1. Hom first introduces the idea that racial epithets are generally believed to be either semantic (the derogatory meaning is expressed in every use of the word) or pragmatic (the derogatory meaning is based off of how they are used). While he merits each theory their due respect, he argues much more towards the semantic side. In the end, racial epithets express properties that are derived from racist institutions and carry the potential for being deeply hurtful and threatening, and this cannot be shrugged away with context.
2. Camp firmly argues that slurs are rhetorically powerful, and depend heavily on perspective. Using this treatment of slurs, she counterbalances the effects of the systematic effects and those that are left open to the conversation. She points how how we can't just take into consideration the semantic views all the while ignoring the role of the speaker and the attitudes they bring with the usage of the word.
3. I think that both arguments have a really great point, and honestly I think both can be true at the same time. This can be seen in example for when I called my roommate a, "Bitch" or "Hoe bag". I mean it as a term of endearment, and from my perspective and my roommate this is not a derogatory term or offensive. That being said, that does not change the fact that from an institutional perspective and those who do not know us, this would probably be seen as bullying or offensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment