Quote:
Originally Posted by 81MC
I guess we have to disagree here. Referring to a thing as a thing, to me, appropriate. In this case, the thing was ‘######’ use in a song. I can’t imagine ever quoting a piece of art and changing the word because I’m uncomfortable with it.
Likely people do (again, I personally have had it said to me). But this is in no way what is at question here. I don’t believe whether ###### was actually being said in the songs is even at debate here
No, I was not there or do I know the facts for it to have any effect on my opinion of Peters. Allowing a word, in and of itself, to be forbidden regardless of context or the issue at hand is asinine.
He never called it ‘###### music’. The difference is, to me, quite clear. ‘###### ####’ when referring to music that’s full of ‘######’ is pretty clearly directed at the lyrical content. If he did refer to it as ‘###### music’, that’s something all together different.
Again, I think this distinction is much more than trivial. The nuance of the use in this case is incredibly important to consider.
Sure, be outraged that someone said the word. But ignore context? That’s whack.
|
Just want to say a couple of things. Thanks to the input of another poster, I recognize that there may be very specific circumstances where a person might sincerely use the word "n#####" during a conversation in which that person was trying to communicate how hurtful and offensive that word can be. However, in my view, this type of sincere use of the word could only take place in the closest, most trusting type of relationship (for example, immediate family). That was certainly not the case with Peters and Aliu.
And I agree with you completely that context is vitally important. I'm not trying to ignore the context of the incident at all (far from it). I just don't think the context of this incident supports the narrative that you are proposing.