If so, the second official TWP Italian Forum Gathering is due soon 
four years after the first one, maybe it’s time to meet again
1 Like
I think it much depends from where you live. On the West Coast or in NYC society is much different from, say, the midwest, as far as I might understand.
Anyway the equation italian=black was hyperbolic, I just wanted to underline that, seen from outside, American White people look sometimes self-centered,as if their reality was the the norm reference, and all the rest is… well, the rest.
In other words, this. 
You aren’t going off topic, @guga, that is pretty much my point, I just hadn’t the guts to be so explicit. Thanks for making me feel comfortably in my echo chamber 
This is a sad and unbelievable truth. But if you look at it with the eyes of a european, the special case is America itself, where ANYBODY could be shot on sight by the police. Much more non-white people, I agree, but anybody.
Let me tell you this: in Italy Police wears their weapons unloaded. And I’m talking about the National Corps, since Local Police wears guns only in big urban areas. Yes, that’s it. In some places local police stil today does not carry firearms. If you are pulled over, you are allowed to come out of your car if you are not explicitly told to remain inside. I know many americans who where very surprised by how things are different, “here”. But I’d say “outside the US”.
We non-US residents have a very effective window on your society, which is TV and movies. But also the rest of the world has a huge cultural production in entertainment, I don’t know why american people seem to prefer to watch only american stuff, at the point Hollywood has made a lot of american re-makes of non-US success movies.
Some OT chit-chat:
Actually that dialogue between Hopper and Walken, racism aside, has some roots in truth. The italian peninsula has been a crossroads for centuries. In the blood of “native” italian people I bet you can find many traces of different populations: Greeks, Africans, Arabs. Or more recently Spanish (who in turn, had many racial influences). Even the Normans conquered Sicily, at a certain point. Maybe that’s why it isn’t strange to find sicilian people with blond hair and blue eyes, for instance. As Guga said, “italian” is not a race.
My skin is pale, I almost never get tanned, just burnt. But my eyes and hair (and body hair) is very dark and thick. My daughter is blonde with blue eyes, and way paler than me, just as like my brother or my grandfather.
2 Likes
Maybe Guybrush’s clumsiness led some of us to assume that he would have remained a nice character that wouldn’t fully become a Low Moral Fiber person, but I think that taking that direction is a bit unavoidable if your only goal is to be a pirate… which he remembered us all even in the recent RtMI trailer:
Pirating is in my blood. Like adrenaline or stale grog.
I would love to watch that series 
but there is no HBO in Europe (yet) and I don’t feel like using VPNs to access the US service.
The thought that the conventional rules might have been built by those who were privileged to counter-act a sens of guilt is interesting and I think that there might be a connection between how some rules have evolved and guilt.
Nonetheless, I’m afraid that this is not fully compatible with what you said earlier about why the “n-word” has become unacceptable in many contexts (but not all contexts) regardless of the intent.
You said that black people assigned a negative value to that word because it was used in a denigratory way by people in a different group and historians and scholar largely agree on how a resistance to that word started.
So in that period in time (what was it? Late 19th - early 20th century?) there was a group of people starting to tell that the word was offensive to other people who didn’t necessarily agreed it was offensive…
…which leads to my thoughts about the doubt that you advanced in the other thread: “Is it offensive, or we are told it must be considered so?”.
Well, observing how things have evolved in similar contexts… not only this distinction might not really exist but there might even be a causality between the two phenomena: X may become offensive over time exactly because a group of more and more visible people starts to tell others that it should be considered offensive!
Sometimes this defining mechanism has been applied to decades-long racial issues, sometimes it is applied to more recent gender-sensitive topics like how crossdressing (Guybrush) is perceived.
And that’s all my point, which isn’t influenced by how much some rules might have been taken to an extreme. Extremes can be very misleading topics: unexpectedly long acronyms will probably derail my thoughts towards peculiar exceptions that will not teach me much about what happens on a large scale. 
I disagree with the idea that any specific person, maybe even one who might have extreme opinions, would be a good representative of the general vision of… anything of a multicultural society.
