Speech and Harm and SAT Trick

　　As every public figure knows, there are certain words that can not be uttered without causing shock or offense. These words, commonly known as slurs, target groups on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status and sundry other demographics. Many of us were reminded of the impact of such speech in August, when the radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger repeatedly uttered a racial slur on a broadcast of her show. A public outcry followed, and ultimately led to her resignation. Many such incidents of abuse and offense, often with much more serious consequences, seem to appear in the news by the day.

　　wu du you ou.

　　There are SAT slurs too. Some words are particularly painful for you to remember, something you have paid dear price for to get it right and memorable. For example - trick, the SAT trick. Those words are not particularly offensive to students, but to teachers. Because after all the lying and baiting and promotion about it, there is after all not such a thing as trick.

　　But why are slurs so offensive? And why are some more offensive than others? Even different slurs for the same group vary in intensity of contempt. How can words fluctuate both in their status as slurs and in their power to offend? Members of targeted groups themselves are not always offended by slurs ─ consider the uses of appropriated or reclaimed slurs among African-Americans and gay people.

　　The consensus answer among philosophers to the first question is that slurs, as a matter of convention, signal negative attitudes towards targeted groups. Those who pursue this answer are committed to the view that slurs carry offensive content or meaning; they disagree only over the mechanisms of implementation. An alternative proposal is that slurs are prohibited words not on account of any particular content they get across, but rather because of relevant edicts surrounding their prohibition. This latter proposal itself raises a few pertinent questions: How do words become prohibited? Whats the relationship between prohibition and a words power to offend? And why is it sometimes appropriate to flout such prohibitions? These are interesting questions.

　　What is the trick?

　　Speech and Harm and SAT Trick

　　As every public figure knows, there are certain words that can not be uttered without causing shock or offense. These words, commonly known as slurs, target groups on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status and sundry other demographics. Many of us were reminded of the impact of such speech in August, when the radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger repeatedly uttered a racial slur on a broadcast of her show. A public outcry followed, and ultimately led to her resignation. Many such incidents of abuse and offense, often with much more serious consequences, seem to appear in the news by the day.

　　wu du you ou.

　　There are SAT slurs too. Some words are particularly painful for you to remember, something you have paid dear price for to get it right and memorable. For example - trick, the SAT trick. Those words are not particularly offensive to students, but to teachers. Because after all the lying and baiting and promotion about it, there is after all not such a thing as trick.

　　But why are slurs so offensive? And why are some more offensive than others? Even different slurs for the same group vary in intensity of contempt. How can words fluctuate both in their status as slurs and in their power to offend? Members of targeted groups themselves are not always offended by slurs ─ consider the uses of appropriated or reclaimed slurs among African-Americans and gay people.

　　The consensus answer among philosophers to the first question is that slurs, as a matter of convention, signal negative attitudes towards targeted groups. Those who pursue this answer are committed to the view that slurs carry offensive content or meaning; they disagree only over the mechanisms of implementation. An alternative proposal is that slurs are prohibited words not on account of any particular content they get across, but rather because of relevant edicts surrounding their prohibition. This latter proposal itself raises a few pertinent questions: How do words become prohibited? Whats the relationship between prohibition and a words power to offend? And why is it sometimes appropriate to flout such prohibitions? These are interesting questions.

　　What is the trick?