Fair enough. I think you're misrepresented a couple of my points, and inverted (my) causality suggestion on social convention -> word power, but here's the crux:
> But instead consider that the word, apart from any chosen modern social agenda, does represent a huge and unsolved systemic discrimination and repression towards black people.
Do you think that, for the nebulous entity that is 'America', resolution of this discrimination and repression problem is eased by offering racist people a very powerful language construct they can use to negative effect?
But nobody is offering it to them. It is just an aspect of reality. It would be like asking if the problem of breaking and entering is eased by describing the physics of throwing a rock through a window. The reality is just there, either to be respected or misused.
I would say that any official attempt to delegitimize the claim that use of the n-word is offensive and generally grounds for punishment or reprimand, however, would possibly do huge damage, as it would essentially completely wipe out the meaningfulness of a major symbol of racism in the US. So trying to “take away” the word likely won’t hinder racists at all, yet it will communicate to black people that their suffering won’t be treated with legitimacy.
It could even be basically a form of institutionally gaslighting black people at large. ... “It’s just the n-word. It can’t hurt you unless you let it hurt you.” Basically a nasty form of victim-blaming.
Thank you again - it's always good to have insights from someone who's clearly intelligent and has thought about the subject at some length.
As I noted, I'm outside-looking-in, haven't lived in the culture that's generated this situation, and (not noted, but relevant) have a somewhat optimistic / naive / rationalist view of how the world should be.
Having said that, I feel we're talking past each other a bit here.
You indicated my claim that this particular word has such weight was because everyone (in the US, lesser extent elsewhere) has agreed to treat it as a very powerful word, was wrong, and selfish. You suggest that it's a sensitive word because it represents a 'huge and unsolved systemic discrimination and repression towards black people' ... which I can start to understand (historically), but can't understand how the current attitude helps towards resolving that.
I note you dodged my question in the last exchange, instead offering what my philosophy lecturers may have described as 'pithy aphorisms' such as 'it's just an aspect of reality'. Which is doubtless true. Pretty much everything we experience is an aspect of reality -- though that's not terribly helpful.
The suggestion that the word is a major symbol of racism that we all need to agree to keep alive sounds perverse when worded in that way.
Surely it'd be preferable to actually start to work on that whole actual resolution of racism.
So my previous question was basically whether either is dependent on, or retarded by, the other.
> But instead consider that the word, apart from any chosen modern social agenda, does represent a huge and unsolved systemic discrimination and repression towards black people.
Do you think that, for the nebulous entity that is 'America', resolution of this discrimination and repression problem is eased by offering racist people a very powerful language construct they can use to negative effect?