| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 02/15/2007 : 14:13:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Salopian's alternative formation of the sentence is 'a spade would just be a spade'. The use of the modal verb 'would' here does not equate to the subjunctive (although modal verbs also express mood of course).
However, it indicates a pattern that clarifies Salopian's intentions of expressing his belief that G-K would just accept the word spade at face value.
Yes, I agree that the 'would be' was an inadequate test, hence my later post. It is just in cases where the main verb is in the past tense that I have lost my native-speaker intuition; this has been the case for years.
(N.B. I expressed no belief about George; it was demonic.)
Do you agree that it is equivalent to the hypercorrect example? Unfortunately, that article makes no comment on whether this is 'incorrect' (by which I mean not accepted in formal English). I subscribe to the idea that correct speech is defined by whatever people use, but I have no interest in speaking on that basis myself. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 14:15:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Yes, good suggestion (good link). That's what we'd work out if we recorded lots of utterances from you. Since your first instinct was to defend the use, then I would suggest you probably use it often. Use it enough and everyone will be using it!
N.B. I hadn't read this before posting my previous message. The Wikipedia example definitely sounds fine to my idiolect; I am unsure about my one. Hhmmm... |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 14:19:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Salopian's alternative formation of the sentence is 'a spade would just be a spade'. The use of the modal verb 'would' here does not equate to the subjunctive (although modal verbs also express mood of course).
However, it indicates a pattern that clarifies Salopian's intentions of expressing his belief that G-K would just accept the word spade at face value.
Yes, I agree that the 'would be' was an inadequate test, hence my later post. It is just in cases where the main verb is in the past tense that I have lost my native-speaker intuition; this has been the case for years.
(N.B. I expressed no belief about George; it was demonic.)
Do you agree that it is equivalent to the hypercorrect example? Unfortunately, that article makes no comment on whether this is 'incorrect' (by which I mean not accepted in formal English). I subscribe to the idea that correct speech is defined by whatever people use, but I have no interest in speaking on that basis myself.
Yes, I agree that language is as it is used. It will always be changing with the next generations and one of the problems with grammars and dictionaries is they freeze language at one point in time. I think our posts crossed, so yes, the hypercorrect thing seems likely. Could be a one off, or could be your idiolect. When it came down to it, everyone understood what you meant, and it's probable that if g-k hadn't been on hyper-alert it would have passed without notice! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 14:26:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Unfortunately, that article makes no comment on whether this is 'incorrect' (by which I mean not accepted in formal English).
O.K., hypercorrect does just unambiguously mean incorrect by overextension. I suppose this was quite obvious but I was not quite clear on that. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 15:58:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Can't quite believe Sal's "Blood Diamond" review got approved, unless I'm missing something that isn't surprisingly and unnecessarily racist. 
Please read my post in the offensive-vocabulary thread. All is explained (although one has to wonder why you did not think a spade were just a spade...).
Excuse me if I skip over the in depth language usage discussion...
I think the main reason I took the use of spade in the derogatory sense as opposed to the literal sense is that in a literal sense your review is generic. Any classic adventure story involving diamond mining will have spades in it. So the way I see it the review is either racist or generic.
Although I can't dispute BB's opinion that 'spade' was accepted usage at one time in the States - as far as I'm aware it is always used now, if at all, in a negative context and is listed as such in the online dictionaries I checked (Dictionary.com - "Slang: disparaging and offensive", WordNet - "extremely offensive name for a Black person").
Finally I don't know if a racist slur is an effective or worthwhile way to get a good pun for a film, and not a good advertisement for this website to black users. I know there's been a long drawn out discussion about this already elsewhere but I'm only concerned with the specifics of this example. Regardless of your intention Sal do you want people to think you are a racist? I know that you're probably not, but to read that review it is the only assumption I, and likely other FWFRers, would automatically make.
|
Edited by - demonic on 02/15/2007 16:00:37 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 17:57:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I think the main reason I took the use of spade in the derogatory sense as opposed to the literal sense is that in a literal sense your review is generic. Any classic adventure story involving diamond mining will have spades in it. So the way I see it the review is either racist or generic.
Yes, it is possible that it is 'generic', but this did not seem to occur to you before. (I don't actually think it is - I don't know of any of these films you mention, but the spade, while not super-prominent, does quite specifically feature towards the end in this film. Anyway, if Benj rejects it, that's fine.) In other words, you thought it was more likely that I would be racist than 'generic' (to the degree that you did not consider the mainstream meaning of the word in question) - this was not reasonable, I.M.O.
quote:
Although I can't dispute BB's opinion that 'spade' was accepted usage at one time in the States - as far as I'm aware it is always used now, if at all, in a negative context and is listed as such in the online dictionaries I checked (Dictionary.com - "Slang: disparaging and offensive", WordNet - "extremely offensive name for a Black person").
I quite agree, but this was discussed at length in the other thread. There is no point in going through it again here.
quote:
Finally I don't know if a racist slur is an effective or worthwhile way to get a good pun for a film, and not a good advertisement for this website to black users. I know there's been a long drawn out discussion about this already elsewhere but I'm only concerned with the specifics of this example.
Um, but this was the whole point that I made in that thread, so to dismiss the thread but still want to make the point (with regard to a neutral review) does not really make sense.
quote:
Regardless of your intention Sal do you want people to think you are a racist? I know that you're probably not, but to read that review it is the only assumption I, and likely other FWFRers, would automatically make.
No, I don't want them to think that, but if they think that based on imaginary evidence, then I am not overly troubled. I am giving no double meaning (in terms of the film's content) with this review - the only play on words is the allusion to card suits.
An obvious further point is whether I want to risk offending people through their own misjudgment. While I do not agree with Sean's view that offensive vocabulary can be innocently used, I do think that homonyms of offensive vocabulary can be innocently used. If people misinterpret my reference to an everyday object as being an instance of the much rarer use of an offensive term, that is their own fault - perhaps their own racism.
I realise that I may seem disingenuous and that 'really' I intended both meanings. I promise that this is not the case. I made it clear in the other thread that I thought of "Diamonds, spades" long ago as a possible example for only theoretical discussion of the racist review issue and that I never would have wanted to submit it. I only submitted "Diamond, spade" after seeing the actual film. If Benj says that it is 'generic', I will submit something with additional words. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/15/2007 18:11:18 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 21:40:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yes, it is possible that it is 'generic', but this did not seem to occur to you before.
Yes, of course it did. As soon as I read your review I assumed you were making a racist slur as the film more prominently features black people than it does one scene with a spade. Thinking that you wouldn't intentionally write a racist review lead me to then assume that you intended the literal meaning - which makes it a generic review. If you mean I'm trying to find any reason to disqualify it or pick on you that's not my intention at all.
quote:
I quite agree, but this was discussed at length in the other thread. There is no point in going through it again here.
Yes, it's discussed, but not really at length - certainly not specifically, and not definitively because the topic moves all over the place. But I take it we agree that "spade" is a derogatory term for a black person, and intentionally or otherwise you've written a racist review.
quote:
If people misinterpret my reference to an everyday object as being an instance of the much rarer use of an offensive term, that is their own fault - perhaps their own racism.
So I'm a racist if I assume your review includes a racist word? 
Do you not think a black person would not make the same assumption when they saw your review? I think you have to take responsibility for your reviews and whether or not you intend racism doesn't necessarily mean that they might not be construed as such.
quote:
I realise that I may seem disingenuous and that 'really' I intended both meanings. I promise that this is not the case. I made it clear in the other thread that I thought of "Diamonds, spades" long ago as a possible example for only theoretical discussion of the racist review issue and that I never would have wanted to submit it. I only submitted "Diamond, spade" after seeing the actual film.
I do believe that from reading your initial post on the matter in the "racist" thread. But I do think you are being disingenous now to claim that any accusations of racism would sit directly with the accuser and that your review is entirely innocent of any racist implication, regardless of your original intention. |
Edited by - demonic on 02/15/2007 21:41:03 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 23:52:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Excuse me if I skip over the in depth language usage discussion...
Please do
Two points - racist and/or generic
Is this shovel incident in the movie really significant to the film - to the extent that anyone who has seen it (unlike me) will immediately know 'spade' refers to this incident? If not significant enough, then I agree that other movies containing those coveted gemstomes and mining could be 'diamond(s), spade(s)'. Hence, generic (I think I should write a research paper on the 'definition of generic and disputed examples of same on fwfr')
I don't think it is fair to say that someone who interprets a word as potentially racist holds some racism within themselves. Quite the opposite - it demonstrates a sensitivity to words or actions that might offend someone even unintentionally.
I have not seen the film, but knew it was set in Africa. I am sorry to say that I reacted the same way as demonic, because the use of the word 'spade' in the singular did not suggest to me a significant shovel incident in the film. I realised that shovels would likely feature, but the use of the singular did indeed make me think it referred to one of the African characters (if it was diamond mining in Australia I would possibly not have had the same reaction). This despite reading Salopian's posts and knowing that it was unlikely to be racist. Sorry
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:20:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yes, it is possible that it is 'generic', but this did not seem to occur to you before.
Yes, of course it did. As soon as I read your review I assumed you were making a racist slur as the film more prominently features black people than it does one scene with a spade. Thinking that you wouldn't intentionally write a racist review lead me to then assume that you intended the literal meaning - which makes it a generic review.
It's just that your first post on the matter only mentioned the racist possibility. If you had said "This review must be racist or generic", that would have been a lot better. I agree that it is arguably 'generic', but not necessarily so. The spade appears specifically - in fighting as well as digging - close to the end. If you name some of the films you have in mind, I may be more convinced. However, I think a problem with the review is that it does refer to what is still a relatively minor aspect of the film. I am not too keen on this, but it is very common and has never in general been disallowed. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/17/2007 01:45:14 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:21:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I quite agree, but this was discussed at length in the other thread. There is no point in going through it again here.
Yes, it's discussed, but not really at length - certainly not specifically, and not definitively because the topic moves all over the place. But I take it we agree that "spade" is a derogatory term for a black person, and intentionally or otherwise you've written a racist review.
Well, there were quite a few posts on the matter and my view was made extremely clear. I just responded as I did because you seemed to present your point as if I had not already made the exact same point. But no, I absolutely do not agree that I have unintentionally written a racist review. I made this viewpoint clear in the post to which you are responding. The two senses are not even etymologically linked. It is not racist to use terms that are homonyms of racist terms, even in contexts where some people might be racist. It is arguable that one should not only be non-racist but ensure that one is seen as being non-racist, but I don't subscribe to that (at least not in an exceptionless sense). I do not think it is productive when fear of seeming racist actually causes bias in people's behaviour.
|
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/17/2007 01:46:30 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:25:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
If people misinterpret my reference to an everyday object as being an instance of the much rarer use of an offensive term, that is their own fault - perhaps their own racism.
So I'm a racist if I assume your review includes a racist word?
Do you not think a black person would not make the same assumption when they saw your review? I think you have to take responsibility for your reviews and whether or not you intend racism doesn't necessarily mean that they might not be construed as such.
This is covered by my previous response. The additional thing in this case is that the word is a very common one referring to an everyday concrete object. The racist term is vastly rarer. Even in the context of the film, I think the former is the more dominant sense. It is certainly sufficiently obvious a possibility that I indeed do not take responsibility for anyone who assumes that it is not the case. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/17/2007 01:31:08 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:29:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I realise that I may seem disingenuous and that 'really' I intended both meanings. I promise that this is not the case. I made it clear in the other thread that I thought of "Diamonds, spades" long ago as a possible example for only theoretical discussion of the racist review issue and that I never would have wanted to submit it. I only submitted "Diamond, spade" after seeing the actual film.
I do believe that from reading your initial post on the matter in the "racist" thread. But I do think you are being disingenous now to claim that any accusations of racism would sit directly with the accuser and that your review is entirely innocent of any racist implication, regardless of your original intention.
This is clearly just a difference of viewpoint. I am not going to avoid perfectly innocent words like spade, chink, bitch etc. in certain contexts just because other people may lose their objectivity in those contexts. That objectivity is their responsibility. Conversely, though, I will always be happy to explain myself. If people make those inaccurate assumptions and then do not even raise this with me, then they are unquestionably to blame. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:41:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Is this shovel incident in the movie really significant to the film - to the extent that anyone who has seen it (unlike me) will immediately know 'spade' refers to this incident? If not significant enough, then I agree that other movies containing those coveted gemstomes and mining could be 'diamond(s), spade(s)'. Hence, generic (I think I should write a research paper on the 'definition of generic and disputed examples of same on fwfr')
I have covered this above (and had really covered it before your post or demonic's last one). If Benj rejects it as too 'generic', that is fine.
quote:
I don't think it is fair to say that someone who interprets a word as potentially racist holds some racism within themselves. Quite the opposite - it demonstrates a sensitivity to words or actions that might offend someone even unintentionally.
It's not definitively the case, but I still think it is possible in some instances. I know that I for one would not jump to that conclusion unless there were significant racist evidence.
quote:
I have not seen the film, but knew it was set in Africa. I am sorry to say that I reacted the same way as demonic, because the use of the word 'spade' in the singular did not suggest to me a significant shovel incident in the film. I realised that shovels would likely feature, but the use of the singular did indeed make me think it referred to one of the African characters (if it was diamond mining in Australia I would possibly not have had the same reaction). This despite reading Salopian's posts and knowing that it was unlikely to be racist. Sorry
If I think someone's unlikely to be racist, I personally do not jump to the conclusion that they suddenly are being racist when there is a perfectly plausible non-racist explanation. Also, I submitted it in the singular precisely because that in fact does make it specific to the spade. Although one black character is central, there are loads of others. There are not loads of spades (other than perhaps in wide shots); there may not even be more than the main one.
There are numerous actually racist, homophobic and sexist reviews on the site. I would think that energies would be better spent objecting to those. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/17/2007 01:47:59 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 02:21:33
|
| Also, these 'generic' and racist points contradict each other. If a spade is so likely in any film about diamonds, then how can it be that it would not be thought of? |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 02:49:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Also, these 'generic' and racist points contradict each other. If a spade is so likely in any film about diamonds, then how can it be that it would not be thought of?
Yes, I agree with you , which is why I separated out the two points.
I haven't seen the film which doesn't help in talking about the generic aspect. But I suppose that's the point of this site. People look at reviews for films they have seen and ones they haven't seen. If they haven't seen them they have no way of knowing some of the plot points that people use in their reviews.
As you have already pointed out a couple of times, 'spade' is an homonym, and in a review for another film the use of 'spade' meaning shovel would be totally unambigous.
It's an unfortunate 'clash of the homonyms' in that the film is set in Africa, and the word 'spade' is one that will suggest use of a racist term to some people. One of the main points that came out of the other threads on the use of 'racist terms' was that people respond to these in very different ways. You cannot dismiss demonic finding the review you wrote as appearing racist, because that is what he felt when he read it. As for whether the review should stay is down to the policy on the site, which is the tricky debate that was never concluded on the other threads. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Sean's FYCTH # 274
