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?
More than one way to the square
FT社评:IMF的有益反思
英美身份认同的差异
国家开发银行日益商业化
父亲最后的拥抱 In praise of hugs
Four goals for Perfect Life
“魔鬼交易员”不过是赌徒
The Many Faces of Love
美国务卿因因肠胃病毒推迟中东之行
美联储量化宽松政策的另一个好处
Relish the Moment
全球气候谈判再度陷入僵局
华夏银行理财产品事件或将树立先例
Advice for Good Little Girls
Never Too Old to Live Your Dream
华为计划在诺基亚后院扩张业务
克里斯蒂:打造尽善尽美的电梯系统
制造业崇拜的愚蠢
Find Thyself
美国企业抢派特别股息
墨西哥拟在能源业引入私人投资
Crystal shoes of Cinderella
The wholeness of life
Every Day is a Lucky Day
Fragrance Forever
朝鲜因技术缺陷推迟火箭发射
The 2% who Succeed
Rose Legend
男性比女性更易获得“热门”职位
中日领土争端令日本旅游业损失惨重
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |