Yes, your hyperbole aside, I do think people should take care in how they speak. 'Urban slang' is pretty clearly associated with a particular socio-economic group (regardless of if you wish to acknowledge that or not), and saying that it, in particular, is the language that needs to be censored is not A Good Thing.
But that doesn't mean this is a grievous sin, or that it's worth getting worked up over. I didn't and am not excoriating him for it. It just struck me as I was reading the article, and I thought it was worth pointing out.
Do you honestly believe that Schiller was referring to race?
No, I don't think Schiller is a racist. But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism, that the terms that were deemed too offensive may actually have been inner-city slang that has equivalent terms in the accepted dictionary. If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
If not, do you honestly believe that a substantial portion of other readers would have interpreted it that way?
I would hope they wouldn't read it and decide that he was a racist, no, but I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
If not, do you honestly belive that it was unreasonable to use the term?
Yes, I think it was a bad choice of words. Even if you ignore that there are racial connotations in the phrase, it still doesn't express what he means. Who cares about 'city' slang? Suburban or rural slang can't be extremely vulgar?
Anyways, I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use, when the issue at hand is that his company is censoring a dictionary.
I was not being hyperbolic. In your first post you specifically indicated that you interpreted his meaning as racist. If your concerns reflect reality, it is a real risk and should be treated as such. My contention is that your concerns do not reflect reality, and that it is unlikely that very many reasonable people at all would have mistaken this for racism.
'Urban slang' is pretty clearly associated with a particular socio-economic group (regardless of if you wish to acknowledge that or not)
Still, that's not a very convincing argument. You say yourself that you don't believe Schiller was referring to race (contradicting your initial statement), so why should I? Because in some other context it could be used to express something racist? My Uncle Tom likes Oreos as much as he likes Twinkies. Does that make me racist?
I did not and do not claim that "urban slang" could not be interpreted to have racial connotations. I do claim that in this case you have to willfully distort the author's intent in order to read it the way you expressed in your original post, and that characterizing it as the author's mistake is unwarranted.
But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism
Define "socially embedded".
If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
This is ambiguous: you're implying that racism is driving it just after stating that you don't believe that was what was meant. You're reading something into the text that is not there, and not citing any other reason.
I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
What does that mean? My question was unambiguous. Your answer is not. You're saying you think people both did and did not interpret it as racist.
I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use
We aren't talking about whether, but of how much. You appear to support self-censorship even while seeming to acknowledge that few if any in the audience actually regarded the term as reflecting racist intent. I do not agree. I think that is unreasonably excessive in the majority of such circumstances.
Are you serious? I don't think he's a racist, I don't think he had racist intent, but I think he accidentally used a racist phrasing, and that he should be more careful in the future. That's really a difficult concept for you to grasp?
How can an author be more careful? By never using any word that can possibly be distorted? That's hopeless, and has a more deleterious effect on communication than the misunderstandings it seeks to prevent.
As an avid English speaker, I wholeheartedly reject this notion of turning the language into a minefield of words you absolutely must avoid even when nobody is likely to misinterpret them.
I think 'urban slang' obviously refers to the language of a particular socio-economic group, and that avoiding using it in an inappropriate context is just as simple as not swearing in front of your grandmother or not blurting out to every attractive woman you meet that you want to have sex with her or whatever. I mean, really, do you have Tourette's or something? You never think it's appropriate to filter the words that first come to mind to say?
You never think it's appropriate to filter the words that first come to mind to say?
I have explicitly stated otherwise in a prior post. You're choosing to actively distort my words. Please don't do that. We disagree on the degree. I find the degree of self-censorship you advocate to be excessive.
But that doesn't mean this is a grievous sin, or that it's worth getting worked up over. I didn't and am not excoriating him for it. It just struck me as I was reading the article, and I thought it was worth pointing out.
Do you honestly believe that Schiller was referring to race?
No, I don't think Schiller is a racist. But I am a little concerned that it might point to a deeper, socially embedded racism, that the terms that were deemed too offensive may actually have been inner-city slang that has equivalent terms in the accepted dictionary. If the same idea can be expressed in two different ways, one of which is considered vulgar, what, exactly is driving that categorization?
If not, do you honestly believe that a substantial portion of other readers would have interpreted it that way?
I would hope they wouldn't read it and decide that he was a racist, no, but I do think a lot of eyebrows were raised by it, yes.
If not, do you honestly belive that it was unreasonable to use the term?
Yes, I think it was a bad choice of words. Even if you ignore that there are racial connotations in the phrase, it still doesn't express what he means. Who cares about 'city' slang? Suburban or rural slang can't be extremely vulgar?
Anyways, I think it's a little ironic that we're talking about whether he should have to take care in the words he chooses to use, when the issue at hand is that his company is censoring a dictionary.