on reading 'N-word' or similar is to translate that euphemism to the word itself, so nothing is spared in the mind of the reader by "censoring".
Instead it seems the author is trying to expunge himself of having used profanity, when in fact discussing a word in this context is surely not profane?