This doesn’t mean that I think that that thesis is incorrect, it only means that I don’t think that the anecdote can support any thesis.
I’m not very familiar with large online social environments anymore. I’m afraid that all the behaviors that you describe might be widespread but I still hope that more and more people will learn how to assess if those who express themselves through radical opinions are engulfed in their emotional bubble to the point of misrepresenting something to others.
I partly agree, but also feel we need a stop to that process, because we’re on a slope here.
When I was in elementary school, the term for a disabled person was “andicappato”, handicapped. But, well, it was being used as an insult. Kids were saying “are you andicappato?” when someone was doing something wrong. Then, well, it was considered offensive to use that term to refer to a person with an actual disability, so they said, the PC term should now be “disabile”, disabled.
And guess what happened while I was in middle or high school… kids were starting to insult each other using that word. Because it’s not the word, but the intent. But still, after a while, it changed again to “diversamente abile” because now “disabile” carried a stigma.
And it will go on and on and on. We’ve seen the same process for a lot of terms that were once medical terms and are now considered banned words (e.g. the R word in the US). PC is trying too hard to focus on words without focusing on intent. As long as kids will think that having a physical or mental disadvantage is laughing matter, they’ll always use whatever the correct term is to insult their peers.
You’re not on Facebook, are you? I have tons of examples of people behaving like that.
2 Likes
It is still changing. In italian: handicappato (until mid-80es), then portatore di handicap (“handicap carrier” until mid-90es), then disabile, (until mid 2000es). Now the most used term is “diversamente abile”, because disabile (disabled) implies a negative quality of the person. But “diversamente abile” (differently able) is a very clumsy word, so its counterback is that people started mocking that choice: many people says “diversamente giovane” (differently young) or “diversamente magro” (differently thin) to depict sarcastically elderly or overweight people.
So now the trend is to shift towards “persone con disabilità”, because it underlines we are referring to a PERSON first, then that this person happens to have a disability, and not that this person is intrinsically disabled.
Anyway, from a certain point of view it is correct that people develops awareness and sensitivity, but obviously we are down a slope as you said. We risk to change PC terms every season, and old fashioned people who pick the wrong term might be stigmatized in a way which becomes more and more futile and frivolous, just as somebody might be stigmatized because they wear the colour that was in fashion in the past season.
By the way, what’s that “R-word” you are referring to?
I dream people would respect other people in intentions, and not with fashion.
This “fashion” phenomenon applies to race, too. Until mid 80es in Italy the word “negro” in italian was tolerated. Let me explain:
Negro derives both from latin (for black) and from the medical-antropological term “negroid”, which literally means “kinda black”. So, albeit not very precise, because darker skin is NOT black, “negroid” is quite a better term, rationally speaking, than “black”.
So in italian we had this term (negro) which was different from the term used for black (which is nero), which was good, since “black” (the color) and “black” (the antropological group) are two different concepts.
Slowly the term “negro” became less and less accepted as it was more and more used to translate the “N-word”. I might look as obsessed with the american influence, but I bet that the growing circulation of dubbed US movies (were the N-word -and thus “negro”- was widely used as an insult) might have played a major role.
Now we are in a transition phase, were I observe more and more people are embarassed in saying “nero” referring to a person. Many say “di colore” (coloured), but many (me included) don’t like it. Some people literally avoid the problem and simply use the nudging “stranger”, but it doesn’t fit, especially now because we have some second generations… Italian people by birth and culture who are black (or non-white in general). By the way, I LOVE when I meet people of other ethnicities speaking in perfect italian, especially if they speak with a regional accent. They are typically people in their 20s, second generation of immigrants, and I’m proud of immediately identify them as italians.
So I’m asking myself why we can’t be mature enough to have a neutral word to indentify ethnicities without being abusive.
It is reknown that scientists in the last years deny the biological existence of the traditional human races (negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid) . Quite understandably in fact the racial theories were rejected progressively after WWII.
So, let me say something controversial. I have always had the impression that this statement of scientist had somehow a certain bias because of the social implications.
In fact I must admit that the recent discoveries in genetic matter don’t suprise me, but I am quite concerned about the social counterbacks they might have.
Pardon my generalisation, but to put it simple there are some recent studies that underline different proportions of neanderthal and erectus DNA in different populations in the world, which is consistent with the traditional obsolete distinction (whereas Caucasian seem to carry more Neanderthal genes, Mongoloid less neanderthal and more erectus, while Negroid carry lesser of the both).
To sum up, I’d love if the new discoveries might be faced with intelligence and respect, and maybe we could find some neutral and accepted words to define and call each other. On the other hand I simply suspect that nothing will change in matter of fashion (the PC term of the season), and, plus, the new discoveries might be instrumental in supporting some stupid racist theory.
2 Likes
Sorry for the source, but: Sci-Fi Fantasy writers convention boots author for 'racial slur'; target says he was not offended
I once had a discussion with a person who was arguing that the Italian N-word “wasn’t even an Italian word to begin with, it came into Italian as a translation for the American N-word”. Of course this person wasn’t Italian.
I just can’t wait until people just stop assuming your status by your looks. The best part of growing a kid in Switzerland is seeing them have friends of all shapes and colors. Each with their own family history, which I find fascinating, but also each firmly Swiss in their identity.
1 Like
Retarded.
Oh, right.
It was used as a gag in a very famous bad movie of the 90es, if I remember correctly.
Don’t be so harsh, Ema may not be the brightest man in the world but he doesn’t deserve such comments.
5 Likes
It’s not clear to me if you are referring only to the linguistic aspect or also to the more general concept of acceptance of different behaviors (like the crossdressed Guybrush from which my opinions stem).
Regardless, I would argue that both the definition of a social rule through practice and the definition of a social rule through formal opposition are both examples of freedom of speech that should be defended.
I think that people should be free to use a neutral term in a derogatory sense to the point that the negative connotation is slowly attributed to the word itself more often that not. For the same reason, I think that people should also be free to point out the fact that a term has become mainly associated to bad intents and to advocate for its ban in some contexts.
Of course, the latter can be considered a formal attempt at telling people how they should or shouldn’t behave in public, but there’s a catch: both methods are very common among the mechanisms though which languages and social norms evolve. Discussing them from an ethical perspective and considering them unfortunate behaviors doesn’t deprive neither of their validity as tools to shape language or norms.
To be clear: I’m not saying that regulating language is “good” or “bad”, I’m saying that it’s OK for the attempts to exist, leaving to each social group the freedom of accepting or rejecting the proposed norm.
The very fact that usage led to the association of bad intent to a word is a proof that some people were free to express themselves and create that association. And the fact that the ban of a word has become socially acceptable in many contexts is, again, proof that some people were free to propose that social rule and decide what to do with it.
I really wouldn’t feel comfortable trying to stop only one of those freedoms, and if the one to stop matches with what I personally dislike, that would raise suspects on my fairness.
That’s true, but it is also a natural phenomenon that exists to get an advantage (for example, avoiding ambiguities).
If there were no advantages associated to this neverending transformation of language, this phenomenon wouldn’t arise.
No, I’m not there but I was. I’m aware how my decision of not being daily exposed to those large behaviors makes me too comfy in my smaller social bubble.
My concern is that the phenomenon is self-feeding, becomes faster and faster, and I think that the immediate advantage you cite becomes at every turn more ephemeral (hence the need of finding more and more new PC terms with increasingly radip turnover), and might not be such an advantage long term.
1 Like
Ok, I totally agree on that. When I say “this needs to stop” I’m not saying that I advocate for the suppression of the movements against words in themselves. I’m just saying that I find it counterproductive, and I’ll always disagree with those who won’t consider context and intention.
Also because those people will become older, have less chances to be up to date with vocabulary, and sooner or later will slip and use an outdated term that was the correct one in their times. And then suddenly they’ll wish the same treatment upon themselves, that they were denying when they were “on the right side of history”.
You always anticipate me, my friend. Well said.
Race from a scientific standpoint doesn’t even exist so I never got race arguments. Just seems like a dumb thing to argue over
1 Like
That’s not entirely true, at least in the sense that it does describe something that exists. If you put a scientific racist map from around 1900 like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg next to a modern genetic map it’s extremely similar. Only the word race is hugely misleading because we don’t have subspecies (give or take bonobos and chimpanzees).
If you look at the source of the map in Meijers here it says it’s still an open question whether there are varieties (definitely not races) or just a single species. It then goes off into an extremely long and boring discussion about traits to consider, saying hair is basically the most important trait but that you can pay some vague attention to e.g. skin/eye color and bone configuration on the side. Judging by the correspondence to the modern genetic map it seems they were right about the hair.
Along the way the article says we can blame François Bernier for first applying the word race to humans.
It ends by saying some stuff about how races like Neanderthals have gone extinct, and that there you can truly use the word race.
Sorry for hijacking that to say that people weren’t total idiots back in 1900. 
1 Like
I agree, it is probably self-feeding. I have no idea how much it is destined at becoming faster and faster, but generally speaking a richer vocabulary is more useful than a smaller one.
Also, I’m not a fan of the strong take of “linguistic relativity”, but there is some evidence that a richer language also helps developing cognitive skills.
I would be worried more by the opposite phenomenon: some Orwellian turn where dictionaries become shorter and shorter not as an effect of natural social pressure but by edict of an authority…
…but there is no evidence that this is happening. A few terms that have become socially unacceptable (and not even in all contexts) are definitely a rare exception.
I’m not able to understand if the positive aspects of a faster evolving language will outweigh the negative ones, but one of the reasons why I’m not worried is that I perceive language as a self-regulating system. Its role is to provide a useful structure to communicate, not to please or displease people.
I don’t think that the attempts at censuring words (nor a faster enrichment of our dictionaries) are forces external and incompatible to how that system works. I consider them a natural part of that system.
Sounds like you’re getting old.
But authority is doubleplusgood.
1 Like
Not that I disagree, but… what is race?
I mean, as a complete ignorant I hear race, I think dogs. So, to me, a race becomes a set of common characteristics in looks. I can see a dog and say “yeah this one looks like a Chihuahua and this one looks like a Labrador”. So, why can’t this theoretically be applied to humans too?
We still have the idea of what an average Peruvian or an average Swedish man may look like, even though it’s not given anymore. We know that people from Scandinavia are generally tall, people from Central Africa have black skin, East Asians have slanted eyes and black straight hair, stuff like that.
However, dog races are clearly separated because the world gave importance to how pure a dog race is. Imagine a world where people don’t give a *beep* about dog races, pedigrees and such, then dogs breed with other dogs, races mix, you get lots of mutts and you could still have dogs who are clearly of a race, but most of the dogs won’t be able to be easily categorized.
And compare it with a world where human migration is more and more present… you get today’s world. So, I can understand if human races were a thing in a much less globalized past.
I understand your wishful thinking and I agree that it would be a positive thing if some people wouldn’t be so hateful, but I’m not sure that a more “static” language, where words don’t change their meaning over time or when they don’t become obsolete or avoided, would be a positive thing for language.
I’m afraid that even unpleasant phenomenons, like neutral terms being charged with hate, contribute to make a language more dynamic and lively.
True, it can happen, but acknowledging that my personal dictionary has become less accurate to understand the world or to communicate clearly with others, could also work for me as a stimulus to improve it.
I don’t think that “cultures change and people don’t catch up with them fully” is either avoidable or a bad effect by itself. Actually, I think it’s one of the ways cultures evolve: through obsolescence of some aspects of them.
But that happens because nothing (like “race”) intrinsically exists nor ever existed if not in the magical world of language, where concepts take shape only if they are defined in some way.
Concepts and definitions are expected to change over time depending on both new evidence and on the effects of social phenomena that shape our understanding of the world. Is this social influence a form of bias? Should it be considered an influence extraneous to science? I’m not sure about it.
Dolphins are defined “non-human persons” in some jurisdictions not only because there is growing evidence that they show self-awareness and other traits common in more “sophisticated” species but also because new social sensibilities have evolved and luckily our language has the power of defining and redefining every term, including “person”, as we see fit.