1.
I agree with Hornsby on her objection to Hare because it seems like slurs are much more complicated than only the case where a term is used to express hate toward someone who is of the neutral counterpart. In particular, it seems like derogatory terms are offensive at least in part because of the intention of the speaker, regardless of the person the slur is directed toward.
2.
I disagree with Hornsby when she claims that "the beliefs dredged up in spelling [structures underpinning uses of derogatory words] out do not belong in an account of how individual speakers use the words on each occasion" (Hornsby 2001, 138). Intentionally using derogatory terms that are known to carry inflammatory beliefs to refer to certain people is important enough that it effects our account of how speakers are using these words. Certain words carry strong enough connotations that using them off-highhandedly seems to be negligent and disrespectful.
3.
What exactly does Hornsby mean when she says derogatory words are "useless?" She says that there are other words that suit us better, so we can completely do without the offensive counterparts. She also says that we cannot endorse anything that is done with derogatory words. It seems like slurs have such immense connotation associated with them (unlike other words), and some people do use these words and endorse their use (that is why we are interested in slurs). In what ways are slurs really useless?
--Sean Wammer
No comments:
Post a Comment