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?
适应力的故事
微保险Naya Jeevan:让更多巴基斯坦人病有所医
米塔尔与法国政府举行紧急磋商
李克强不在意美大选抨击 强调互信
贝多芬经典情书
数字时代的零售业
睁大自己的眼睛
花旗抵押贷款到底价值几何?
香港拟简化上市规则
让生活充满爱
欢聚时代在美IPO检验投资者信心
Something worth thinking about
一个公关人的商旅心得
瑞信拟对机构实行负利率
重访乌兹别克斯坦“丝绸之路”
华硕欲挑战苹果在平板市场的冠军地位
欧洲央行下调欧元区增长预期
奥巴马:美国现在承认新成立的叙利亚反对派联盟
FT社评:意大利需要蒙蒂
单身也快乐
克里姆林宫如何“摆平”寡头?
You can do anything
银行也“炒股炒成股东”
对林毅夫新结构经济学的三个思考(凯闻)
朝鲜火箭试射可能因大雪而延迟
《大破天幕杀机》重回北美周末票房榜榜首
苹果CEO库克:将重新在美国生产Mac电脑
荷香万顷
彼得雷乌斯就美驻利比亚领馆遇袭在国会作证
SEC主席夏皮罗将离任 留下权力真空
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |