GreekIslandGirl wrote:Your analogy doesn't work because, you state:
for example cooking was done in the home and traditional methods were still routinely used ( = N word routinely used) less than 20 years ago in Cyprus and now it is all fast food and takeaways ( = taboo).
Are you suggesting that no home cooking occurs because there has been a total (all) substitution with fast foods? That might be the case for food/cooking; but regardless of whether a word is taboo or not it does not mean it has stopped being used and
perhaps you now have accepted this situation.
Well here we have one of your classic 'techniques' - and thanks for allowing me to highlight it. It is the well known 'straw man' argument. No one was talking about usage of the word nigger stopping completely. Not you (until you used it as a straw many argument to make out that was what I was talking about) and certainly not me. It is a classic example of the 'straw man' technique. Now that is out of the way lets move on.
The idea that there is no relationship at all between a word becoming 'taboo' and its decline in everyday usage over time, in speech or in print or in general, is absurd to a monumental degree. YOU are the one arguing such complete separation and it is plainly nonsense. The 'cooking in the home using traditional methods' and 'fast food and takeaways' is an exact analogy. You could argue that an increase in 'fast food and takeaways now' is entirely separate from and unrelated to any decrease in 'cooking in the home using traditional methods' over time, and this is in fact exactly what you are now doing. Not only are you arguing that, you are arguing it having previously said (in analogy terms) "for example cooking was done in the home and traditional methods were still routinely used less than 20 years ago in Cyprus and now it is all fast food and takeaways."
GreekIslandGirl wrote: .... because, it appears you cannot accept that usage (routinely/frequency) can occur during, before and after a taboo is acknowledged.
Yet you argue the analogy I give is flawed because it appears YOU can not accept that decline in the frequency of 'cooking in the home using traditional methods' can occur during, before and after 'fast food and takeaways'. It is not that I 'can not accept' that one thing can occur during, before and after the other, it is that claiming that this was your intended meaning when you originally wrote what you did makes no fucking sense what so ever, not in the quote itself and not in the context of the discussion in which you said it. Not in you actual quote or in the analogy either.
GreekIslandGirl wrote:As for continuing to deny what you said:
And again thank you for giving me the opportunity to highlight yet another vintage routinely used GiG technique. That of partial out of context quoting to suit propaganda needs.
This whole things about dogs called nigger STARTED with you partially quoting entirely out of context from the Wikipedia article, in order to try and support the view that when usage of the word nigger in the UK changed was close to the '1994 onwards' in your original post. The partial out of context quote you used was
In 1999, the British television network ITV broadcast a censored version with each of the twelve utterances of Nigger deleted.
The actual full quote in all its context is
Nigger was the name given to a black Labrador dog that belonged to British Royal Air Force Wing Commander Guy Gibson during World War 2.[38] In 1943, Gibson led the successful Operation Chastise attack on dams in Germany. The dog's name was used as a single codeword whose transmission conveyed that the Möhne dam had been breached. In the 1955 film The Dam Busters about the raid, the dog was portrayed in several scenes; his name and the codeword were mentioned several times. Some of the scenes in which the dog's name is uttered were later shown in the 1982 film Pink Floyd The Wall.[39]
In 1999, the British television network ITV broadcast a censored version with each of the twelve[40] utterances of Nigger deleted. Replying to complaints against its censorship, ITV blamed the regional broadcaster, London Weekend Television, which, in turn, blamed a junior employee as the unauthorised censor. In June 2001, when ITV re-broadcast the censored version of The Dam Busters, the Index on Censorship criticised it as "unnecessary and ridiculous" censorship breaking the continuity of the film and the story.[41] In January 2012 the film was shown uncensored on ITV4, but with a warning at the start that the film contained racial terms from the historical period which some people could find offensive. Versions of the film edited for US television have the dog's name altered to "Trigger".[40]
You decided to take a single section totally out it's actual context, as far as I can see, explicitly to try and create the impression that is was as 'late' as 1999 that the word was considered so offensive that it needed to be censored. However the actual section in all it's context is actually about how such censorship was considered by TV executives to have been 'unauthorised' and done mistakenly by a junior employee.
The only reason then that I even mentioned the 'dog' or needed to was BECAUSE of your blatant distortion of what the Wikipedia article actually says, by out of context partial quoting, in order to serve your 'need' to make out that it was as 'late' as 1999 that such censorship of the word started.
That is then the CONTEXT of WHY I mention the dog at all, in order to counter your use of partial out of context quoting from the Wikipedia article in order to serve your propaganda need.
Now you use the SAME technique again in this thread (and many others before it), partially quoting what I said totally out of the context of why I said it specifically to try and create an impression I said something that I simply did not in reality. Lets look at one example in more detail. Your partial out of context quoting of me in this thread was
the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog
The full text of what I wrote in the context of YOUR omission was
Your implication being that it was as late as 1999 that the word nigger was edited out of old movies. Yet the context of this entry in Wikipedia is that in this film made IN the 1940s the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog and as a mission code word. The entry is all about how an over zealous employee without the authority to do so edited out the word and how ITV subsequently had to admit that it was done in error and should not have been done and would not be done in the future. So far from this being an example of when the word was generally starting to become unacceptable in the UK it is actually and example of how the word had become so unacceptable that an ITV employees edited it out of a 1940s movie when he should not have even done so because it is not used to refer to a person at all.
To make out the above full quote in its full context of why it was necessary to mention the dog, because your prior selective quoting had totally omitted this FACT, is the same as me, and I quote here from your first of many repeated attempts, "condoning of the use of "Nigger" as a suitable name for a dog." once more so clearly shows the kind of behaviour you routinely use and have done over ten years, of distortion of objective truth to suit your propaganda objectives, that I dislike so much.
Even partially quoted and out of all of the context of why it was necessary to mention the dog at all, it is a massive leap from what I actually said to me "condoning of the use of "Nigger" as a suitable name for a dog." (first attempt) or me "try[ing] to tell us it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger" " (second attempt) or me saying "[calling a dog nigger], that must be OK " (third attempt) or me "dismiss[ing] its [name nigger] use simply because it referred to a dog." (forth attempt) or me "condoning of the use of "Nigger" as a suitable name for a dog" (fifth attempt and repeat of the words used in the first) or me "suggest[ing] that it's acceptable [to use name nigger] for one [dog] if not the other [person] (6th and slightly softened attempt). In its full quoted an in it's context of why I said what I did, it is clear and blatant distortion of actual reality. What is more after each and every attempt made by you to make out I was saying something I never actual said by the use of partial out of context quoting (the context being your previous partial and out of context quoting from the Wikipedia article) I specifically and explicitly refuted your attempt and yet you just continue on and on blatantly trying to distort the truth of what I actual said and why to server your propaganda objectives.
